etetrt b0. (ae) oo be 7 Pit ate Wi Tatady WeGe laa aiarh te on el thy Sa EE Rah een Ply ' OWL HC NSU Hae TES Ae iol RYE Vas Phir itd 1 } ea RAY AL Aig rea) ua be 4 yin HA i Nxt ht Nae A 44 4, nde: % i aia * : unt yee % } HY ile GU ase Mets aul Soe Aen Sd cia Meta RM a a eH es fod lated sede ye ee anh ate a AL a4 ‘ye 4 W4rh 48 ee Vq ihr ‘yy wae i) ve rats niinte in yn! ih ie BY eB gH vi ay. sala te te bed, tet, Se cbewee Ay | 145 DAW) Lai 7 } es AS Dee UH Ne ita tiay! i wt als aS Cok trad sn H it 5! ati } ’ ‘ ry A ’ ai race sin). "y it ia tetiaat SMH Ha 4 wid ihe te wie ANDY ; 4 with Wanled by v t : ‘eraee4 Agas i) 7 ets Ti » ME at latin Wuededdcicn Reval i) CN si iaica! u Mites ‘). Mei ap WOMAN tie wi) ; i Ma bar} aie ooo: Hide Shea Hap LT & Haig A. sa ts a} \) Ny 3! Mea hs als Ur ), Me 1 AY Aly tet aR tat ‘a fa ati ify} ! f, Vie Dai ata 7 “ 4 : ay ih MR Kron Mek CEH i SSA tl " Van ah Vee Pa 4 Mt ti “te \ } . iy! ALO Sa EEL ta ea BYES PPE ‘gs! wath Hae yy 4 eye A <i sta 4 Paling a it ehh i) tw ‘ ; 7) WV letiae ri y end ‘ ! i "5 KY: ") i) [tay yale iy Gee teeta ah Hed & ee) aed! op FI py ye yOhigh Fesaralarh dat Ay i) 4 4 if t H leg aH) ve IL TEE UL ee tga t Vie een ee Tr taka Ce erin ef ir / M wes Ht A td al iag hy Aceiadale Ne PU UM Ela alelal if te de ache bet teat itstaty HoMdat df heat MF ss “ ; eet Ae) Vake dees fled sees on iat * 1a) Nit eS the oat Po ie ‘ia mat PL SRE DT fer ae ee ‘1 y had 4 ‘ et 19,9 wh \ ats yids i" 4 Va oa’ a Nectar? § 4 Mey aevnat nl yh un iM to uy we ely " #2", i, Hi late eae ornstid i, j Lt : vs | : ale 7 8 ‘ re eM Ea edcatagd ie Hien ® ey Hh yt sie ee aie MI er EY MAN tedata hy tk sau! a uM sah} a) pith sek eae 4 ai rhg ora ie | ona) ” We a oe sit) J j i , 1} ba wt ( i " fell 4 oe ‘ ,? f i ut "4 as 4M badaey 1 i aderdad ‘' Y q hah i i 18 ett a walt} "i ) ile wi the Seay bl 0 rT 1 a) oot! } fie ia gi ee ety i AL MOON RR byl da ie ay We St sit } " J Faye ‘ Bee I, ‘ a, it i" : ! i Fire aete t | “ vay i re qetrgs bs HY eae! ‘ je rey wth dat We Vad Dodd ny hes y , } es ye ‘ He my \ aii i ils ry ; tr ‘ ) ihe badly if} ea Vayseaney i at q ‘get ’ ’ Ay *y Neee 3 ts 3 , BN im) « ‘ : why te ee . Wit iamrgeg beri ath ny ! Lad i 1 yds ’ es teae) ) QQ iy ‘ A) i $1 Lai! ne oN ; Aly th ne ani 1h " RO ae ee) ST adic adge alata LU at oa BNA aa bea at heen i neh A tM, sees yn abe DEe Pee De OECD thd pc ) 4} in hs taregs SDs e@iyeir 4 Fy P ‘ Sih ae vlog tty) saee ean) ye le Ta Hat) hae tht aM Nace di ai mM vai Hf PIMA es OAL ut sh ateti? iff oh Se i ° HP ae a hs h dead yh Hs "e Mi be te NRE STE ‘ ue t “sy if sa He ait t eal von \ } \ re f } Wile’, ‘ , : J Be FS igs aadalaet Dy aah steng ea ace tA ) seta ih bx Mth is ‘ttm Hea An (a0 f \") eran e a\0y HT ‘ hit bahia I Lapa) { i. ‘ MY re ¢ - ' idotuas Valli ee Mas War) HS an ' Myahtaen ii any it Rye Velen Pe a Meee a Taira i sg eae Ne vA Asie ah nt RA pelt ihe Mbit 4 tit ny Vi 4 [ bing A ‘ 1 La? ve 8 a 4 bane Vlas eas ' "chia! \ i 4} Veit Aton some hatte iy is § f Y { io URL RUN MA UPTO a AMA SHITE bogus HN DaRan ER HA SE Re EARS HAL Motes CUT ATH ,) ae. abi’) 4 Tet 4d) Madey hal gta laid tye, 8 1344 ‘het Ke yt dl? (has: sare ‘ 43) ‘ ’ ee Lek Ls 4 % bind ve yt 7 HA ad 4 hate Nei tntant | ft i ae slat ete iy i iy / + t aha th Poche DAME LAUR PALATE Wed te ait 14) 4)))) }4) sap! rb LANL ao secatieimary m4 J th A, Meo We (ited piuneetetay sy ree hla with PHL ee S| Nos \¥ay #4) y <i - oy’ a Niger Veh Niatty LP MLEMEL SOLS bh, han PL eb ka st) RATT Marte ea at 4 ne Bite Hh i} hd ha wrt Ate fast sie! ' Mah at Da lge EDOM DL VIe PY ee Rea 81 he River alas Toh ‘aft i: iva 4; is Hans ‘et Nets fi rH it 1 WES fF i] i) 2, gaye) ‘i fraPeteule ; q ‘~* » Wt) DOV DR i esata pena 3 HOH Wh NV) TMK | Mais \ hae at 4} tet : ‘i hh . f » iia { , ' ‘ep sh i i + iy bee ‘ 4 oe ‘ ' j AH HY Oy ee , i 4 * 7 aged’: ¢ ‘ ) 4 i ( } it) A) ; faa [ ee ON ; ve ., " Xt ie 4 ‘ i V i : dealt A va el’ WIA tet ie i Phe Fal 1 Ti ey ‘ ue Wie AE att i! DPE HA Mae Arian alee ta tents by % M ? Mi eT ae pithy ] ; es a ts j x i wath | 4) Hah Mt) ee Ht a bana 4 { . rot te Pa BT wate, : peg Ht) gai" ay pe Fel 4 EL PSH | 4 ri ty ‘ yey the 5 74! | M Goel. + ' i vm APE eat ’ , F By) ‘ 7. a "I oy, ‘ BY Ba bide Ph oPe A baa 6 1) Ba 14 4 iH vent ih ya Later | "i aay sf ! ’ ae : " *: ‘ , i nit iY) 4} ih) shat i it ete ee 4) azal Ay ne ” i , ' 3 vit), heat ny Mala a ih ; ) iy 7 4 ' A 4 ane Pa Hi ihe Hi}, if} Nh : i) Dae. 4 haa 7 dit } Lah fh ) ; Me ' ut 1s i inant ii hat My UCM Daag Teed reabe ett ° eae haa! ity: y aU | ii ry ae sess At Medd dott? a) | f a 54 | } ie hey tal ; 4 j shy) ite di ‘ it t iit j i ‘ send oy 7) , 4 4 a a ; eet ; ‘ 1 Ved qe ded ‘es 1. : y et. ; v { Hy ; it f y : ' 4 Het Nt 3 ; lea < RE e’ 4 ‘ \ ce “it ‘ A ; ; f ‘mah! a : Pt ea ~) i Se Hy) eh oy u D aA Up it: “ ‘ t#e i] HW nent ys : Pee ey ‘ waa ct it te A AST: ‘1 i ) ; ee ene tts cel oP pepe eae cD f |) pee aU i femaetiat vie 4 fade , ut Hee | \ re Hs tilt Pr HDec RT ea Re ah Ba atine ote dBanit ce 634) Signin i ! fs de 3 Hes i itt x ; at reat ey if WW oe { ‘ Ot) hs ‘ ; , } A » “Tt ‘ 4 Pet he ia ee ied 6 Sedan { Peel. Ly pheaes« Nhe Ch f y ' . .
ed ay ae ey ; ney ehh % } nt wie ih hy Wh 7) * a Hoh
ARV at hy Ha f ity ee a a : iit
{ aa : r oy tae}
; ‘ iy oi” J iuatis
Ay es ite hn (3 (5 Ni Hest ty Ht {hai st lt 33 at Pepe i ‘
¢ Haver sity ines , H } ith eB au Wee es phat Kah his dis itie Litt vA ts a1) Na Ai ty putes, Aa tt ;
i bd mith, i es only fi fit i bite
$52 =:
=
’ Hero a ge hiy ; “TI MWIIED 4 WUE AADERMVDES! AL HITE) E pay! i ; wae ft bt RAR TLNA D Yai wy
whi Wy ay sabia 3
ws iy Hs hy ene ii To iy,
= =:
a2
| T Ht. “yt, Vian ATU anh ;) i}! oy ay ‘hs ee ee i itd tits he , pots Mie My + ya WF Hew isin ay aT lid Loy mi } Wait) hee Gi a th ie uy i He y a it Kf habit f i i. Vai ‘al i al Ws i a X ‘ hay AEE NT (H a | ad tito Steet ni aes i i Lp eitesutr i) Sa bea L eet Py tb a ee rr is Teele hak el he et : 4 iS iit yt ae Sains cet try nit whi eure a gin by ‘i if 1h ti5 We baie Hurt ea Yt agit ‘
j I its AY} Sibi aby! Wiiky fs wl i ‘ Hf tes vg pei Mh Wine Gs ‘ My a ie in ti : IML RHTUT ANTENA stint Shi Vat ee ay) ' REE ye ita yet wa Hise it ne iy) ‘ e } q rf * |
i Ha aa Ret hes tnt ats WAsddedsitd )aeNNte dns htied 4 ero wags oti aad Hy ‘! May bY
ESOS Th PL ernest. fy } ey | 1“ aed ) ’
‘ doe het i] a rah
i ' | ve a .
: 4 iy Pal ck an Ay atic t Pee ee tig ni iWietileg, sit aa ANGE % oA yg ed iy AP day Sint hed Weenis al hyo CN egy
ah} theo weniy\ dy esd al ics
na tom ty an ,
ei D Wp a BM eae g | it iy paren! ei il in lita i aly whi Sort | mis ys vj SOOM OON ii) TM ‘way Vata ert TEU IRCA Ct
yy PEA Rise i inti Hs HEY Vita! I Hh ies
rae See S53:
=. b sees —— Te
abet
pa bas oats : ee
it
ey —s
ye sili Divi Ha T HAY ees Rata Hie ie : i a ae He a fa
ae
>
BR tates as
ie lili ee Ni
‘ a ris Pane eat
irs rs i ie | ee : nt at ’ iy faa i oo
OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
VOLUME 14
Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B.E.
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
LONDON :
Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1956—1957
(Ail rights reserved)
—_
Bits } i | ’ j
La
,
M ANTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE OPINIONS, DECLARATIONS AND DIRECTIONS PUBLISHED IN THE PRESENT VOLUME
Vr Ve
A. The Officers of the Commission
Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JORDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England)
President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary: Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948)
B. The Members of the Commission
(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)
Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (ist January 1947)
Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948)
Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)
Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948)
Professor Teiso EsAKI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)
Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)
Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950)
Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (/nstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950)
Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (5th July 1950)
Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitét zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950)
Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President)
Professor J. R. DyMonpD (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953)
Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President)
Professor Harold E. Vokes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
Professor Béla HANKO (Mezégazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)
Dr. Norman R. Stout (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)
Dr. L. B. Hottuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953)
Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954)
Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954)
Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954)
Professor Dr. Wilhelm KiHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitaét, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954)
ee F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November
) Professor Ernst MAyr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘ G. Doria’’, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954)
IV INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE (continued)
C. The Staff of the Secretariat of the Commission
Honorary Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E.
Honorary Personal Assistant to the Secretary : Mrs. MEET. We Hemming
Honorary Archivist : Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A.
Consulting Classical Adviser: Professor The Rev. L. W. Grensted, M.A., D.D.
“ Official Lists” Section: Miss D. N. Noakes, B.Sc. ““ Régles”’ Section: Mrs. A. F. Wilson, M.A.
( Mrs. J. H. Newman Miss C. W. Kirton Mrs. I. Saltman Secretariat: ) Mrs. B. Lester Mrs. C. Slater ee D. Fidler
Indexer : Miss Mary Cosh, M.A.
INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Chairman: The Right Hon. Walter Elliot, C.H., M.G.,. BR:S., M.P. |
Managing Director and Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B:E:
Publications Officer: Mrs. C. Rosner Trust Duties Officer: Mrs. J. H. Newman
ADDRESSES OF THE COMMISSION AND THE TRUST
Secretariat of the Commission: 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1.
Offices of the Trust : 41 Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.
FOREWORD
The present volume—the fourteenth of the present Series— contains the fifth instalment of Opinions, Declarations and Directions adopted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature since the close of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology at Copenhagen in 1953. In addition, during the same period a substantial start was made by the International Commission in the review of Rulings given in Opinions rendered prior to July 1948 which it undertook in accordance with a General Directive issued by the Thirteenth International Congress at its meeting held in Paris in July of that year. The decisions so taken have been embodied in volumes numbered as Sections of Volume 1 of the present Series. At the time of the completion of the present volume, Sections C and D had been completed (except for Index Parts) and two Parts of Section E had already appeared. Impressive as is the foregoing achievement, it is seen to be much more striking when account is taken of the fact that during the same period six other volumes (Volumes 4—9) and the greater part of a seventh volume (Volume 3) were published by the International Trust. Of these Volumes, the concluding portion of Volume 3 and the whole of Volumes 4 to 7 were devoted to the publication of Opinions and Declarations embodying decisions taken by the Commission at its Session held in Paris in 1948, while Volumes 8 and 9 contained Opinions and Declarations embodying decisions taken by the Commission in the period between the close of the Paris Congress in 1948 and the opening of the Copenhagen Congress in 1953. For the sake of completeness it should be noted that two Declarations adopted in 1954 were incorporated in Volume 6 in order to avoid the long delay in promulgation which, owing to the then existing backlog of cases, would otherwise have been unavoidable. It should be noted also that nine Directions
VI
embodying the result of the survey of the Rulings given in Opinions published in the period 1939—1947 were published in 1954 and were incorporated in Volumes 2 and 3, the volumes containing the Opinions so reviewed. When account is taken of this large additional volume of publications issued, it is seen that within a period of less than forty months the total number of Opinions, Declarations and Directions published amounted to the impressive total of three hundred and nineteen (Opinions, 241 ; Declarations, 17 ; Directions, 61).
2. The present volume contains nineteen Opinions (Opinions 417—435). In the immediately preceding volume a start was made with the publication of Opinions embodying decisions taken by the International Commission on applications published in Volume 9 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The present volume contains a further instalment consisting of thirteen Opinions based upon applications published in that volume of the Bulletin (the Opinions concerned being Opinions 417, 418, 422, 423, 425, 427—434). In addition the present volume contains one Opinion (Opinion 435) based upon an application published in the next volume of the Bulletin devoted to applica- tions on individual cases, namely, Volume 11, no such applications having been published in Volume 10 of the Bulletin which was wholly devcted to the publication of documents relating to the Agenda for the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature held in Copenhagen in 1953. The remaining five Opinions published in the present volume contain decisions taken by the Commission on applications published in earlier volumes of the Bulletin which it had previously been found necessary to postpone for one reason or another. The Opinions concerned are Opinions 419—421, 424, and 426. Of these Opinions, the first three (Opinions 419—421), which were submitted by the same applicants and form a natural group, are based upon applications published in Volume 6 of the Bulletin. The postponement until the present volume of the Commission’s decisions in these cases arose from the fact that subsequent to the submission of the applications in question the applicants asked that the proposals which they had submitted might be
VII
amplified in certain respects. The fourth of the Opinions belong- ing to the foregoing group (Opinion 424), which is based upon an application originally published in Volume 1 of the Bulletin is concerned with a subject (the question of the species to be accepted as the type species of the genus Formica Linnaeus, 1758) on which the receipt in 1954 of additional information made it necessary for the Commission to undertake an entirely fresh examination of the issues involved. The last of the Opinions falling in this group (Opinion 426) which is based upon an application published in Volume 2 of the Bulletin, is concerned with certain ammonite names. In this case postponement until the present volume of the Opinion embodying the Com- mission’s decision was due to a request on the part of the applicant for a modification of a portion of the proposals submitted, a request which made it necessary for supplementary investigations to be undertaken by the Office of the Commission and for a further vote to be taken by the Commission on the issues so disclosed.
3. The three Declarations included in the present volume are Declarations 27, 28 and 29. The first of these Declarations (Declaration 27) contains an interpretation of Rule (f) in Article 30 of the Régles which applies to the determination of the species to be accepted as the type species of a nominal genus established in substitution for a previously established such genus, a principle similar to that laid down by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, in relation to the interpretation of a nominal species established partly as a substitute for a previously established such species but in part based also upon certain specified specimens. Declaration 29 is also concerned with Article 30 of the Rég/es, though in this case the subject matter dealt with relates not to the interpretation of that Article but to a question of terminology arising in connection with one of the Rules there laid down. The Rule concerned is Rule (d) which prescribes the determination in certain cases of the type species of genera “by absolute tautonymy’”. By a Ruling given by the Commission many years ago in its Opinion 16 (a decision which in a clarified form was written into the Régles by the Paris Congress in 1948) an essentially different method of determining the type species of a nominal genus—namely, the citation in the synonymy of one, but not more than one, of
Vill
the species originally included in a given genus of a pre-1758 univerbal specific name consisting of the same word as the generic name—is to be accepted as coming within the scope of the fore- going Rule. The application of the expression “ type species by absolute tautonymy ”’ to the indication of a type species by the special method described above would clearly be inappropriate and confusing, and it was to overcome this difficulty that in the Declaration here under consideration the Commission introduced and defined the expression “‘ type species by Linnean tautonymy ” this expression being selected because it is largely in the works of Linnaeus that are to be found nominal genera to which this Special Rule is applicable. In Declaration 28 the Commission gave a clarification of the Rules regarding the giving of names to family-group taxa adopted in 1953 by the Copenhagen Congress in relation to the status to be accorded to names belonging to the above category in cases where the nominal family-group unit so established is based upon a misidentified type genus.
4. The single Direction (Direction 62) included in the present volume contains decisions by the Commission on the family- group-name implications of the Rulings given in the nineteen Opinions discussed above.
5. The present volume comprises 572 pages (T.P.—XX, 1— xxxll, 1—520) and one Plate. This volume is of substantially the same size as previous volumes.
6. Of the nineteen Opinions included in the present volume three deal with names belonging to two different Classes of the Animal Kingdom and one deals simultaneously with names of a particular Class and with the status of an individual book, thus bringing the total number of cases up to twenty-three. Several of the applications relating to these cases were submitted by more than one author and when account is taken of this fact, the total number of applicants is seen to amount to thirty-three.
7. Three of the applications dealt with in the present volume were concerned with the status of books and the remaining
IX
twenty with individual names. Of this latter group, nineteen (95 per cent.) involved the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers. The use of those Powers was not involved in the applications relating to the status of individual books.
8. The twenty applications relating to individual names dealt with in the Opinions published in the present volume, when grouped by reference to the Classes of the Animal Kingdom to which the genera or species concerned belong, are distributed as shown in the following table. In the same table the applica- tions are arranged so as to distinguish those which involved the use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers from those which did not.
TABLE: 1
Distribution of applications (a) by Classes of the Animal Kingdom and (b) by whether they involved the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers
Number of applications
Name of Involving the Class use of the Others Plenary Powers
Ciliophora Anthozoa Crustacea Insecta Gastropoda Cephalopoda Brachiopoda Amphibia
= WW nw WW
Totals
N a)
x
9. When the thirty-three applicants are arranged by reference to the countries in which they are resident, applications are seen to have been received from the following countries (arranged in alphabetical order) :—
TABLE 2
Distribution of applicants by country of residence
Country of Residence | Number of applicants
Netherlands Switzerland United Kingdom United States of America
Total
10. By the Rulings given in the Opinions comprised in the present volume, together with the Ruling given in the Direction referred to in paragraph 4 above, a total of 350 names have been added to the Official Lists and corresponding Official Indexes
XI relating to specific names, generic names, family-group names
and the titles of zoological works. The distribution of these entries is seen to be as follows :—
TABLE 3
Additions to the ‘* Official Lists ’’ and ‘* Official Indexes ”’ respectively
Category Official Lists Official Indexes |
Specific Names 35 Generic Names 188 Family-Group Names Bp Titles of Works 3
Totals 248
11. The twenty cases dealing with individual names published in the present volume contain 52 comments from interested specialists. In some instances these comments are joint comments from two or more specialists and in several cases specialists commented on applications which dealt with more than one Class of the Animal Kingdom. When account is taken of these facts, a total number of 89 specialists contributed comments in the present volume. In addition, 31 comments were received on the status of individual books,
XII 12. If the comments relating to individual names are grouped according to the Class in the Animal Kingdom to which the genus
or species concerned belongs, the distribution of the comments is found to be as follows :—
TABLE 4
Distribution of comments on applications relating to individual names, by Classes of the Animal Kingdom
Name of Class Number of Comments
Ciliophora Anthozoa Crustacea Insecta Gastropoda Cephalopoda Brachiopoda Amphibia
]
WOnNWNN Nn
Total
Nn i)
13. When the authors of the comments contained in the Opinion published in the present volume are grouped by reference
XII
to their country of residence, the distribution is found to be as follows :—
TABLE 5
Distribution of comments on applications, by country of residence of the specialists concerned
Country of Residence | Number of Comments British West Indies Czechoslovakia Denmark France Germany Japan New Zealand United Kingdom United States of America 56
NOR RB OS eS Ee
N
Total
14. As in the case of Volume 12 and preceding volume in this Series, the Commission is indebted to Miss Mary Cosh, M.A.,
XIV
for the preparation of the indexes of the present volume. In style and scope these indexes follow exactly the models laid down for earlier volumes.
FRANCIS HEMMING
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, LONDON, N.W.1.
17th May 1957.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declarations
DECLARATION 27 Clarification of the question of the species to be accepted under Rule (f) in Article 30 as the type species of a nominal genus established as a substitute for a previously established such genus but with a designated type species different from that of the nominal genus so replaced ai: on
DECLARATION 28 Clarification of the status of a name given to a family-group taxon based upon a mis-identified type genus see
DECLARATION 29 Introduction and definition of the expression “ Linnean tautonymy ”’ in relation to the determination of the type species of a nominal genus under Rule (d) in Article 30
Opinions
OPINION 417 Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of volume 3 (Zoologie) of the work by Lorenz Oken entitled Okens Lehrbuch der rie aaa Sl sao in 1815—1816 ne
OPINION 418 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Stentor Oken, 1815 (Class Ciliophora)
OPINION 419 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the names published by William Martin in 1809 in the work entitled Petrificata Derbiensia for eight species of the Class Brachiopoda and for two species of the Class Anthozoa and matters incidental thereto
Page
Xl
XXV
43
69
XVI
OPINION 420 Addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the specific names for eleven species of the Class Brachiopoda and for two species of the Class Cephalopoda originally published by Martin (W.) in 1809 in the nomenclatorially invalid work entitled Petrificata Derbiensia and now available as from the first subsequent date on which they were severally published in conditions satisfying the require- ments of the Régles
OPINION 421 Designation under the Plenary Powers ©
of a type species in harmony with accustomed usage for the genus Martinia M©Coy, 1844 (Class Brachio- poda) Ay. a 7 3 ye A =
OPINION 422 Determination under the Plenary Powers of the species to which the specific name mammillatus Schlotheim, 1813, as published in the combination Ammonites mammillatus shall apply and designation under the same Powers of the foregoing species to be the type species of the genus Douvilleiceras de Gross- ouvre, 1893 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea)
OPINION 423 Addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the generic name Xantho [Leach], [1814] (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) and valida- tion under the Plenary Powers of the family-group name XANTHINAE Dana, 1851
OPINION 424 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the specific name rufa Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the combination Formica rufa, and designation under the same Powers of the species so named to be the type species of the genus Formica Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera)
Page
129
169
181
197
On
XVI
Page OPINION 425 Addition to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology of the name Palmatotriton Smith (H.M.), 1945 (Class Amphibia)... 243
OPINION 426 Designation under the Plenary Powers of type species in harmony with accustomed usage for the genera Pictonia Bayle, 1878, and Rasenia Salfeld, 1913 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic) .. te bs A Bi - eer ANT
OPINION 427 Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of the work by Renier (S.A.) known as Tavole per servire alle classificazione e connescenza degli animali and commonly attributed to the year 1807 and addition to the Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology of certain names first used in the foregoing work or in two earlier works by the same author commonly known as the Tavola alfabetica and the Prospetto respectively and both commonly attributed to the year 1804 .. ‘ a: Ry. ne motel Lok
OPINION 428 Suppression under the Plenary Powers of the specific name royerianus dOrbigny, 1841, as published in the combination Ammonites royerianus and designation under the same Powers of a type species in harmony with accustomed practice for the genus Cheloniceras, Hyatt, 1903 nhs PED ERORS Ah Order Ammonoidea) .. aii
OPINION 429 Direction under the Plenary Powers limiting to suppression for the purposes of the Law of Priority the suppression of the generic name Argus Bohadsch, 1761 (Class Gastropoda) prescribed by the Ruling given in Opinion 185 thereby securing that the generic name Argus Scopoli, 1763 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) shall remain invalid under the Law of Homonymy zs w: we Wy Pat 323
XVIII
OPINION 430 Use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of making the specific name minimus Miller (J.S.), 1826, as published in the combination Belemnites minimus, the oldest available name for the species concerned (Class Cephalopoda, Order Dibranchia). .
OPINION 431 Use of the Plenary Powers to secure that the generic name Helicella Férussac, 1821 (Class Gastropoda) shall be available for use in its accustomed sense
OPINION 432 _ Rejection, as an unpublished proof, of the paper by Binney (W.G.) dated “ 9th December 1863 ” and entitled Synopsis of the Species of Air-breathing Mollusks of North America (Confirmation of Ruling given in Opinion 87) and validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Carinifex Binney, 1865 Class Gastropoda)
OPINION 433 Use of the Plenary Powers to secure that the generic name Discias Rathbun, 1902 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) shall be the oldest avail- name for the genus concerned .. us oe re
OPINION 434 Use of the Plenary Powers to secure that the names Upogebia [Leach], [1814], and Processa Leach, [1815], shall be the oldest available names for the genera in question and that the family-group names based upon those generic names shall be the oldest available names for the family-group taxa con- cerned ;
OPINION 435 Suppression under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Achorutes Templeton, 1835, and designation under the same Powers of type species in harmony with current usage for the genera Hypo- gastrura Bourlet, 1839, and Neanura MacGillivray, 1893 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola)
339
347
ais
203
403
425
XIX Directions
Page DIRECTION 62 Addition to the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology or, as the case may be, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology of the family-group names involved in the cases dealt with in Volume 14 of the work Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, other than names already dealt with either in Opinions included
in that volume or in a separate Direction .. 2. 459
Corrigenda Ay om we: a e yt oe) ATS
Index to authors of applications dealt with in the present volume and of comments on those applications ore ade
Subject Index .. a rs oe oP 2 re a
Particulars of dates of publication of the several parts in which the present volume was published ie rhe) OED
Instructions to binders a ot we ms a 520
ay Mg ag nn poi at gu | Ye mpi on we ie al
Wu ie ay A, eae SAS Ene 0 Ms) oi , pve Phin ie" Wate Mi un A by ‘ re Wie Hy ‘I tir Hiri” rab
eae eh, aS Reads A ah e i gun, i t¢ 16 , Ay f ee)" hints i Le Meee Sy ee he a oe Jann Nios fo i | ghana ela oe nn
ne or ADA, me ee ba i ; ‘ : : : be SLA ie oh. Tay eae hy oo sad Saat Pas}: ye voi NOD ae Die 5! b a Lh m { (a i Ae . eS "i (rf r ee : : , 4 if ous ee ie ‘ i ' ‘ f : ; Ai,
(ay : “- ' Ply we ans = 4 ¢ Z i i; woe) ie abet ty is ju aaa: oy ie
Fe 1 ‘ : + A sha a? Pe } ; i Vee an ‘ +0 ue 4 Se tee . P exis ’ 4 hy Le ‘ ti Raed A ~~. ‘ + Val 7 Arist heey eve ev ahi Aa i 49 A As ‘ = I 4 alg Pew ~~) j 7 “) * im) ‘ 4 ' ' . te / ron (4 i» Be + i Pes fF Sn Ne ahi ” ry } i ya Ns be i, "ae ’ r A ane - : i* he i * oT { ' ? W < ft ; " ae ty iro Ml i « 4 i ‘ : a “fu wk? : 7 a i . ‘i i je) Ae’ ae = Lt . Le thy. \ a i, ‘ pei 7. » t : j \ Vi a mee. ont a aii Ww ¥ # i wo aN : i aan ie ag i ; p ‘% it | ra j : 4) * / . y A , t ae oa a sy 7 uy p fi . “ vi t ¥ ‘ , J "4 by 4 : | | FS y ’ { « it?é ’ net % oft ‘ 4 h ig ay ’ f 7 Ri tS ih , . as eee. i,’ i P i: 7 ae re - j (an
OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B.E.
Secretary to the Commission
VOLUME 14. Part 19. Pp. i—x
DECLARATION 27
Clarification of the question of the species to be accepted under Rule (f) in Article 30 as the type species of a nominal genus established as a substitute for a previously estab- lished such genus but with a designated type species different from that of the nominal genus so replaced
LONDON :
Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1956
Price Six Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved)
Issued 5th December, 1956
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DECLARATION 27
A. The Officers of the Commission
Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JORDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England)
President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948)
B. The Members of the Commission
(arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)
Professor H. BosCHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ist January 1947)
Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948)
Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)
Dr. ear a (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th uly
Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)
Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)
Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950)
Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (/nstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950)
Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (Sth July 1950)
Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitdt zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950)
Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President)
Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953)
Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President)
Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) s
Professor Béla HANKO (Mez0Ogazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)
Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)
Dr. L. B. HoLtuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953)
Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (ASth October 1954)
Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954)
Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum V Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954)
Professor Dr. Wilhelm KUHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitdt, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954)
Gatasay S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November
Professor Ernst MAyYR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954)
Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ‘* G. Doria’’, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954)
DECLARATION 27
CLARIFICATION OF THE QUESTION OF THE SPECIES TO BE ACCEPTED UNDER RULE (f) JIN ARTICLE 30 AS THE TYPE SPECIES OF A NOMINAL GENUS ESTABLISHED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A PRE- VIOUSLY ESTABLISHED SUCH GENUS BUT WITH A DESIGNATED TYPE SPECIES DIF- FERENT FROM THAT OF THE NOMINAL GENUS SO REPLACED
DECLARATION :—(1) Where a generic name, when first published, is expressly stated to be a substitute (e.g., by the use of such an expression as “nom. nov.” or ““nom. mut.) for a previously published generic name but where the author of the substitute name designates as the type species of the genus bearing that name a nominal species other than that which is the type species of the genus the name of which is so replaced, the type species of the genus bearing the substitute name is in all circumstances the nominal species which is the type species of the genus the name of which is so replaced.
i Tee StArLEMENE OF THE. CASE
On 22nd October 1954 Mr. Francis Hemming (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) sub- mitted to the International Commission a request for the adoption
ya 8
iv OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
of a Declaration clarifying the question of the species to be accepted as the type species cf a nominal genus established as a substitute for a previously established such genus but with a designated type species different from that of the nominal genus the name of which was so replaced. The immediate cause for the submission of this application was that the foregoing problem was involved in connection with the generic name Neanura MacGillivray, 1893 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), one of a number of names involved in a case centred around the generic name Achorutes Templeton, 1835, which had been submitted to the International Commission by M. Herman Gisin (Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle, Genéve) and on which a decision could not be taken by the Commission until] a Ruling had been given by it on the question of principle dealt with in the present Declaration. M. Gisin’s application in regard to the foregoing generic names (Z.N.(S.) 303) was published on 31st January 1955 (Gisin, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 35—37) in the same Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as that containing Mr. Hemming’s request for the present Declaration. The paper submitted by Mr. Hemming was as follows :— |
Request for a ‘‘ Declaration ’’ as to the type species of a nominal genus established as a substitute for a previously established nominal genus but with a designated type species different from that of the nominal genus so replaced
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
The object of the present application is to invite the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to adopt a Declaration defining the species to be accepted as the type species of a nominal genus established as a substitute for a previously established nominal genus in a case where the author of the substitute name designates
DECLARATION 27 V
as the type species a species other than that which is the type species of the nominal genus so replaced.
2. The following is an imaginary example of the class of case for which a Ruling is now sought :—
(a) In 1820 an author “‘ A ”’ established a nominal genus to which he gave the name X-us. Either author “‘A” himself desig- nated or indicated the nominal species O-us p-us as the type species of the genus X-us or some later author validly selected that species to be the type species of the genus X-us.
(b) In 1870 an author ‘‘B”’ observed that the generic name X-us “A ’’, 1820, was invalid by reason of being a junior homonym of the generic name X-us ““F”’, 1772. Author “ B” accord- ingly replaced the name X-us “‘ A” by the new name Qu-a. When publishing the name Qu-a, author “B”’, by using the expression “‘ nom. nov. pro” or some equivalent expression, made it absolutely clear that he was publishing a substitute name and was not establishing a new nominal genus.
(c) Unfortunately author “B” did not know that the nominal species O-us p-us had already been designated, indicated or selected as the type species of the genus X-us “‘ A’’, 1820, and thought that the type species of that genus was a quite different species, namely O-us y-us. Accordingly, when establishing the substitute genus Qu-a, author ““B”’ added that the type species of the substitute genus Qu-a was the nominal species O-us y-us.
(d) The question on which a Declaration is now sought is whether the type species of Qu-a ‘*‘ B’”’, 1870, is :—
(ii) O-us p-us, the species which is the type species of the genus X-us “‘ A’’, 1820, for which the genus Qu-a ‘“‘B’’, 1870, was established as a substitute ;
or
(ii) O-us y-us, the species designated as the type species of the substitute genus Qu-a by the author “‘ B”’, when pub- lishing that generic name.
3. An exactly similar problem arises where an author publishes a generic name as a substitute for the name of some previously established
Vi OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
nominal genus for which no species had been designated or indicated as the type species by the original author and for which at the date in question no one of the originally included species had been selected by a later author to be the type species, if the author of the substitute generic name designates for the genus so named a nominal species which was not one of those included by the original author in the genus, the name of which is so replaced.
4. The foregoing problems raise an issue of principle on which it is desirable on practical grounds that a decision should be reached as soon as possible. Moreover, the first of these two problems has already arisen in the case of the name Neanura MacGillivray, 1893, in Dr. H. Gisin’s application relating to the name Achorutes Templeton, 1835.(Z.N:8:):303)2
5. Fortunately, there exists in the present case a precedent set by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, for that Congress considered the exactly parallel case which arises where an author publishes a new specific name which he states is a substitute name for some previously published specific name but for which also he gives a description based upon particular specimens, which in fact are referable not to the species which bears the name so replaced but to some other species. On this question the Copenhagen Congress decided to insert the following provision in Article 31 of the Régles: “‘ Where a specific name is expressly stated to be a substitute (e.g., by the use of such an expression as ‘nom. nov.’ or ‘nom. mut.’) for a previously published name but is at the same time applied to particular specimens, the species to which the new name applies is in all circumstances that to which the previously published name is applicable” (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 75—76, Decision 142).
6. Recommendations : In the light of the foregoing decision by the Copenhagen Congress at the species-name level, I recommend that the Commission should now adopt the following Declaration clarifying the meaning of the Rég/es in relation to the corresponding problem at the generic-name level :—
PROPOSED DECLARATION : Where a generic name, when first published, is expressly stated to be a substitute (e.g., by the use of such an expression as “‘nom, nov.”’ or “‘ nom. mut.’’) for a previously published generic name but where the author of the substitute name designates as the type species of the genus bearing that name a nominal species other than that which is the type species of the genus, the name of which
1 The decision which in the light of the present Declaration has been taken by the International Commission in regard to the names Achorutes Templeton and Neanura MacGillivray has been embodied in Opinion 435 which is being published as Part 21 of the present volume (425-458).
DECLARATION 27 Vil
is so replaced, the type species of the genus bearing the substitute name is in all circumstances the nominal species which is the type species of the genus, the name of which is so replaced.
Il. THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE
2. Registration of the present application: Upon receipt of Mr. Hemming’s application the question of the adoption of a Declaration regarding the interpretation of Rule (f) in Article 30 in the terms recommended was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 867. |
3. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer on 22nd November 1954 and was published in Part 2 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature on 31st January of the following year (Hemming, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 35—37).
4. Issue of Public Notices: Public Notice of the possible adoption of a Declaration, as recommended in the application submitted in the present case, was given in like manner as though the foregoing application involved the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers on 3lst January 1955 (a) in Part 2 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which Mr. Hemming’s application was published) and (b) to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition such Notice was given also to certain general zoological serial publications in Europe and America.
Vili OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
5. No objection received: The publication of the present application elicited no objection to the action proposed from any source.
Il. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
6. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(55)15 : On 5th August 1955, a Voting Paper (V.P.(55)15) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “the proposal for the adoption of a Declaration clarifying the interpretation of the Rég/es in relation to the question of the type species of a genus established as a substitute genus as set out in paragraph 6 on page 37 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature” {i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above in the paper reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Declaration].
7. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on Sth November 1955.
8. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(55)15: At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(55)15 was as follows :—
(a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty-four (24) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) :
Bodenheimer; MHolthuis; Riley; Stoll; Hering; Bradley (J.C.) ; Lemche ; Prantl ; Jaczewski; Hanko ; Mayr ; do Amaral ; Esaki; Kuhnelt ; Dymond ; Key ; Mertens; Bonnet; Hemming; Miller; Sylvester- Bradley ; Cabrera; Boschma; Tortonese ;
DECLARATION 27 ix
(b) Negative Votes, one (1) :
Vokes ;
(c) Voting Papers not returned :
None.
9. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 6th November 1955, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(55) 15, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 8 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid.
10. Preparation of the present ‘* Declaration ’’ : On 14th May 1956 Mr. Hemming prepared the present Declaration and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Declaration were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting faper V.P.(55)15.
11. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Declaration is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said Internationa] Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf.
X OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
12. The present Declaration shall be known as Declaration Twenty-seven (27) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.
Done in London, this Fourteenth day of June, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Six.
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
FRANCIS HEMMING
Printed in England by MetcaLtFe & Cooper LimiTEp, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2
OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B.E.
Secretary to the Commission
VOLUME 14. Part 20. Pp. xi—xxiv
DECLARATION 28
Clarification of the status of a name given to a family- group taxon based upon a misidentified type genus
LONDON :
Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1956
Price Nine Shillings (All rights reserved)
Issued 5th December, 1956
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DECLARATION 28
A. The Officers of the Commission
Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JORDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England)
President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948)
B. The Members of the Commission
(arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)
Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ist January 1947)
Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948)
Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)
Dr. ee Se (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July
Professor Teiso EsAkI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)
Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)
Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEY (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950)
Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950)
Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (Sth July 1950)
Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitadt zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950)
Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President)
Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953)
Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President)
Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (A2th August 1953)
Professor Béla HANKO (Mezdégazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)
Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)
Dr. L. B. Hottuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) on August 1953)
ior: H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Cue A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954)
Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954)
Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum V Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954)
Professor Dr. Wilhelm KUHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954)
Professor F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November
4
Protessor Ernst MAYR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954)
Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ‘** G. Doria’’, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954)
DECLARATION 28
CLARIFICATION OF THE STATUS OF A NAME GIVEN TO A FAMILY-GROUP TAXON BASED UPON A MISIDENTIFIED TYPE GENUS
DECLARATION :—(1) Except as is provided in (2) below, an author publishing a new family-group name is to be assumed to have correctly determined the nominal genus selected by him as the type genus of the nominal family-group taxon so established.
(2) Where in the opinion of later authors there 1s evidence in the original publication that the author of a family-group name treated the type genus of the family- group taxon so named as having as its type species some nominal species other than that which either already was or later became the type species, the case is to be referred to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature for decision.
(3) On receipt of an application submitted under (2) above, it shall be the duty of the International Com- mission to give a Ruling on the question (a) whether the author of the family-group name in question correctly determined the genus selected by him to be the type genus of the nominal family-group taxon so established or (b) whether he misdetermined that genus and thus in effect established a family-group taxon based upon a different genus bearing an invalid homonymous name.
(4) Where the said Commission gives a Ruling that a given nominal family-group taxon was based upon a misdetermined type genus, the family-group name in question is to be rejected as possessing no rights under either the Law of Priority or the Law of Homonymy.
yu - g 199!
XIV OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
I. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT “ DECLARATION ~
On 15th December 1954 following extensive correspondence with the Office of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, M. Hermann Gisin (Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle, Genéve) submitted to the International Commission an application for the purpose of putting an end to the long-standing difficulties associated with the generic names Achorutes Templeton, 1835 Hypogastrura Bourlet, 1839, and Neanura MacGillivray, 1893 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola). This application at the family-group-name level raised an issue regarding the status of a name given to a family-group taxon by an author who takes as the type species of the type genus of the taxon so named some species other than that which is the type species of that genus under the Régles. At that time there existed no authoritative Ruling as to the status of a family-group name so published. It was necessary, however, for the family-group names involved in this case to be dealt with in the application to be submitted to the Commission. On this issue M. Gisin took the view that a name of the kind discussed above ought not to be treated as possessing any status in zoological nomenclature and that the publication of such a name ought not to prejudice a later-published family- group name having the type species of the type genus correctly determined under the Rég/es. It was on this basis therefore that | M. Gisin framed the proposals which he submitted to the Commission. The particular family-group name in which the foregoing problem was involved that was included in M. Gisin’s application was the name ACHORUTINI Borner, 1901, which, as Borner’s paper clearly showed was based upon an erroneous determination of the type species of the type genus of the family- group taxon so named, Borner in that paper having incorrectly assumed that Achorutes viaticus Tullberg, 1872, was the type species of Achorutes Templeton, 1835, the type genus of the new family-group taxon in question. M. Gisin’s proposals regarding the present matter are so closely interwoven with those relating to the generic names also involved that it has been decided that the more convenient course would be to reproduce M. Gisin’s application in full in the Opinion containing the Commission’s decision on the generic-name problems involved rather than to divide M. Gisin’s paper into two portions,
DECLARATION 28 XV
the one dealing with the generic-name problems and the other with the family-group-name problem discussed above. Accord- ingly, M. Gisin’s application has been reproduced in extenso in Opinion 4351 containing the Commission’s decision regarding the generic name Achorutes Templeton and associated names which is being rendered simultaneously with the present Declaration and to confine the statement of the case in the present Declaration to the foregoing summary of the issue involved and the manner in which M. Gisin proposed that it should be dealt with.
feerne SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE PRESENT CASE
2. Registration of the present application : Upon receipt from M. Gisin of his first communication relating to the generic name Achorutes Templeton and to certain other generic names in the Order Collembola, the problems so involved were pro- visionally allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 199. When work was commenced on the individual cases submitted by M. Gisin, the problems associated with the name Achorutes Templeton were allotted the separate Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 303. Later, in conformity with the procedural decisions described in paragraph 6 below to separate the portions of M. Gisin’s application it was decided that, while all matters relating to the name Achorutes Templeton and other individual names should continue to be dealt with on the File referred to above, a new File should be opened for the consideration of the question of principle in regard to the status of a family-group name based upon a misidentified type genus involved in M. Gisin’s application. The new File so opened was allotted the Registered Number Z.NA(S.) 1038.
3. Publication of M. Gisin’s application : M. Gisin’s application involving jointly (a) certain problems relating to the name Achorutes Templeton and other names and (b) the problem of
' The Opinion here referred to is being published in the immediately following Part (Part 21) of the present volume.
XVI OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
the status of a name published for a family-group taxon based upon an erroneously determined type genus was sent to the printer on 3lst December 1954 and was published on 3lst January 1955 in Part 2 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Gisin, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 38—48).
4. Issue of Public Notices: Under the revised procedure prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56) Public Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in relation to certain matters dealt with in M. Gisin’s application was given on 31st January 1955 (a) in Part 2 of Volume 11 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which M. Gisin’s application was published) and (b) to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition, such Notice was given also to certain general zoological serial publications and to seven entomological serials in Europe and America.
5. No objection received: Neither the publication of M. Gisin’s application in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature nor the issue of the Public Notices in regard thereto specified in paragraph 4 above elicited any objection to any part of the action proposed.
6. Procedural arrangements decided upon at the close of the Prescribed Six-Month Period following the publication of the present application in the ‘°° Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature ’’: Following the close of the Prescribed Six-Month Period following the publication of M. Gisin’s application in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the procedure to be adopted in placing that case before the Commission for decision was reviewed by the Secretary who on 8th November 1955 executed a Minute in which, after recalling the General Directive issued by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 136—137) that questions affecting the interpretation of the Régles be dealt with in the “ Declara- tions’ Series and no longer be included in Opinions relating
DECLARATION 28 XVil
to individual names, directed that the application submitted by M. Gisin be divided into two portions, the first with the question of the status of names given to family-group taxa when based upon a misidentified type genera, a question on which a decision was a pre-requisite to the adoption of by the Commission of a Ruling upon a part of the case submitted by M. Gisin, the second concerned with the name Achorutes Templeton and with the other individual names raised in the application submitted by that specialist.
7. Bipartite proposals submitted to the International Com- mission in January 1956: In conformity with the procedural arrangements described in paragraph 6 above, two Voting Papers (Voting Papers V.P.(56)2 and V.P.(56)3) were submitted . to the Commission in connection with M. Gisin’s application. The first of these was concerned with the question of principle involved, the second with the case of the name Achorutes Templeton. The proposals in regard to that name which were thus laid before the Commission were those which M. Gisin had summarised in paragraph 12 of his application (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 46—48). The terms of the proposed Declaration involved in the foregoing application were as follows :—
Where, when publishing a name for a nominal family-group taxon, an author takes as the type species of the type genus of that taxon some species other than that which is the type species under the Régles, the family-group name so published is to be rejected as possessing no status under the Law of Priority, and the publication of such a name is not to invalidate the subsequent publication of a name for a nominal family-group taxon with the same genus as type genus but with the type species of that genus correctly determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of the Régles.
Example: The publication in 1901 of the name ACHORUTINI with Achorutes Templeton, 1835, as type genus but with the type species of that genus incorrectly determined as Achorutes viaticus Tullberg, 1872, did not invalidate the family-group name ACHORUTINAE Borner, 1906, with the same genus as type genus but with the type species of that genus correctly determined as Achorutes muscorum Templeton, 1835.
XVIil OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
8. Submission to the International Commission of a revised draft in the present case in July 1956 : When in April 1956 the Prescribed Voting Period for the two Voting Papers (V.P.(56)2 and V.P.(56)3) came to a close it was found that the proposals submitted therewith had been approved by the International Commission but that as regards the proposal submitted with the first of those Voting Papers important comments on the form of presentation to be adopted had been furnished by four Members of the International Commission. In these circumstances the Secretary came to the conclusion that the correct course would be to bring these comments to the attention of the Commission and at the same time to submit for consideration a revised formula for the proposed Declaration which would take account of the comments referred to above. Accordingly, on 31st July 1956 Mr. Hemming submitted a further paper to the Commission in regard to the present case, together with a new Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(56)15)?._ The first two paragraphs of the paper so submitted contained a brief recital of the principal points involved in the present case ; the remainder was as follows :—
Status of a family-group name based upon an incorrectly determined type genus
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
3. Both the foregoing proposals were approved in the votes taken on the foregoing Voting Papers but in the case of the proposed Declaration an important question of presentation was raised by four members of the Commission (Boschma; Holthuis; Jaczewski; Sylvester- Bradley) when returning their completed Voting Papers. The point made by these Commissioners was that it would be anomalous if the provision to be adopted for dealing with the problem presented by names for family-group taxa based upon erroneously determined type genera were to be different in kind from that already adopted for dealing with the very similar problem involved in the interpretation of genera based upon erroneously determined type species. There appears to me to be great force in this comment and the purpose of the present note is to re-examine the question of the form of presentation to be employed in formulating the Declaration, the adoption of which
2 See paragraph 9 below
DECLARATION 28 he
was approved in principle by the vote taken by the Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(56)2.
4. The problem of the treatment to be accorded to the names of genera based upon misidentified type species was among the first to emerge after the adoption in 1901 of the present Régles. A real difficulty was involved, for those zoologists who were averse from name- changing on narrow technical grounds were forced to rely on subjective arguments regarding the intentions of the authors of the names of nominal genera established in this defective fashion, while those who rightly pointed out that subjective taxonomic judgments ought not to have any part in determining nomenclatorial problems found it necessary to become the champions of name-changing in cases of this sort. Twice during the period the Commission intervened in this dispute, first in 1914 in Opinion 65 (Smithson. Publ. 2256 : 152—169) and again in 1935 at Lisbon in Opinion 168 (1945, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 411—430). In the first of these Opinions the Commission leaned towards the views of the objectivists, though to a very limited extent it attempted also to give some satisfaction to those zoologists whose primary interest in nomenclature was the maintenance of established usage. In the later of these Opinions the Commission took the same general line but in response to the growth during the twenty years following the publication of Opinion 65 of the desire for stability in nomenclature, it adopted a more con- ciliatory attitude to zoologists of this group by issuing an invitation to zoologists to submit to it for decision cases where it would be clearly contrary to the facts to assume that the author of a given generic name had correctly identified the species which he designated as the type species or which later was selected as such.
5. The present case was, however, a problem for which no genuine solution was possible as long as the Congress was unwilling to consider proposals for the amendment of the Régles, for what was needed was the insertion in the Régles of a provision which on the one hand unequivocally laid down the proposition that in general the author of a generic name must be assumed to have identified correctly the nominal species placed by him in the genus so named, but on the other hand provided also a mechanism for avoiding undesirable name-changing in those cases where specialists were of the opinion that such an assumption would be contrary to the facts and where in fact the generic name was currently used in the sense which it was considered had been the intention of the author of the generic name. The willingness shown by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at Paris in 1948 to grapple with difficult problems which had been burked by earlier Congresses provided an opportunity for a settlement of this problem in a realistic manner which, while meeting in full the point of view of the objectivists, at the same time provided machinery to secure that nomenclatorial stability should not be
XX OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
endangered (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 158—159). The main features of the provisions so adopted were (1) the affirmation of the principle that the author of a generic name was to be assumed to have correctly identified the species placed by him in his new genus and (2) the adoption of a provision that, where in the opinion of later workers, the foregoing assumption would run counter to the facts, the case was to be submitted to the Commission whose duty it would then become to use its Plenary Powers to designate as the type species of the genus the nominal species intended by the original author or a species consistent with the intentions of that author, save where such a designation would itself lead to name-changing, in which case it became the duty of the Commission to direct that the nominal species cited by the author of the generic name be accepted as the type species of the genus in question. This matter was considered again by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, 1953, which made some minor amendments in the terms of the decision reached by the Paris Congress, but these did not affect in any way the main structure of that decision (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 68—69, Decisions 127, 128).
6. Having now examined the present state of the Rég/es in relation to nominal genera established on misidentified type species, we are in a position to consider how far those provisions could be made applicable to the somewhat similar problem presented by nominal family-group taxa based on misdetermined type genera. In the light of the comments received in this case during the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(56)2, I am of the opinion that the logical course to adopt for the purpose of giving effect to the decision in principle then taken would be to incorporate in the proposed Declaration the principle that the author of a family-group name is to be assumed to have correctly determined the genus selected by him to be the type genus of the nominal family-group taxon so established, but that this should be qualified to provide that, where, in the opinion of later workers, the author of the family-group concerned misdetermined the genus which he selected to be the type genus of his new nominal family-group taxon, the case is to be referred to the Commission for decision. So far the proposed Ruling would be exactly parallel to the existing provisions in regard to the determination of genera based upon misidentified type species. I suggest also, that, again following the general pattern of the rules relating to genera based upon misidentified type species, the proposed Ruling should make it the duty of the Commission, when such a case was referred to it, to give a Ruling as to whether the nominal family-group taxon concerned was based upon a misdetermined type genus or not. In the case of a genus based upon a misidentified type species, the Commission, when varying the type species of the genus concerned, is required to act under its Plenary Powers. This is necessary because in such a case it must always be a matter for subjective (taxonomic) judgment whether the author of a
DECLARATION 28 XXi
generic name correctly identified the nominal species placed by him in his new genus. In the case, however, of family-group names the position is otherwise, for here it is a matter of objectively ascertainable fact whether or not the author of the family-group name took as the type species of the type genus the nominal species which is in fact the type species under the Régles or a species consistent therewith. At the family-group-name level therefore the required Ruling is one which it will be possible for the Commission to give under its ordinary powers without resort to its Plenary Powers. Finally, it is necessary to consider what is to be the status of a family-group name after the Commission has given a Ruling that the nominal family-group taxon was based upon a misdetermined type genus. At this point the present problem differs radically from that presented by a genus based upon a misidentified type species. For in that case the object of making an application to the Commission is to secure that the generic name concerned shall be used in the sense intended by its original author, while at the family-group-name level the object of the application to the Commission will be to get rid of a family-group name based upon a misdetermined type genus, in order to make way for a later homonymous family-group name based upon a correct determination of the same type genus. On this point the Commission by its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(56)2 has taken the view that a family- group name rejected on the above ground possesses no status in zoological nomenclature and that “‘ the publication of such a name is not to invalidate the subsequent publication of a name for a nominal family-group taxon with the same genus as type genus but with the type species of that genus correctly determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of the Régles’’. This, it is suggested, is the right way in which to deal with this part of the problem, for it is strictly logical and in addition alone provides the means for securing the object desired in cases of this kind.
7. It is accordingly recommended that the form of the Declaration adopted by the Commission in principle by its vote on Voting Paper (56)2 should be remodelled so as to secure that, so far as may be practicable, it shall conform with the lines laid down in the existing provisions relating to the determination of nominal genera based upon misidentified type species. For this purpose I propose that the vote taken on the foregoing Voting Paper be treated as having been an informal preliminary vote and that a substantive vote be now taken in the light of the considerations advanced in the present paper. For this purpose I submit for the consideration of the Commission a revised formula designed on the one hand to take account of the substance of the decision taken in principle on Voting Paper V.P.(56)2 and on the other hand to harmonise the form of that decision with the provisions already inserted in the Régles in regard to the analogous problem presented by genera based on misidentified type species. The formula SO prepared is given in the Annexe to the present paper.
XX OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
ANNEXE
‘* Declaration ’’ relating to the status of family-group names based upon misdetermined type genera (Voting Paper V.P.(56)2)
Revised draft of proposed wording modelled on the existing provisions in the ‘* Régles’’ relating to the interpre- tation of nominal genera based upon misidentified type genera
(1) Except as is provided in (2) below, an author publishing a new family-group name is to be assumed to have correctly determined the nominal genus selected by him as the type genus of the nominal family- group taxon so established.
(2) Where in the opinion of later authors there is evidence in the original publication that the author of a family-group name treated the type genus of the family-group taxon so named as having as its type species some nominal species other than that which either already was or later became the type species, the case is to be referred to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for decision.
(3) On receipt of an application submitted under (2) above, it shall be the duty of the International Commission to give a Ruling on the question (a) whether the author of the family-group name in question correctly determined the genus selected by him to be the type genus of the nominal family-group taxon so established or (b) whether he misdetermined that genus and thus in effect established a family-group taxon based upon a different genus bearing an invalid homonymous name.
(4) Where the Commission gives a Ruling that a given nominal family-group taxon was based upon a misdetermined type genus, the family-group name in question is to be rejected as possessing no rights under either the Law of Priority or the Law of Homonymy.
Wl. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
9. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)15 : On 31st July 1956 a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(56)15) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “‘the proposal for the remodelling on the lines of the
DECLARATION 28 XXili
provisions in the Rég/es relating to the status of generic names based upon misidentified type species of the Declaration in regard to the status of names published for nominal family- group taxa based upon misdetermined type genera approved in principle by the vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(56)2, as recommended in the Annexe to the paper bearing the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1038, submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper ”’ [1.e. in the Annexe to the paper reproduced in paragraph 8 of the present Declaration].
10. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 31st August 1956.
11. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)15 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)15 was as follows :—
(a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty- four (24) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) :
Riley ; Bodenheimer; Prantl; Boschma; Holthuis ; woxcs,: ) Herme,; Mertens: . Bradley (J.C.) 5: Stoll ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Esaki; do Amaral; Tortonese ;
Hank6; Mayr; Cabrera; Lemche; Hemming ; Dymond; Kiuhnelt; Miller; Bonnet ; Jaczewski ;
(b) Negative Votes, one (1):
Key;
(c) Voting Papers not returned :
None.
XXIV OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
12. Declaration of Result of Vote: On Ist September 1956, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)15, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 11 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid.
13. Preparation of the present ‘‘ Declaration’’?: On 7th September 1956 Mr. Hemming prepared the present Declaration and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of this Declaration were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)15.
14. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Declaration is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf.
15. The present Declaration shall be known as Declaration Twenty-Eight (28) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.
DONE in London, this Seventh day of September, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Six.
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
FRANCIS HEMMING
Printed in England by MretcaLFE & CoopER LIMITED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2
OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B.E.
Secretary to the Commission
VOLUME 14. Part 22. Pp. xxv—xxxii
DECLARATION 29
Introduction and definition of the expression “* Linnean tautonymy ”’ in relation to the determination of the type species of a nominal genus under Rule (d) in Article 30
LONDON :
Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1956
Price Five Shillings (All rights reserved)
ee A Aa I LO TE I TE IIL ELIE A ELLE ALTE EET TE TNE TE
Issued 20th December, 1956
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DECLARATION 29
A. The Officers of the Commission
Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England)
President: Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary ;: Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948)
B. The Members of the Commission
(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)
Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (1st January 1947)
Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948)
Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)
Dr. Henning LemMcHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948)
Professor Teiso EsAkI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)
Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)
Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950)
Professor Tadeusz JACZESWKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950)
Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (5th July 1950)
Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950)
Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President)
Professor J. R. DyMoND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953)
Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President)
Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
Professor Béla HANKO (Mezdgazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)
Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)
Dr. L. B. Hottuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953)
Dr. 1K; L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954)
Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954)
Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum vy Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954)
Professor Dr. Wilhelm KiiHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954)
Professor F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November
Professor Ernst MAYR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954)
Professor Enrico TORTENESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ‘‘ G. Doria’’, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954)
DECLARATION 29
INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITION OF THE EXPRESSION ‘‘LINNEAN TAUTONYMY ” IN RELATION TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE TYPE SPECIES OF A NOMINAL GENUS UNDER RULE (d) IN ARTICLE 30
DECLARATION :—Where the type species of a nominal genus is determined under the extension of the provision in Rule (d) (type species by absolute tautonymy) in Article 30 made by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 194&, (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 155), the type species of the genus con- cerned is to be said to have been determined “ by Linnean tautonymy ”’.
aoe SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT ** DECLARATION ”
On 31st July 1956, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature the following paper in which he asked for guidance as to the term to be used in making entries on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in cases where the type species of a genus was deter- mined under the extension of Rule (d) (type species by absolute tautonymy) in Article 30, approved by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 155) when incorporating into the Régles the substance of the Ruling given in 1910 in Opinion 16 (entitled ‘“‘ The status of
XXVill OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
pre-binomial specific names (published prior to 1758) under Art. 30D ”’) :—
Proposed introduction of the expression ‘‘ Linnean tautonymy ”’’ to denote the method of determining the type species first authorised by the Ruling given in ‘*‘ Opinion ’’ 16
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to give a Ruling introducing and defining the expression “‘ Linnean tautonymy ”’ as the term to be employed for denoting the method of determining the type species of a genus first authorised by the Ruling given by the Commission in Opinion 16 (1910, Smithson. Publ. 1938 : 31—39 ; annotated re-issue in 1947, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 1(A) : 255—304).
2. The subject raised in the foregoing Opinion was whether the citation in the synonymy of a nominal species included in a genus established without a designated type species of a pre-1758 univerbal specific name consisting of the same word as the generic name could properly be held to constitute the indication of that species to the type species of the genus under Rule (d) in Article 30 (type species, by absolute tautonymy). On this question the Commission returned an affirmative answer. The Ruling so given contained, however, various ambiguities which militated against its practical application. At Paris in 1948, the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology decided, on the recommendation of the International Commission, to clarify the Ruling given in this Opinion and, having done so, to incorporate it into the Régles. The provision so adopted by the Paris Congress was as follows :—
Where, prior to Ist January 1931, a genus was established without a designated or indicated type species and where in the synonymy cited for one, but not more than one, of the included nominal species there was cited a name which prior to 1758 had been published as a univerbal specific name and that name consists of the same word as the name of the new genus to which the species in question was referred, the nominal species under which the pre-1758 tautonymous univerbal specific name was cited as a synonym is the type species of the genus by absolute tautonymy.
DECLARATION 29 XX1X
3. In framing the foregoing decision the expression ‘ absolute tautonymy ”’ was employed in order to link up this method of deter- mining the type species of a nominal genus with the only existing Rules in Article 30 with which at that time it could be associated, namely, Rule (d), the Rule which provides for the “indication ”’ of a type species for a genus “ by absolute tautonymy ”’.
4. The need for further consideration of the phraseology employed in the Rule quoted in paragraph 2 above became apparent after the Paris Congress in the course of the preparation of the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for publication in book form. For example, the type species of the genera Hippopotamus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Mammalia) and Struthio Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves), are both determined under the foregoing Rule, the type species of the former being Hippopotamus amphibius Linnaeus, 1758, and the type species of the latter Struthio camelus Linnaeus, 1758. It will be immediately apparent that in cases of this class the expression “‘ type species by absolute tautonymy ”’ is entirely inappropriate for the specific name amphibius is not a tautonym of the generic name Hippopotamus and the specific name camelus is not a tautonym of the generic name Struthio.
5. This problem arose in a striking manner in the preparation of the first of the Reports which at Paris in 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 581—583) the International Commission asked me to prepare for the purpose of enabling it to take decisions in regard to the generic names, the status of which had been discussed but left unsettled in Opinion 16. This First Report was concerned with the names of seventeen genera of birds, the type species of each of which had been determined under the Rule quoted in paragraph 2 above. In pre- paring this Report, which was published in 1952 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 70—75) I took the view that it would be as misleading as it would be incorrect to state that the type species of Caprimulgus Linnaeus, 1758, had been determined by absolute tautonymy by reason of the fact that the specific name of the type species of the genus so named consisted of the non-tautonymous word “‘ europaeus” or that the type species of Corvus Linnaeus, 1758, had been determined by absolute tautonymy by reason of the type species of this genus having the non- tautonymous specific name “‘ corax”’. I accordingly sought for some other expression to use to denote the fact that the type species of these and the other genera concerned had been determined by the special extension of the Rule of Absolute Tautonymy quoted in paragraph 2 above. The conclusion to which I then came was that the most suitable and the most distinctive expression to employ to denote this method of determining the type species of a genus would be the expression “‘ Type species by Linnean tautonymy ”’, for Linneaus was the first and principal author in whose works this problem arises and
JAN - 8 1957
XXX OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
was moreover the author in respect of a work by whom (the Systema Naturae) the Ruling on this subject was originally given by the Com- mission in Opinion 16.
6. The proposals submitted in the foregoing Report were approved by the Commission by its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)73 and the decision so taken was later embodied in Direction 17 (1955, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 1(C) : 89—112). The names dealt with in that Direction were thereupon inscribed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, the type species of each of the genera concerned being entered as having had its type species determined *“by Linnean tautonymy”’.
7. While the procedure adopted in Direction 17 provides a clear and intelligible indication of the method by which the type species of each of the genera concerned was determined, the problem involved is not confined to the generic names dealt with in that Direction but is a recurring one which will automatically arise whenever the type species of a genus is determined under special extension of the Rule of Absolute Tautonymy quoted in paragraph 2 above. I feel therefore that the phraseology employed in Direction 17 ought to be generalised so as to apply automatically to the case of every generic name, where the type species of the genus so named is determined in the special manner discussed above. Under the procedural decisions taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, Rulings of this kind, being of a general character, should be embodied, not in Opinions, but in Declarations (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 135—137).
8. For the reasons set out above I now recommend that the Inter- national Commission should adopt a Declaration that, where the type species of a genus is determined by the special extension of the principle of tautonymy inserted in the Régles by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 155), the type species of the genus concerned is to be said to have been determined ‘* by Linnean tautonymy ”’.
2. Registration of the present application: Upon the receipt of Mr. Hemming’s application the question of the possible adoption of a Declaration giving directions as to the form of citation to be employed in making entries in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in cases where the type species of the genus concerned had been determined under the provision inserted in the Rég/es in 1948 for the purpose of consolidating the Ruling previously given in Opinion 16 was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 1151.
DECLARATION 29 XXX1
II. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
3. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)17 : On 31st July 1956, a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(56)17) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “the proposal relating to the adoption of a Declaration defining the expression *‘ Linnean tautonymy’, as recommended in paragraph 8 of the memorandum by the Secretary numbered Z.N.(S.) 1151 submitted simultaneously with the present Voting Paper” [i.e. in the paragraph numbered as above reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Declaration].
4. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 31st August 1956.
5. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)17 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)17 was as follows :—
(a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty- five (25) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) :
Riley ; Bodenheimer ; Boschma; Holthuis; Vokes ; Hering; Mertens; Bradley (J.C.); Stoll; Sylvester- Bradley ; Esaki; do Amaral; Tortonese ; Hanko ; Mayr ; Cabrera ; Lemche ; Hemming ; Key ; Dymond ; Kiuhnelt ; Miller ; Bonnet ; Jaczewski ; Prantl ;
(b) Negative Votes:
None ;
XXXIl OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
(c) Voting Papers not returned :
None.
6. Declaration of Result of Vote: On Ist September 1956, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)17, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 5 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid.
7. Preparation of the present ‘‘ Declaration ’’ : On 26th Septem- ber 1956, Mr. Hemming prepared the present Declaration and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of this Declaration were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(56)17.
8. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Declaration is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf.
9. The present Declaration shall be known as Declaration Twenty-Nine (29) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.
Done in London, this Twenty-Sixth day of September, Nine- teen Hundred and Fifty-Six.
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
FRANCIS HEMMING
Printed in England by MretcaLtFeE & CoopPEerR LimiITeED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2
=a
OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
Secretary to the Commission
VOLUME 14 Part 1. Pp. 1—42
OPINION 417 Rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of volume 3 (Zoologie) of the work by Lorenz Oken entitled Okens Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte published in 1815—1816
LONDON :
Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1956
Price Thirty Shillings
(All rights reserved)
Issued \st September, 1956
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 417
A. The Officers of the Commission
Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JORDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England)
President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948)
B. The Members of the Commission
(arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)
Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (1st January 1947)
Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948)
Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)
yr. eee ea Gan (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th uly
Professor Teiso EsAk! (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)
Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)
Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950)
Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950)
Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (Sth July 1950)
Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitadt zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950)
Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President)
Professor J. R. DyMonpD (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953)
Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President)
Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
Professor Béla HANKO (Mez&gazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)
Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)
Dr. L. B. Hottuutis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) Ae dec 1953)
Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954)
Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954)
Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum vy Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954)
Professor Dr. Wilhelm KiiHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954)
Professor F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954)
OPINION 417
REJECTION FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES OF VOLUME 3 (ZOOLOGIE) OF THE WORK BY LORENZ OKEN ENTITLED ** OKENS LEHRBUCH DER NATURGESCHICHTE ” PUBLISHED IN
1815—13816
RULING :—(1) It is hereby ruled that in Volume 3 (Zoologie) of the work entitled Okens Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte published in 1815—1816 Lorenz Oken did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature as required by Proviso (b) to Article 25 of the Régles, as amended by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, and therefore that no name published in the foregoing volume of the above work acquired the status of availability by reason of having been so published.
(2) The title of the foregoing work is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature with the Title No. 33.
(3) Specialists in the groups dealt with in the foregoing work are invited to submit to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature applications for the validation under the Plenary Powers of any name published in it, the rejection of which would, in their opinion, lead to instability or confusion in the nomen- clature of the group concerned.
SEP 9 2 1986
4 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
I. THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On 20th May 1944, Dr. Wilfred H. Osgood (Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) submitted to the Commission the following request for a Ruling as to the avail- ability under the Rég/es of names published in volume 3 (Zoologie) of Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte published tn 1815—1816 :—
Application relating to the status of the names in Oken’s ‘‘ Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte ’’ submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by Dr. Wilfred H. Osgood in May 1944!
Are the names in Oken, 1815—1816, ** Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte *’ 3 (Zoologie), available under the Régles ?
By WILFRED H. OSGOOD (Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.)
Oken’s names were especially brought to attention by J. A. Allen in 1902 (Bull. amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 16 : 373—379). At this time Allen said: ‘‘ Oken was almost as erratic and irregular in nomen- clatorial matters as was Zimmermann in his Specimen Zoologiae Geographicae* published in 1777, but in some respects is less satisfactory, since he failed to cite authorities for the names used, and gave no reference to his sources of information. Both diagnosed generic, subgeneric and other groups, as well as species, under either vernacular or systematic names, as seemed to please their fancy, and employed the names given by previous authors as these authors used them, regardless of whether the generic portion of the name conformed or not to the genus to which they assigned the species. Yet they each had a ““system’’—sadly defective, however, when tried by the nomen- clatorial usages of today.”’
2. Allen then discussed a number of Oken’s generic and specific names of mammals which might be adopted for use instead of those
1 When this application was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, it appeared as Appendix | of the Report on the status of new names published in Oken, [1815—1816], Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte, prepared by Mr. Hemming at the request of the International Commission and the International Congress of Zoology at the meetings of those bodies held in Paris in July 1948. Mr. Hemming’s Report is reproduced in paragraph 13 of the present Opinion. It was considered, however, that for the purposes of preparing this Opinion it would be more convenient if the documents annexed to Mr. Hemming’s Report were detached from that position and were inserted in the Opinion in their original historical sequence.
2 The Specimen Zoologiae of Zimmermann has since been rejected by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature as a work which does not comply with the requirements of Article 25, Proviso (6). See Opinion 257.
OPINION 417 5
current at the time. Nowhere does he say that they must be used and his entire paper is factual rather than argumentative, his attitude being that of suspended judgment rather than conviction. In other words, his paper is that of a reporter rather than an advocate and what he says essentially is that, if Oken’s names are acceptable, then certain changes are necessary.
3. Nevertheless, the Oken names have been accepted especially by British and American mammalogists and have been in general use for more than forty years. Among them are some of wide use not only in taxonomic but in general literature for some of the best known animals in the world. Examples are Citellus Oken, which replaced Spermophilus Cuvier for the very large group of ground squirrels of -Asia and America, including species concerned in the transmission of disease and therefore dealt with in medical literature ; Panthera Oken, which has been adopted as a genus or subgenus for the larger cats including the lion, tiger, leopard and some others ; and Thos Oken for the jackals.
4. In 1904 (S.B. Ges. naturf. Fr. Berlin 1904 : 55), only two years after Allen’s paper, the German mammalogist Matschie demurred by saying : “‘ Die in Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte verwendeten Bezeichnungen diirfen deshalb nicht gebraucht werden, weil die Grundsatze der binaren Nomenklatur is diesem Buche nicht befolgt sind.”
5. In 1927 Stiles and Orlemann (Bul/. U.S. hyg. Lab. 145 : 29), in dealing with the Primates, said of Oken’s work : “‘ From our view- point the nomenclature used by Oken, 1816, pp. 1223—1232, is not in harmony with International Rules, is neither consistently binary nor consistently binominal, hence is not available under the Law of Priority.”
6. In 1932 (Trab. Mus. Cienc. nat., Madrid (Zool.) 57 : 106), Cabrera referred to Oken saying : “‘ este autor no siguid la verdadera nomenclatura binaria, y por consiguiente sus nombres no deben admitirse’’’. (Since, this author has consistently refused to recognise Oken’s names and recently has issued a detailed defence of his position (1943, Ciencia, Mexico 4 : 108—111).)
7. The fact remains that Oken’s names have attained wide currency in spite of expressed objection to them. They seem to be similar to the names of Gronovius, which were accepted by the Commission under Opinion 20 and later rejected by exercise of Plenary Power under Opinion 89. In fact it might well be argued that they are even less deserving than the names of Gronovius. Regardless of interpreta- tion of the Code, a ruling on them appears to be necessary, since it is
6 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
>
now a question of “ greater confusion than uniformity ’ subject only to the exercise of the Plenary Power.®
apparently
2. Supplementary Note by Dr. Osgood: On receipt of the foregoing application Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, took the view that it would be helpful to the Commission if Dr. Osgood were to indicate more clearly the action which he recommended that the Commission should take. In response to an invitation addressed to him on this subject by Mr. Hemming, Dr. Osgood on 13th September 1944 wrote as follows :—
In regard to Oken’s Lehrbuch, I would prefer to see it entirely sup- pressed. Allen, who first uncovered it and who has been followed considerably, did not make a very good case for it, and later authors, including both Stiles and Stejyneger, I believe, have argued that it does not conform to the Code.
Il. THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE
3. Registration of the present application : Upon the receipt of Dr. Osgood’s application the question of the status of names in Oken’s Lehrbuch was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 153.
4. Report on the system of nomenclature employed by Oken in the ‘*‘ Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte ’’ furnished by Dr. Karl Jordan in June 1944 : At the time of the receipt of Dr. Osgood’s application no copy of Oken’s Lehrbuch was conveniently available for study in London owing to the evacuation as a precaution
3 It should be noted that Opinion 20 was rendered at a date prior to the grant to the International Commission of Plenary Powers to suspend the rules in certain cases. That Opinion, therefore, dealt only with the sole question, with which the International Commission was then empowered to deal, namely, the interpretation of the Code, the question then submitted being whether Gronovius in 1763, Zoophylacium, had “applied the principles of binary nomenclature ’’ as required by proviso (b) to Article 25 of the International Code. The question dealt with in Opinion 89 is entirely different from that dealt with in Opinion 20, since Opinion 89 is not concerned in any way with the interpretation of the Code but with the question whether or not the Plenary Powers conferred upon the International Commission at Monaco in 1913 should or should not be used to suppress Gronovius, 1763, Zoophylacium, and certain other works.
OPINION 417 I
against the risk of destruction in air-raids of the greater part of the contents of the great zoological libraries of London. Knowing, however, that there was a copy of this work in the library of the Zoological Museum at Tring, Mr. Hemming asked Dr. Karl Jordan, at that time President of the International Commission, whether he would kindly examine this work and furnish a report on the system of nomenclature used by Oken in it. In response to the foregoing invitation, Dr. Jordan on 10th June, 1944 furnished the following report :—
On the system of classification used by Oken (L.) in his ** Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte ’’ of 1816+
By KARL JORDAN, Ph.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring)
(Extract from a letter dated 10th June 1944, from
Dr. KARL JORDAN (then President of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) to the Secretary to the Commission)
In order to understand Oken’s classification and nomenclature, two main points must be kept in mind. (1) Animals were created according to a definite plan : a tribe (which he calls Sippschaft) consists of four genera in every family (Oken’s Zunft) ; the number of species in each genus varies. Often there are so many kinds known that Oken sub- divides the genus concerned. These divisions and subdivisions of amie are marked by letters (e-¢:' the letters “a”, “bb”, “c”’, etc.). These are usually followed by one or more Latin names. The classification and nomenclature used are complicated. (2) Apart from the part relating to European animals, Oken’s Lehrbuch is mainly a compilation. When uncertain about the systematic position of an animal, Oken often refers to the same animal in different places and gives more than one Latin name for it. The names so given are usually taken from the literature. He cites no authors’ names and gives no bibliographical references for the Latin names cited. At the end of the volume he gives a short bibliography.
The nature of Oken’s system of classification may be illustrated by anexample. I therefore give below his classification for the first genus of his fifth tribe (5 Sippschaft, 1 Gattung), from which I have omitted his descriptions.
4 When this letter was originally published, it appeared as Appendix 2 to the Report by Mr. Hemming which is reproduced in paragraph 13 of the present Opinion. For reasons similar to those explained in Footnote 1 in relation to Dr. Osgood’s original application it has been judged more convenient in preparing this Opinion to insert the text of the above letter in its original chronological position.
8 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
Classification used by Oken for the first genus of his fifth tribe
5. Sippschaft 1. Gattung. Muffer [The German names—often spaced—are mostly Oken’s invention. ] a. Dachse
a. Meles, Dachs ; 1. Art. M. vulgaris, Ursus Meles, Taxus, gen. D., Graving ; 2. Art. M. americana, Ursus labradorius ; 3. Art. M. indica ;
Der lang bekannte Meles indicus ist augenscheinlich Galeopithecus !
b. Stunk, Mephitis, Viverra, Stinthier, Muffer ; 1. Art. Zweistreifiger St. [no Latin name cited]
a. Teufelskind oder Stinkthier (Viv. Mephitis) ; b. Yaguara, Zorilla, Muffer von Chili ;
Here probably a Muffer from Chili, but the white on frons and occiput broader, more probably Grunzer or Blaser at Magellan’s Strait, Stinkfiichse, Putorius americanus. Stinkthier in Luisiana, Schweitzer, Ortohula, Teufelskind and Chinche. (translation)
c. Gulo quitensis, Atok oder Zorra (Fuchs) ;
As the Atok has been placed in Gulo, one should expect that its dentition would be the same; but we doubt it. (translation)
2. Art. Fiinfstreifiger St. ; [no Latin name cited]
a. Putorius americanus striatus (Viv. Putorius) ;
[At the end of the description of colour and habits there occurs—over the page—the name Putorius americanus striatus (int’d K.J.)]
b. [Oken made no entry under this sub-item. int’d K.J.]
c. Conepate (Viv. Putorius); [sei the equivalent of the Latin seu K.J.] Coneptl, amerik. Iltis gestreiften.
3. Art. Einstreifiger St. ; [no Latin name cited] a. Cinche (Viv. Mephitis) ; sei Yzquiepatl (schlechthin) ; b. Mapurito (Viv. Mapurito); . . . sei Viverra Putorius ;
[The word ‘‘ Mapurito ’’ is here used as a specific name. int’d K.J.]
OPINION 417 9
o, ‘iitis St.
1. Art. Geflekter St. ; [no Latin name cited]
a. Mapurito oder Mafutiliqui (Viv. Zorilla); [The word **Mapurito”’ is here used as a vernacular name. int’d. K.J.| [If here Zorilla ? Query Zorinna or Anna ? (transl.)]| b. Chingha (Viverra Chingha) ;
c. Zorille ; sei eine mit Mafutiliqui und Ortohula
d. Graving, Grison : [The word “‘ Graving”’ is slightly spaced. K.J.]
1. Art. Ziigel G.; [no Latin name cited] a. Chinche (Viv. vittata) ; Sei Maikal oder Yagiane.— b. Viverra vittata, Grison :
Mustela gujanensis, Foine von Giana ; Auron minor, Martes Grison:
[Note : The above are not vittata but are two additional
distinct species, each with its own description. int’d. K.J.]
Perhaps here Yzquiepatl (Viv. Vulpecula), Teufelskind and Chinche from Brazil. Grison (Viv. vittata) and Galera belong together ?, the former probably here. (translation)
e. Schnopp, TJayra: 1. Art. Gelbkehliger Sch. ; [no Latin name cited]
a. Mustela barbara, Tayra oder grose Wiesel ; Einerlei Gr. Marder von Guiana, Must. poliocephalus.
b. M. lanata, kl. Foina von Giana ; c. Mustela canadensis, Pekan ;
There are three animals in Paragay similar to the marten, pine marten and polecat, but larger... They are Huron minor, major, Yaguare ; Huron major (Furo m.); Martes Tayra;... 1s Mustela barbara different? It seems to be Ichneumon de Yzquiepatl (Viv. Quasja), Pekan (Must. canadens.), kleine Foina von Giiana (Must. lanata), Tayra (M. barbara). (translation)
2. Art. Schwarzer Sch. [no Latin name cited]
a. Yzquiepatl, seu Vulpecula quae Maizium torrefactum semulatur colore (Viv. Vulpecula) ; There are two other small foxes of this sort. One is generally called Yzquiepat]... The other is called Conepatl seu Vulpecula puerilis, . . . (translation)
b. Stinkthier, (Viv. Putorius)
10 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
3. Art. Brauner Sch. ; Ichneumon de Izquiepatl (Viv. Quasja)
One could put Coase here if anteriorly it has five toes. (translation)
{. Jarl, Gulo Ursus:
1. Art. G. vulgaris, Urs. Gulo, Hyaena, Glouton, Rosomak, Filfrass (Rahmfrass), Schnopp, gem. J. ;
5. Publication in 1945 of a preliminary notice regarding the present application : In a note dealing with three of the names published in Oken’s Lehrbuch published in the Bulletin of Zoo- logical Nomenclature on 26th July 1945 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 112—113), Mr. Hemming drew attention to the present application (which at that time it was hoped would shortly be published in the Bulletin) and to the question of principle involved in the decision which the Commission would be called upon to take in this case.
Proposal by the late Commissioner C. W. Stiles for the addition to the ** Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ’’ of certain names proposed by Brisson (M.J.), 1762, ‘‘ Regnum animale ”’, and by Oken (L.), 1815—1816, ‘* Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte ”’
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
In February 1934 the late Commissioner C. W. Stiles proposed the addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of a long list of names of genera in the Order Carnivora (Class Mammalia). This list was taken from the manuscript of a paper enumerating the parasites for Carnivora. In making this proposal, Commissioner Stiles observed that over 250 of these parasites had also been reported for man and expressed the view that in consequence “‘it becomes important from a standpoint of public health to establish as firmly as possible the generic names of the animals which harbour these parasites ’’. The paper from the manuscript of which these generic names were taken by Commissioner Stiles was published in December 1934 in U.S. Nat. Inst. Health Bull. 163 : 911—1223 (Stiles (C.W.) and Baker (C.E.), “* Key-Catalogue of Parasites reported for Carnivora (Cats, Dogs, Bears, etc.) with their possible Public Health Importance ’’).
2. The list of generic names submitted by Commissioner Stiles was considered by the International Commission at their Session held at
OPINION 417 | 11
Lisbon in September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 16, for the text of which see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1:41). The Com- mission then agreed that such of the names in question as had not been objected to by the specialists consulted should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. In accordance with this decision, the great majority of the generic names included in Com- missioner Stiles’s list have since been placed on the Official List in an Opinion, now awaiting publication.
3. Among the names proposed by Commissioner Stiles for inclusion in the Official List were certain names published by Brisson (M.J.), 1762, Regnum animale, and by Oken (L.), 1815—1816, Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte. The names in question were the following :—
(i) Names proposed by Brisson :
Hyaena Brisson, 1762, Regn. anim. (ed. alt.) : 168 Lutra Brisson, 1762, ibid. (ed. alt.) : 201 Meles Brisson, 1762, ibid. (ed. alt.) : 183
(11) Names proposed by Oken : Genetta Oken, 1816, Lehrb. Naturgesch. 3 (Zool.) (2) : 1010 Grison Oken, 1816, ibid. 3 (Zool.) (2) : 1000 Tayra Oken, 1816, ibid. 3 (Zool.) (2) : 1001
4. When Commissioner Stiles’s list was under consideration, Com- missioner Angel Cabrera expressed the view that the acceptance of generic names proposed by Brisson, 1762, Regnum animale, and by Oken, 1815—1816, Lehrb. Naturgesch. would be contrary to proviso (5) to Article 25, since, in his opinion, neither of these authors in the works concerned “‘had applied the principles of binary nomenclature ”’. Commissioner Cabrera added, however, that ‘it would be good to see others’ opinions about this ”’.
5. In these circumstances, the six names enumerated in paragraph 3 above have not been included in the Opinion referred to above but have been deferred for further consideration. Commissioner Stiles’s proposal that these names should be added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology will be reviewed, when decisions have been taken by the International Commission on the application submitted by Dr. G. H. H. Tate in regard to Brisson, 1762, Regnum animale (see page 112 above) and the application submitted by Dr. Wilfred H. Osgood in regard to Oken, 1815—1816, Lehrb. Naturgesch., which will shortly be published in the present journal.
6. Comment received in 1947 from Mr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (British Museum (Natural History), London) : On 18th January 1947, Mr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (British Museum (Natural History), London), commented as follows on the question whether,
12 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
if Oken’s Lehrbuch were to be found to be invalid, measures should be taken to validate new names published in it which had come into general use :—
On the question of the use of generic names published in Oken’s ** Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte °°
(Extract from a letter, dated 18th January 1947, from
Mr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott, Deputy Keeper, Depart-
ment of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History) to the Secretary to the Commission)
I think that the elimination of Oken’s Lehrbuch would be a very retrograde step, so far as mammals are concerned. At last we are getting some sort of order into things. Works like Allen (1939) Checklist of African Mammals and Simpson (1945) The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals are the foundations on which we now build and there is a growing feeling among mammalogists that the foundations should not be disturbed. The need for stability in order to take stock of the mass of undigested knowledge overrides the following of rules for the sake of pedantic uniformity—or that is the way I see it.
Both Allen and Simpson use Oken’s names—not merely Pan but Panthera, Genetta, etc., and it would be crazy to eliminate these names.
7. Preliminary consideration given to the present application by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at Paris in 1948 : Preliminary consideration was given to the present application by the International Commission at its Session held in Paris in 1948. The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Thirteenth Meeting of that Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphithéatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 17.30 hours (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 365— 366) :—
13. THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) recalled that the Commission had agreed that the consideration of a proposal submitted by the late Dr. C. W. Stiles (U.S.A.) for the addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the names
* When this letter was originally published, it appeared as Appendix 4 to the Report by Mr. Hemming which is reproduced in paragraph 13 of the present Opinion. For reasons similar to those explained in Footnote 1 in relation to Dr. Osgood’s original application it has been judged more convenient in preparing this Opinion to insert the text of the above letter in its original chronological position.
OPINION 417 13
of three genera of the Order Carnivora (Class Mammalia) published
by Brisson in 1762 in the Regnum animale should be postponed until
after a decision had been taken by the Commission on the status of generic names published in that work. As explained in the note
(file Z.N.(S.) 177) which he (Commissioner Hemming) had published
in regard to Dr. Stiles’s proposal (Hemming, 1945, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
1 : 112—113), Dr. Stiles had at the same time submitted a similar
proposal in regard to the names of three genera belonging to the same
Order which had first been published by Oken in 1815—1816 in his
Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte. The names were of importance in
human medicine, for parasites common to Man had been reported
from species of each of the genera concerned. It was not possible,
however, for the Commission to reach a decision on Dr. Stiles’s
proposals until they had first decided whether Oken’s Lehrbuch was
a work which complied with the requirements of proviso (5) to Article 25
(requirement that an author must in any given work have applied the
principles of binominal (formerly ‘“‘ binary’’) nomenclature). An application for a ruling on the question of the availability of names first published in Oken’s Lehrbuch had been submitted to the Com-
mission (file Z.N.(S.) 153) by the late Dr. Wilfred H. Osgood, of Chicago, but had not yet been published in the Bulletin. This work contained new names in a wide range of groups in the Animal Kingdom and the new names in it had been accepted by workers in some groups
and rejected by others. Doubt as to the status of names published in such a work was most undesirable and should be brought to an end as quickly as possible by an authoritative decision by the Commission. Dr. Osgood, who had been one of the foremost of American zoologists in his forthright criticisms of the slowness of the work of the Com-
mission and, as it seemed to him, of the lack of vision and courage displayed by the Commission in the past, had expressed the view that
the manner and spirit in which the Commission tackled the difficult
problem presented by Oken’s Lehrbuch would be looked upon by many zoologists as the touchstone of the capacity of the Commission
to deal with difficult problems. From the point of view of reassuring
progressive American ‘zoologists regarding the capacity of the Com-
mission to discharge impartially and effectively the duties entrusted ’ to it, it was thus of importance, quite apart from other considerations,
that an early decision should be taken by the Commission in this
matter. The issues involved were, however, complicated and the
consideration of this subject was rendered difficult by the fact that
few zoological libraries contained a copy of Oken’s Lehrbuch.
THE COMMISSION agreed :—
(1) to take into consideration as soon as possible after the close of the present Session the application submitted by the late Dr. Wilfred H. Osgood (U.S.A.) for a ruling on the availability under Proviso (6) to Article 25 of names first published by Oken, 1816, Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte (file Z.N.(S.) 153) ;
14 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
(2) to invite the Secretary to confer with specialists in the groups concerned on the question of the practice (whether acceptance or rejection) adopted in their respective groups in regard to the Lehrbuch names and to submit a Report thereon ;
(3) pending a decision on the question in (1) above, to defer a decision on the application submitted by the late Dr. C. W. Stiles for the addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the names of three genera of the Order Carnivora (Class Mammalia) first published by Oken in the work referred to in (1) above (file Z.N.(S.) 177).
8. Completion by Mr. Francis Hemming in August 1950 of the draft of the Report on the present application asked for by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 and initiation of further discussions with specialists : In the period immediately following the close of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in August 1948 the entire resources of the Office of the International Commission were devoted for some eighteen months to the preparation and publication of the Official Record of the Meetings of the International Commission during its Paris Session and of the Section on Nomenclature of the Paris Congress. Accordingly, it was not until 1950 that it was possible for the Secretary to turn his attention to the present and other cases on which he had been invited by the Paris Congress to submit special Reports. By August 1950, however, Mr. Hemming had completed his Report on the present case. In this Report he reached the conclusion that for the reasons there stated Oken did not apply the principle of binominal nomenclature in his Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte and therefore that new names in that work did not acquire the status of avail- ability under the Rég/es in virtue of having been published therein. Mr. Hemming did not at that time sign the Report which he had prepared, thinking it better first to seek the views of interested specialists on the question whether it would be desirable that some at least of the names published in this work should be validated by the Commissicn under its Plenary Powers. The specialists so consulted included the following :—
(a) Dr. Angel Cabrera (La Plata, Argentina) :
On 20th July 1950, Dr. Angel Cabrera addressed a letter to the Office of the Commission strongly urging
OPINION 417 15
the rejection of Oken’s Lehrbuch and referring to a paper published in 1949 in which he advocated that course. Dr. Cabrera’s letter is reproduced in the immediately following paragraph of the present Opinion.
(b) Dr. George Gaylord Simpson (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) :
On 24th August 1950, Dr. George Gaylord Simpson wrote as follows :—
The proposal to issue the Opinion invalidating Oken’s Lehrbuch simultaneously with decisions validating selected names from that work seems to me an excellent and practical idea... I used some of these names in my Classification of Mammals, and in general might hope that the nomen- clature used there will survive as far as possible.
(c) Dr. W. I. Follett (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.) :
On 19th January 1951, Dr. W. I. Follett wrote intimating his willingness to examine the names used for genera of fishes in Oken’s Lehrbuch. As a first step Dr. Follett invited Mr. Norman J. Wilimovsky to make a special study of this question.
9. Comment received in 1950 from Dr. Angel Cabrera (La Plata, Argentina) : On 20th July 1950, Dr. Angel Cabrera (La Plata, Argentina) addressed the following letter to the Secretary setting out his views on the question of the status under the Régles of Oken’s Lehrbuch :—
On the question of the status of names in Oken, 1815—1816, ‘** Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte ’’ 3 (Zoologie)®
By ANGEL CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina)
(Extract from a letter dated 20th July 1950 from Dr. CABRERA to the Secretary to the Commission
I have read very attentively the fourth volume of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The question about the names in Oken’s
6 When this letter was originally published, it appeared as Appendix 3 to the Report by Mr. Hemming which is reproduced in paragraph 13 of the present Opinion. For reasons similar to those explained in Footnote | in relation to Dr. Osgood’s original application it has been judged more convenient in preparing this Opinion to insert the text of the above letter in its original chronological position.
16 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
Lehrbuch interests me very much. I received some time ago your request regarding my paper on this subject, but unfortunately I had not myself a copy of this paper and was therefore forced to ask for one from Mexico, where it was published seven years ago (in Ciencia 4 (Nos. 4-5) published on 20th October 1943).
My reasons for rejecting Oken’s names are similar in every way to those advanced by Hershkovitz in 1949 (J. Mammal. 30 : 289—301). The following is a translation of a part of my paper :—
Though this book [Oken’s Lehrbuch] was published in 1816, naturalists in general ignored Oken’s names until 1902, when J. A. Allen gave a list of those which, in his opinion, ought to be accepted in Mammalogy. He did not do so, however, without giving the warning that Oken was “erratic and irregular in nomenclatorial matters’’ and that his manner of naming animals was “ sadly defective when tried by the nomenclatorial uses of today’’. From that date, however, North American zoologists began to use these names, and their example was soon followed by the Europeans. A noteworthy exception was Paul Matschie (1904), who rejected them on the ground that Oken never followed the true binary nomen- clature, a very important opinion, coming, as it did, from a fellow- countryman of the author under criticism. Many years afterwards, when studying the nomenclature of the apes, Stiles and Orleman (1927) expressed the same views... As said by Stiles and Orleman, the author of a book or publication must be “ consistently binary and consistently binominal”’ in order that the names in his book may be accepted. Indeed, if an author does not practise binary and binominal nomenclature, it would be absurd to accept one or two of his names, merely because they are accidentally formed of two words. This being so, it is not possible to consider Oken as an author applying the principles of binary nomenclature in his Lehrbuch .. . Some of Oken’s genera (Gattungen) have a name composed of two words in violation of the principle established by Linnaeus and now embodied in Article 8 of the Régles. Among the genera of fishes, there is one named ‘‘ Regalecus lanceolatus’”’ and another has as its name ‘‘ Lepidopus goranensis”’. Many of the genera have not even a technical name, being cited only under the vernacular German name, such as ‘‘ Schlenderschwanz’’ among reptiles and ** Muffer ’? among mammals. In the genus “‘ Lepidopus goranensis ”’ there is found a species named “ Botrichthys sinensis”’, whereas the name of another is “‘ Botrichthoides oculatus”’. The genus of reptiles ‘“‘ Schlenderschwanz’”’ include the species “‘ Stellio Lacerta
caudiverbera’’, ‘* Stellio fimbriatus”’ and ‘“‘ Stellio tetradactylus”’, while later another genus is named Ste//io and contains other different species ... Oken’s specific names are frequently binominal,
but many of them are trinominal and even plurinominal. Thus, the orang-outang appears as “* Faunus indicus, rufus”. If we do not see here a trinominal denomination, we shall be forced to regard this
OPINION 417 17
expression not as a name at all, but as an abbreviated description such as those used by Seba, Brisson, etc. In the genus Cercopithecus, we find similar instances ; among its species there is a “‘ Cercopithecus angolensis major’’, a ‘‘ Cercopithecus angolensis alius’’ and a “* Simia nigra magnitudinis mediae’’.
Other examples given in my paper are the same as those pointed out by Hershkovitz. To sum up, I conclude by saying that Oken’s nomenclature “‘is merely an irregular mixture of generic names, sometimes in Latin and sometimes in German, indistinctly composed of one or of two words, with specific names as often binominal as uninominal or polynominal. It is impossible, in my opinion, to use the names belonging to such a system of nomenclature, if we reject those given by Frisch, Gronow or Catesby. To accept these names as valid, in clear breach of the principles of Article 25 of the Régles Internationales, would be to declare the futility of the Régles themselves or, at least to agree with those that ignore them ”’.
10. Publication in 1952 of an appeal by the Secretary to specialists for advice : In the winter of 1951/1952, Mr. Hemming decided to publish in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature a series of brief Reports on each of the cases which had been referred to him for study by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948. These Reports were published on 15th April 1952. The Report on the present case was as follows (Hemming, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 195—196) :—
Case 1: Status of names published in Oken (L.), [1815—1816], ** Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte ”’
3. A comprehensive Report on the status of names, as published in 1815—1816 in the Zoologie volume of Lorenz Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte, has been prepared in consultation with interested specialists and will be published in an early Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.? In addition, steps are being taken to obtain from specialists their views as to which of the Oken names ought in the interest of stability and for the purpose of avoiding confusion, to be preserved with priority as from Oken in the event of its being decided that from the nomenclatorial standpoint Oken’s Lehrbuch is not an acceptable work. It would be particularly helpful if specialists in as many groups as possible would co-operate with the Commission by sending statements of their views on the foregoing subject, so far as concerns names of genera and/or species in their own groups. Such information will be of great value, in whichever sense the International Commission answer the question raised in the present case, for, if it is decided that the Lehrbuch is an acceptable work, it will be possible at once to place on the Official List generic names so submitted by specialists.
* The Report here referred to is reproduced in paragraph 13 of the present Opinion.
18 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
11. Comments from Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London), Mr. Francis Hemming (London) and Dr. Angel Cabrera (La Plata, Argentina) elicited by the appeal for advice issued to specialists by the Secretary in 1952: The appeal for advice addressed to specialists in the note published in 1952 (paragraph 10 above) elicited the following communications :—
(a) Comment by Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London) (statement furnished under cover of a letter dated 21st April 1952) :
The invalidation of Oken’s 1815—1816 work is immaterial to hemipterists since all the generic names listed are of prior origin. No nomenclatorial changes will be necessary whether this work is accepted or not.
(b) Comment by Mr. Francis Hemming (London) (letter dated Ist June 1952):
So far as the nomenclature of the butterflies is concerned, Oken’s Lehrbuch is not of importance. There are few new generic names in this work in this group and without exception those names are already invalid for other reasons. There are therefore no Oken names in current use in the butterflies. If there had been such names, I should certainly have advocated their validation by the Commission under its Plenary Powers in accordance with the procedure laid down for adoption in such cases by the International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 65, Point (3)(111)), a procedure which appears to me to be of great value for promoting stability in nomenclature and avoiding vexatious and unnecessary name-changing.
(c) Comment by Dr. Angel Cabrera (La Plata, Argentina) (statement dated 22nd June 1952)8:
Both as a mammalogist and as a member of the International Commission, I am openly against all and every one of the Mammal names in Oken’s Lehrbuch. This book has been deemed unavailable for nomenclatorial purposes by Matschie, by Stiles and Orleman, and by myself, and as to the names of Mammalia in it, they have been thoroughly discussed by Herschkovitz (1949, Journ. Mamm. 30 : 289), who arrives to the same negative results. A significant fact about these
8 The statement here reproduced is in the nature of a supplement to the comment furnished by the same specialist in July 1950, reproduced in paragraph 9 of the present Opinion.
OPINION 417 19
names is that they were apparently ignored by every specialist until 1902, when J. A. Allen (Bull. amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 16 : 373) revived several of them, although, curiously enough, he considered Oken’s peculiar nomenclature to be “ erratic and irregular’. JI am quite in accordance with all the Herschkovitz’s conclusions. Moreover, about the suggested possibility of preservation of some names “ with priority as from Oken’”’, I can’t see how we can include in Zoological Nomenclature a name as from a book nomenclatorially unavailable without incurring an absurd contradiction. If a work is declared unavailable for nomenclatorial purposes and we use the names published in it, in order “‘ to avoid confusion’? or under any other pretext, what does “ un- availability’? mean and where is the utility of that declaration ?
12. Comment by the Committee on Zoological Nomenclature of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists : On 12th June 1953, Dr. W. I. Follett (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.) transmitted to the Office of the Commission a report dated 5th June 1953 on the status of names in Oken’s Lehrbuch which at his request (paragraph 8(c) above) had been prepared by Mr. Norman J. Wilimovsky (Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.). In this report Mr. Wilimovsky recommended (a) that Oken’s Lehrbuch “ be ruled unavailable from a nomenclatorial standpoint’ and (b) that “‘any new generic names which properly date from this particular work by Oken and which are in long established use be placed on the list of nomina conservanda’”’. In forwarding this report, which is reproduced below, Dr. Follett added that the recommendations embodied in it “ are hereby adopted as those of the Committee on Zoological Nomenclature of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists ’? :-—
Report on the status of names in Oken’s °** Lehrbuch ”’
Herewith is the report on Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte. I have spent a very considerable time going over your typewritten copy of this rare volume. The task has not been as simple as we first suspected. Any simple check of the italicized names contained in Oken with some standard nomenclature such as Neave did little to answer any question whether or not this work should be retained from a nomenclatorial point of view.
20 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
Volume Three of Oken’s Lehrbuch comprises the fishes. His nomenclatorial style is somewhat confusing. Even the rather helpful paper of J. A. Allen (1902, Bull. amer. Mus. nat. Hist., 14 : 373—379) which gives some insight as to the nomenclatorial technique of Oken did not solve important points as whether an italicized word was meant as a generic name or merely a common name. Oken’s work, in my estimation, is not consistently binomial, but this problem of binomiality does not compare with the difficulty in determining whether a series of names, some italicized and some not, is meant as a series of common descriptive terms or whether Oken is introducing a set of alternate generic and/or specific names as he sometimes did.
Oken’s 1816 Lehrbuch contains about 295 generic names. Of these, some 17 (or almost 6 per cent.) are emendations for other generic names proposed therein for the first time. Apparently, some 19 names are proposed for the first time. These 19 generic names, or about 64 per cent. of the total nomenclatorial content, are those with which we are primarily concerned, and should be the basis upon which we decide whether or not to retain this particular work of Oken’s as nomenclatorially valid.
Under the principle of priority the retention of Oken’s work would mean changing a number of well-established generic terms. For example, the genus Pholis would require another name as we now understand it. On the other hand, a number of generic names which are currently well established were originally proposed by Oken (i.e., Bodianus, Lampetra, Lonchiurus), although several of these terms are currently ascribed to other authors. In many instances, the contents of the genera as “‘ defined ’’ by Oken are not comparable to our current viewpoints regarding these genera.
Therefore, in view of this situation, I respectfully recommend to you that you suggest to the International Commission that Oken’s 1816 Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte be ruled unavailable from a nomenclatorial standpoint. Secondly, I suggest that any new generic names which properly date from this particular work by Oken and which are in long established use be placed on the list of nomina conservanda. This latter action of course will require that the list of new generic terms proposed in this work be reviewed by a panel of “specialists”. If this latter action is deemed advisable, I shall be most happy to furnish a list of those generic names which I believe were proposed for the first time in this work. I have purposely refrained from mentioning too many of the generic names in Oken’s book for obvious reasons.
13. Report submitted by Mr. Francis Hemming in response to an invitation by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 : The present case was reviewed in the early part of 1954 by Mr. Francis Hemming, who concluded (a) that, having regard to the fact that nearly two years had elapsed since the
OPINION 417 2h
publication of his appeal to specialists for advice, it was likely that the comments received constituted a representative sample of opinion among zoologists regarding the status of Oken’s Lehrbuch and (b) that, although, if it had been practicable, it would have been advantageous for the Commission to deal simultaneously with (i) the status of the above work and (ii) the validation, if that work were to be rejected, of any generic names in it that were in common use, the adoption of this procedure in the present case would greatly increase the considerable delay which had already occurred in obtaining a decision from the Commission on the central issue involved, namely, whether generic names published in Oken’s Lehrbuch were to be accepted as having acquired the status of availability under the Régles by reason of having been so published. Accordingly, Mr. Hemming proceeded to complete the Report, the first draft of which he had prepared in 1950 (paragraph 8 above). The Report so com- pleted, which was signed by Mr. Hemming on 9th March 1954, was as follows :—
Report on the status of new names published in Oken, [1815—1816], ‘‘ Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte ”’
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Reference : Official Record of Proceedings of the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 13)
I. Introductory
In pursuance of the request addressed to me by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the third of their Meetings held during their Paris Session on Monday 26th July 1948 (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 13), I submit herewith for the consideration of the Commission and of interested zoologists generally the following Report on the question of the status of new names published in Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte, Volume 3 (Zoologie), issued in two Abtheilungen, of which the first (‘‘ Fleischlose Thiere ’’, pp. xxviii, 842, xviii, iv, 40 pls.) appeared in 1815 and the second (‘‘ Fleischthiere ”’, xvi, 1270 [2], 1 tab, with pp. 843—SO supplementary to Abth. 1) in 1816.
2. An authoritative statement on the status of new names in the Lehrbuch is long overdue, for there has been great diversity of practice among zoologists in regard to this matter, specialists in some branches (particularly in mammalogy) having in recent decades taken to using some or all of these names, while specialists in other groups have
22 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
largely ignored this work. The late Dr. Wilfred H. Osgood of Chicago therefore rendered a valuable service when in 1944 he invited the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to give an authoritative ruling on this subject.
3. It was evident from the outset that considerable difficulties must be anticipated, whatever the decision taken by the Commission. If the Commission were to rule that in the Lehrbuch Oken had complied with the requirements of the Régles, a great deal of work would be involved in many groups in determining the application of the numerous names which would then be seen to possess availability either as generic or subgeneric names and, in view of the early date of the Lehrbuch, there was every likelihood that this investigation would show that some, possibly many, of the Oken names were appplicable to, and were the oldest names for, genera for which later names were in common use. If, on the other hand, the Commission were to rule that in the Lehrbuch Oken had not complied with the requirements of the Régles, then also it was evident that well-known genera currently known by Oken names would be found to require new names under the Law of Priority. In either case therefore it was certain that important issues affecting the stability of nomenclature were involved in the status to be accorded to names published in the Lehrbuch.
4. At the time when Dr. Osgood submitted his application, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for the Commission to reach a conclusion on this matter, for a large part of the arguments which had been advanced for and against the acceptance of Oken’s names turned on the meaning to be attached to the expression ‘“‘ nomenclature binaire ’’ which then figured in Proviso (6) to Article 25. This latter problem, which formerly had been the cause of much controversy, was, at the time of the receipt of Dr. Osgood’s application, sub judice, the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Lisbon in 1935 having decided that it was essential that this matter should be settled once and for all at the next (Thirteenth) International Congress and having, to this end, instructed the Commission to prepare a comprehensive Report on this subject for consideration by the Thirteenth Congress.
¢
5. The question of the meaning of the expression “‘ nomenclature binaire ’’, the settlement of which was—as already explained—a pre- requisite to the consideration of the status of Oken’s Lehrbuch names was disposed of by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in Paris in July 1948. On the unanimous recommendation of the Commission, with the equally unanimous support of the Section on Nomenclature, the Congress, after ruling that the foregoing expression had a meaning identical with that of the expression “‘ nomenclature binominale ”’, decided to delete from Proviso (6) to Article 25 (and also from Article 26) the expression “‘nomenclature binaire”’ and to replace it by the expression ‘‘ nomenclature binominale ”’ (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 63—66). At the same time the Congress recognised that, where under the foregoing clarification of the Reégles,
OPINION 417 23
it became evident that a given book did not satisfy the requirements of Article 25, rapid use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers would be needed to prevent instability from arising in the nomenclature of any group in which names first published in the book concerned were in common use. For this purpose, the Congress decided that in such cases the prescribed period of waiting might be waived by the Commission which should therefore be free at once to act for the purpose of preventing well-known names from being discarded in favour of names hitherto treated as synonyms (see Proceedings of the Commission, Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 13(3)(a)(111), published in 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 65).
6. Later during its Paris meeting the Thirteenth Congress approved also a recommendation that words should be inserted in the Régles making clear the meaning of the expression “‘ les principes de la nomen- clature binominale ”’ as used in Proviso (b) to Article 25 (as amended earlier during the Congress). As so clarified, Proviso (b) to Article 25 provides that, in order to qualify as having applied “les principes de la nomenclature binominale”’ in any given work, an author must have consistently applied those principles in the book in question and not merely in a particular section or passage (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 175). The purpose, and the effect, of this clarification of Article 25 is to make it clear that, when an author who does not use a binominal system of nomenclature nevertheless here or there in a given work applies to some species a name which, by reason of consisting of two words only, happens to constitute a binominal combination, the name in question is not to be treated as acquiring availability under the Régles.
7. The late Dr. Osgood’s application regarding the status of names published in Oken’s Lehrbuch was considered by the Commission at the third of its meetings held on Monday, 26th July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 365—366). In the discussion which then took place stress was laid upon the importance and urgency of the problem submitted by Dr. Osgood. It was then explained that the application had not been published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 365) ; nor has it since been published, as it was considered that it would be more convenient if publication were to be delayed until the present Report was also available. It is now annexed as Appendix I.° At the Paris meeting it was felt that a further opportunity for study was desirable, in which to examine the situation anew in the light of the decisions that had just been taken to amend and clarify Proviso (b) to Article 25. The situation was complicated both by the diversity of practice among zoologists in different parts of the Animal Kingdom and by the fact that, owing to its rarity, relatively few zoologists had had an opportunity of studying Oken’s Lehrbuch at first hand. The Commission therefore agreed (a) to take into consideration Dr. Osgood’s application in regard to Oken’s Lehrbuch as soon as possible after the close of the Paris Congress, and (b), for the purpose of facilitating that consideration, to invite the
® See Footnote 1.
24 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
Secretary to confer with specialists on the question of the practice (whether acceptance or rejection) adopted in their respective groups, and to submit a Report thereon.
If. On the question whether in the ‘‘ Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte ”’ Oken consistently applied the principles of binominal nomenclature
8. In the early part of 1944, shortly before the receipt of Dr. Osgood’s application in regard to the status of names in Oken’s Lehrbuch, I had occasion myself to investigate this matter in connection with a proposal submitted to the Commission by the late Dr. C. W. Stiles that the names of genera of the Order Carnivora from species of which had been reported parasites common to Man should, because of their importance from the point of view of Public Health, be added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. For among the names which thus became candidates for admission to the Official List there were three Oken names (Genetta Oken ; Grison Oken ; Tayra Oken).'° At that time the principal scientific libraries had been evacuated from London to avoid risk of destruction by air-raids and it was therefore not possible for me personally either to examine the entries in Oken’s Lehrbuch in regard to the foregoing names or to review the conclusions in regard to the status to be accorded to that work which I had formed when before the outbreak of war I had had occasion to consider this question in the course of my survey of the generic names of the butterflies. There was, however, as I knew, a copy of the Lehrbuch in the library of the Zoological Museum, Tring, and I accordingly sought the assistance in this matter of Dr. Karl Jordan, at that time the President of the International Commission. Dr. Jordan at once undertook to investigate this matter and in a letter dated 10th June 1944 he very kindly furnished a detailed Report. This Report is annexed to the present Report as Appendix 2.4 At the same time I took the view that the general problem of the status of new names published in Oken’s Lehrbuch (which had been raised by Dr. Osgood) and the particular problem of how to stabilise the names of the three genera of Carnivora from which parasites common to Man had been reported and for which names had been published by Oken in the Lehrbuch (which had been raised by the late Dr. Stiles) were of such importance that they should at once be brought to the attention of interested specialists, even though the war conditions then obtaining would inevitably render such a consultation only preliminary in character. I accordingly prepared a short note on this subject, which, however, owing to the long delays in printing inevitable at that time was not actually published until July 1945 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 112—113).?°
9. The general character of Oken’s Lehrbuch is well illustrated by the analysis given by Dr. Jordan of the treatment accorded by Oken to what he called the first genus (1 Gattung) of his fifth tribe (5 Sipp- schaft). The genus is divided into six groups ; no Latin name is applied
10 See paragraph 5 of the present Opinion. 11 See paragraph 4 of the present Opinion.
OPINION 417 25
to the genus which has for its title only the German word “‘ Muffer ”’. Of the six groups into which the genus is divided four are headed both by a vernacular name and by a Latin noun, one is headed by a vernacular name (Stunk) and by two Latin nouns (Mephitis and Viverra), while the third group has only a vernacular name (Iltis). When we come to examine the terms applied to species (Arten), we find an equal lack of consistency of treatment. In the first group (Meles, Dachs) of the genus, each of the three species recognised is given an apparently binominal name, the first part of which consists of the word Meles. When we come to the second group (Stunk, Mephitis, Viverra), we find that each of the three species recognised is given a vernacular German name only (Zweistreifiger St. ; Fiinfstreifiger St. ; Einstreifiger St.). Finally we have to note that each species is in turn subdivided, the appellations given to these subdivisions being of every possible variety, e.g. (a) vernacular names such as Teufelskind ; (5) a vernacular word followed by a Latin noun (which may be either a generic name or a univerbal Latin specific name in the manner of Gesner and other writers of the pre-1758 age), an example of this kind being provided by the second subdivision of the first species of the second group (Stunk) of the genus “‘ Muffer’’, where we find the entry “‘ Yaguare, Zorills, Muffer ’’ ; (c) a Latin binominal name such as Gulo quitensis (first species, third subdivision) ; and (d) a Latin trinominal name such as Putorius americanus striatus (second species, first subdivision).
10. The examples cited above show (1) that the sytem of nomen- clature used by Oken in his Lehrbuch is utterly lacking in consistency ; (2) that it consists of the random use of Latin words and vernacular German words for the various categories recognised ; (3) that even if the terms applied to the genus (Gattung) and species (Arten) are dis- regarded, there is abslutely no consistency in the use of the terms employed to denote the units into which the various species are sub- divided, it being apparently pure chance whether (i) a vernacular German word or (ii) such a word cited in conjunction with a Latin noun or (iii) a binominal combination of the Linnean type or (iv) a trinominal of the pre-1758 kind is used to denote the taxonomic unit in question.
11. In these circumstances I have no hesitation in reporting that in Volume 3 (Zoologie) of the Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte Oken did not apply “‘les principes de la nomenclature binominale’’. Accordingly, no name appearing in the above volume of the Lehrbuch acquired any availability under the Rég/es in virtue of having been so published.
12. I have further to add that, prior to the clarification of Proviso (d) to Article 25 of the Régles by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in Paris in 1948, the question of the availability of the names in Oken’s Lehrbuch was examined by a number of authorities who rejected the claims advanced in favour of those names by Allen (J.A.) (1902), notwithstanding the fact that, before the Paris Congress, the presence in Proviso (5) of the ambiguous expression ‘* nomen- clature binaire’’ offered some scope for the defence of those names,
26 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
which has disappeared now that that expression has been replaced by the unequivocal expression ‘‘ nomenclature binominale’’. These authorities include: (1) Stiles (C.W.) & Orleman, 1927, Hyg. Lab. Bull. 145 ; (2) Cabrera (A.), 1943, Cienca 4 (Nos. 4—5) ; Hershkovitz (P.), 1949, J. Mammal. 30 : 289—301. Of these authorities Dr. Cabrera, who is himself a member of the Commission, has kindly furnished me with a supplementary statement of his views, together with extracts from the salient portions of his paper of 1943. This statement is annexed to the present Report as Appendix 3.1?
III. On the effects of alternative treatments to be accorded
to the names published in Volume 3 (Zoologie) of Oken’s
‘Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte’’ on_ stability in nomenclature
13. The late Dr. Osgood pointed out that a number of names which first appeared in volume 3 (Zoologie) of Oken’s Lehrbuch der Natur- geschichte had come to be commonly accepted for well-known and important genera, instancing in this connection in the Class Mammalia the names Cite/lus Oken (for the very large group of ground squirrels of Asia and America), Panthera Oken (as a subgeneric name for the large cats, including the lion, the tiger, the leopard and others) and Thos Oken for the jackals.4% Dr. Osgood himself (as he made clear in his letter to me of 13th September 1944, an extract from which is appended to his application) was strongly opposed to the acceptance of Oken’s names but his references to the generic names cited above, coupled with the concluding remarks in his application, where he referred to the Commission’s Plenary Powers, suggests that he had in mind that the Commission, when rejecting Oken’s Lehrbuch, should make use of its Plenary Powers to preserve those of Oken’s names which had taken deep root in the literature of mammalogy.
14. If such were in fact the ideas which Dr. Osgood had in mind, he only anticipated by a few years the view widely held and strongly expressed both within the Commission and in the general body of the Section on Nomenclature of the Paris and Copenhagen Congresses that means should be found for preventing decisions on purely technical nomenclatorial matters from having the effect of upsetting well- established names. It was indeed because the Paris Congress recognised that the declaration against the availability of non-binominal works that had hitherto been accepted (in whole or in part) on the ground that the nomenclature used therein, though not ‘ binominal’’ was “binary ’’ and therefore acceptable under the Régles might in some cases lead to the upsetting of well-known names that it took the action already described (paragraph 5) for simplifying the procedure to be followed by the Commission when using its Plenary Powers for the
12 See paragraph 9 of the present Opinion. 13 See paragraph 1 of the present Opinion. 14 See paragraph 2 of the present Opinion.
OPINION 417 pF |
purpose of validating generic names found to be invalid consequent upon the final rejection of the argument that the expression “* nomen- clature binaire’’ possessed a wider meaning than the expression **nomenclature binominale’’.
15. Oken’s Lehrbuch being, in my opinion, a book which must be rejected as not satisfying the requirements of Proviso (b) to Article 25 (paragraph 11), it is necessary to consider whether any of the Oken names which, on the foregoing argument, are seen to be unavailable are nevertheless in such widespread use as to call for preservation under the Plenary Powers. This is a matter on which, for each group of the Animal Kingdom, only the specialists in that group are qualified to express an opinion. In the case of mammalogy it is already evident, however, that some authorities would be strongly opposed to the elimination of certain well-known Oken names now commonly used for important genera. Among these may be numbered first the late Dr. Osgood himself who would certainly have objected to the elimina- tion of the names Citellus, Panthera and Thos (paragraph 13). Second, Mr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (Deputy Keeper, Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History), London), with whom and Dr. Edward Hindle (Scientific Director, Zoological Society of London) I had correspondence in 1946 and 1947 regarding the name Pan Oken as applied to the chimpanzee, has expressed himself as strongly opposed to the entire elimination of Oken’s generic names for mammals. The relevant part of Mr. Morrison-Scott’s letter is annexed to the present Report as Appendix 4.1° As will be there noted, Mr. Morrison-Scott points out that some of Oken’s generic names have been accepted in such important works as Allen (G.M.), 1939, Checklist of African Mammals and Simpson (G.G.), 1945, The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals.
16. Where a book fails to satisfy the requirements of Article 25, but the names in it are in general use or, if not all in use, can readily be assigned to their appropriate position in synonymy, it would be possible for the Commission to secure stability in the nomenclature in the group concerned by validating the whole book under its Plenary Powers. Accordingly, any name in such a book which was the oldest available name for a given genus would become the valid name for that genus, while names applicable to genera, for which there were older available names would disappear in synonymy. Theoretically, it would be possible for the Commission, if it so thought fit, to deal with Oken’s Lehrbuch in this manner, that is, to validate it under the Plenary Powers. In fact, however, the adoption of this course would cause as much instability in nomenclature as would the disappearance of the Oken names, for the Lehrbuch would then need to be examined systematically, page by page, by specialists in all groups in the Animal Kingdom, since, although some Oken names have been brought into use, there are many more names included in the Lehrbuch which have
15 See paragraph 6 of the present Opinion.
28 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
been completely ignored and which it would then be necessary to take into account. This would be an extremely complicated and difficult task in view of the utter lack of consistency shown by Oken in the terminology applied by him to the species described in the Lehrbuch. This is well illustrated by the example given in the Report prepared by Dr. Jordan (Appendix 2).1® The virtual impossibility in many cases of determining whether a name was used as a generic name or | was a trivial name printed with a capital initial letter would lead to endless difficulty in determining the status of the names in question, and at times would be virtually certain to lead to such confusion that the use of the Plenary Powers would be necessary to suppress the name in question. Moreover, even if ultimately, with occasional help from the Commission, the generic names employed in Oken’s work could be reduced to some kind of order, there would still remain the difficulty presented at the species level of the treatment to be accorded to the specific names used by Oken, for (as already explained) though many of these are binominal (e.g. Gulo quitensis, the name for one of the sub-units of Species 1 in Division “‘ b’’ of the first genus of the fifth Sippschaft), many also are trinominals (e.g. Putorius americanus striatus, the term applied to the first sub-unit of the second species of the same Division of the genus referred to above). I conclude therefore that any action to be taken by the Commission to secure availability for those of Oken’s generic names which are in common use should certainly not take the form of using the Plenary Powers to validate Oken’s Lehrbuch as a whole, for that course would give rise to more numerous and more serious difficulties than would follow from the rejection of the Lehrbuch under the normal operation of the Régles and would be calculated to cause far greater instability and confusion in nomenclature.
17. If therefore express action is to be taken to prevent the confusion and instability which would follow the elimination in synonymy of certain of Oken’s generic names, that action must, it is suggested, be selective in character and directed exclusively towards meeting the particular ends in view. Fortunately, it is possible in this matter to draw upon the precedent set by the Commission when dealing with the very similar problem presented by the generic names used for insects by Geoffroy (E.L.) in his celebrated Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux Environs de Paris, an admittedly non-binominal work published in 1762, many of the generic names published in which are, however, in general use. The problem presented by this book was considered by the Commission in Paris (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusions 14—16) (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 336—370), and the decision then taken is, I consider, extremely relevant to the consideration of the action to be taken in regard to the Lehrbuch of Oken. The action taken by the Commission as regards Geoffroy’s Histoire abrégée was threefold in character: (1) the Commission
16 See paragraph 4 of the present Opinion.
OPINION 417 29
declared that this work did not satisfy the requirements of Article 25 and therefore that names appearing in it were not available under the Régles ; (2) the Commission at once used its Plenary Powers to validate one of the most important names thus found to be invalid (Corixa Geoffroy) ; (3) the Commission placed on record its view that ‘* certain of the generic names published in the foregoing work, being in wide use, should certainly be validated in the interests of stability in nomen- clature’’. In accordance with the last of these conclusions the Commission invited me, as the Secretary to the Commission, to confer with specialists in the various Orders of insects concerned, with a view to “‘ the submission to the Commission ”’ of “* proposals for the validation, under the Plenary Powers, of such of the names concerned, the rejection of which would lead to instability or confusion in the nomenclature of the group in question, so that, in the light of the state- ments so received, the Commission may validate such of the names concerned as may appear to it to be appropriate’’. The adoption of a similar procedure in the case of generic names published by Oken in his Lehrbuch, when these are found to be in general use, would seem to me to be both highly appropriate and extremely desirable.
18. In addition to the names of the three genera of Carnivora published by Oken on which (as explained in paragraph 8 above) there is an outstanding application by the late Dr. C. W. Stiles, the Commission has had before it for some time an application (Z.N.(S.) 261) submitted by Professor Harold Kirby (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) for the validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic name Stentor Oken, 1815 (Class Ciliophora). In agreement with Professor Kirby, the publication of this application was deferred until it could be published at the same time as the present Report. It is accordingly now published immediately after the present Report.!’
19. In March 1952 J issued a general appeal to specialists to furnish statements of their views on the question of the availability of names published in Oken’s Lehrbuch and at the same time to furnish particulars of any generic names published by Oken currently in use in their respective groups which, in their opinion, ought to be preserved, if the Commission were to rule that in his Lehrbuch Oken did not satisfy the requirements of Article 25 and therefore that no name published in that work acquired the status of availability in virtue of having been so published (Hemming, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 195—196).18 None of the specialists who responded to the foregoing appeal considered that Oken’s Lehrbuch was a nomenclatorially available work. A number of these specialists, however, furnished particulars relating to individual Oken names in common use for genera _ In their own groups which they recommended should be validated under
For the decision of the International Commission in regard to the name Stentor Oken see Opinion 418.
18 The text of the appeal here referred to has been reproduced in paragraph 10 of the present Opinion.
30 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
the Plenary Powers, in order to prevent the disturbance and confusion in nomenclature which would otherwise be inevitable. These applica- tions will be published in the Bulletin as soon as possible.
Summary of Conclusions
20. In the light of the evidence examined, and of the considerations advanced in the present Report, I now summarise, as follows, the conclusions which I have formed on the subject of the availability of the names published in the period 1815—1816 in Volume 3 (Zoologie) of Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte :—
(1) In Volume 3 (Zoologie) of the Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte which was published in the period 1815—1816, Oken did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature, as required by Proviso (4) to Article 25 of the Régles, as clarified by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (paragraphs 9—10).
(2) In consequence of (1) above, no name published by Oken in the foregoing work acquired any status in zoological nomenclature in virtue of having been so published (paragraph 11).
(3) In some groups of the Animal Kingdom, e.g. in mammalogy, certain generic names are commonly accepted with priority from Oken’s Lehrbuch. In some cases genera to which these names are applied are well known and of wide distribution. The elimination of the Oken names for these genera would lead to instability and confusion in the nomenclature of the groups concerned (paragraphs 13—15).
(4) Availability for the Oken generic names now in common use could be provided by the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers to render Volume 3 of Oken’s Lehrbuch available under the Rég/es and thus to validate en bloc the new names published in that book. The adoption of this course in the case of Oken’s Lehrbuch would, however, be open to strong objection, for the nomenclature employed by Oken in that work is so confused that the grant of availability to that work as a whole would be bound to give rise to numerous and serious difficulties by reason of the large number of names introduced by Oken which have hitherto been ignored (para- graph 16).
(5) Availability could be secured for such of Oken’s generic names as are in common use and the disappearance of which in synony- my would give rise to instability and confusion by the selective use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers, in the same way that the Commission has already decided to use those Powers in relation to the parallel case of the generic names published
OPINION 417 31
in 1762 by Geoffroy (E.L.) in his Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux Environs de Paris. This is the course which I recommend should now be taken (paragraph 17).
FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Secretariat of the Commission :
28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, LONDON, N.W.1, England.
9th March, 1954.
Appendix 11°
Application relating to the status of the names in Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by Dr. Wilfred H. Osgood in May 1944.
Appendix 27°
On the system of classification used by Oken (L.) in his Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte of 1816. By Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S.
Appendix 3?!
On the question of the status of names in Oken, 1815—1816, Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte 3 (Zoologie). By Angel Cabrera.
Appendix 4”?
On the question of the use of generic names published in Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte. By T. C. S. Morrison-Scott.
19 This appendix has already appeared in Paragraph 1 of this Opinion. 20 This appendix has already appeared in Paragraph 4 of this Opinion. *1 This appendix has already appeared in Paragraph 9 of this Opinion. 22 This appendix has already appeared in Paragraph 6 of this Opinion.
32 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
14. Publication of Mr. Hemming’s Report and associated documents : Mr. Hemming’s Report, together with the associated documents annexed thereto as Appendices, was published on 11th May 1954 (Hemming, 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 193— 201 (Report) ; Osgood, 1954, ibid. 9 : 202—203 (application) ; Jordan, 1954, ibid. 9 : 204—206 (technical survey) ; Cabrera, 1954, ibid. 9 : 206—207 (comment) ; Morrison-Scott, 1954, ibid. 9 : 207 (comment)).
15. Comments elicited by the publication of Mr. Hemming’s Report : The publication of Mr. Hemming’s Report elicited comments from three specialists, namely (1) Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Frankfurt a.M.) ; (2) Dr. Philip Hershkovitz (Chicago, Jil.) ; (3) Professor E. Raymond Hall (Lawrence, Kansas)?*. These specialists were all agreed that the system of nomenclature used by Oken in his Lehrbuch did not satisfy the requirements of Article 25 of the Régles. On the question whether names first published by Oken and in common use should be validated by the Commission under its Plenary Powers there was, however, disagreement. Professor Mertens who had himself submitted a recommendation in this sense on behalf of a name published by Oken for a genus belonging to the Class Amphibia”4 considered that Oken names should be validated in suitable cases, while Dr. Hershkovitz and Professor Hall were opposed to the valida- tion of any of Oken’s names, considering that these names should take priority in relation to other names as from the first date subsequent to Oken’s Lehrbuch on which they were validly published. The communications so received are reproduced in the immediately following paragraphs.
16. Comment received from Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Forschungs-Institut und Natur-Museum Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) : In an application relating to the generic name Bombina Oken, 1816 (Class Amphibia) Professor Dr. Robert
*3 After the issue of the Voting Paper relating to the present case (see paragraph 20 of the present Opinion) a letter dated 17th December 1954 was addressed to the Commission by Dr. Robert R. Miller (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.), urging that ‘‘ all the names in Oken, 1816, be ruled out if the Commission should decide that this work is unavailable ”’.
*4 See paragraph 16 this page.
OPINION 417 33
Mertens (Forschungs-Institut und Natur-Museum Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M.) wrote on 20th October 1954 as follows (Mertens, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 132) :—
3. Recently there has, however, been a tendency to reject generic names published by Oken in his Lehrbuch and at the present time the status of that work is under examination in accordance with a request addressed to the Secretary to the International Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 365—366). I agree with the conclusion reached by Mr. Hemming in his Report on this subject (1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 193—201) that Oken did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature in his Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte. It is important therefore that the Commission should now protect the well- known generic name Bombina Oken.
17. Comment received from Dr. Philip Hershkovitz (Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A): On 3rd November 1954, Dr. Philip Hershkovitz (Chicago Natural Museum, Chicage, Illinois, U.S.A.) addressed a letter to the Office of the Commission with which he enclosed a memorandum entitled ** Critical Remarks on the Status of Names in Oken’s Lehrbuch, together with a number of offprints of a paper of his entitled ** Status of Names credited to Oken, 1816’’, which had been published in 1949 (J. Mammal. 30 : 289—301). The following is the text of the first of the foregoing papers, exclusive of the portion which is concerned with the discussion of the names of individual genera of mammals which, though of great interest from the point of view of those names, falls outside the scope of the present case which is concerned only with the general principle involved. The portion so excluded has been transferred to the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 482, relating to the mammal names proposed in Oken’s Lehrbuch, of which it will form one of the basic documents.
Critical Remarks on the Status of Names in Oken’s ‘* Lehrbuch ”’
Availability of names published in Oken’s Lehrbuch des Natur- geschichte (1815—1816) has been discussed by Francis Hemming
34 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (9 : 193—201, 1954). His report is summarized in five conclusions (pp. 200—201).
Conclusions (1) and (2) point to the lack of status of names published in the Lehrbuch because Oken’s system does not conform to the principles of binominal nomenclature. I agree with these conclusions.
Conclusion (3) states that ‘‘ generic names ”’ for certain well-known and widely distributed mammals are commonly accepted with priority from Oken’s Lehrbuch and that the elimination of these names “* would lead to instability and confusion in the nomenclature ”’.
This conclusion is ambiguous in some respects and contradictory in others, for the following reasons :
(a) Names used by Oken cannot be certified as ‘‘ generic names ”’ according to the Régles in general, and according to Hemming in particular, as shown by him in paragraph 10 (p. 196) of his report in the Bulletin cited above, and in Conclusions (1) and (2) referred to above.
(b) In my opinion, instability in nomenclature is an inevitable consequence of the misapplication of a name, and of the use of an improperly constituted name published in a work that does not consistently apply the principles of binominal nomenclature. Con- versely, stability is derived from the correct application of technical names according to Article 25 of the Régles, as clarified.
(c) After roundly condemning the Lehrbuch as a virtual Pandora’s box of nomenclatorial confusion and irrationality, the Honorary Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature concludes that the acceptance of certain names from the Lehrbuch implies stability and that their rejection invites instability.
It was shown by me in 1949 (Journal Mammal. 30 : 289) that the discard of a// name for mammals attributed to Oken (though not necessarily introduced by him) does not result in confusion and instability.
Conclusion (4) given by Hemming states that validation en bloc of names in the Lehrbuch would “‘ give rise to numerous and serious difficulties by reason of the large number of names introduced by Oken which have hitherto been ignored (paragraph 16)’. This is too true.
Conclusion (5) recommends that “‘ availability could be secured for such of Oken’s generic names as are in common use and the dis- appearance of which in synonymy would give rise to instability and confusion by the selective use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers .)..07
OPINION 417 35
This conclusion offers a solution for a problem that does not exist. In any case, the remedy offered is worse than the ill imagined. No action of the Commission can change the text of the Lehrbuch to give a semblance of valid generic status to its names. With the exception of Citellus, Pan and Panthera, identical names in current use here- tofore attributed to Oken can be cited without loss of priority from nomenclaturally legitimate sources. ‘‘ Citellus’? and ‘*‘ Pan’ as employed by Oken merit no special consideration. They can be validated from binominal works of later date by suspension of the Régles. No power, including the Plenary Powers of the Commission, can convert the ‘*‘P’’ of Oken into Panthera or into anything else except “‘ P.’’, or possibly ‘“‘ P[ardalis] ’’, as employed by Oken. In Opinion 110 the Commission adopted Lagidium Meyen, 1833 in prefer- ence to “‘ Viscaccia ’’ Oken, 1816, by suspension of the Régles. The Secretary to the Commission now proposes that Oken’s name be given preference by the same device of Rule suspension!
Conclusion
If stability is gained by validation of certain names attributed to Oken, the names should be validated from authorities employing the principles of binominal nomenclature. The Commission can use its Plenary Powers to suspend Article 25 for the conservation of names that would lose their priority if dated later than 1816. If, however, the Commission uses its powers to suspend the Régles in toto, as would be required for validation of the Lehrbuch or parts of it, the Com- mission would destroy the very source of its own power.
18. Summary and recommendations prepared by Mr. Hemming for consideration by the Commission when voting on the present case : On 22nd November 1954, Mr. Francis Hemming completed the following paper summarising the history of the present case and submitting a recommendation for consideration by the Commission when voting on the present case :—
On the status of new names published in Oken’s ‘*‘ Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte ”’
By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Character of Oken’s ‘‘ Lehrbuch ’’ : The character of the nomen- clature used by Oken in his Lehrbuch is clearly shown in the Report by Dr. Karl Jordan*® (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 204—206). This seems to me to leave no doubt on the question of the availability of new names
published in Oken’s Lehrbuch, the confused and inconsistent system of nomenclature employed not being consistent with the requirement
2° For Dr. Jordan’s Report see paragraph 4 of the present Opinion.
36 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
in Proviso (a) to Article 25 that, in order that a given book may be accepted as complying with the Régles, the author must in that work have consistently applied the principles of binominal nomenclature. It cannot be said that Oken did this in his Lehrbuch.
(2) Views received on the question of the availability of names in Oken’s ‘* Lehrbuch ”’ : Without exception all the zoologists who have submitted statements of their views on the question of the “‘ availability ”’ of Oken’s Lehrbuch are in agreement that in this work Oken did not comply with the requirements of Article 25 of the Régles. Com- munications in this sense have been received from :—(1) Wilfred H. Osgood (Chicago), by whom this matter was first brought to the attention of the Commission (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 202—203) ; (2) Karl Jordan (Tring, England), Honorary Life President of the Commission (Bull. zool. Nomencl 9 : 204—206) ; (3) Commissioner Angel Cabrera (Cuidad Eva Peron, Argentina) (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 206—207) ; (4) The Committee of Zoological Nomenclature of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists ; (5) Com- missioner Robert Mertens (Frankfurt a.M.) ; (6) Commissioner L. B. Holthuis (Leiden) ; (7) Philip Hershkovitz (Chicago).
(3) Possible courses before the Commission : If it be accepted that Oken’s Lehrbuch does not satisfy the requirements of the Régles, there are, it seems to me, three possible courses of action open to the Commission, namely :—
(a) to rule that the Lehrbuch is not available for nomenclatorial purposes and to leave specialists in the various groups (i) to trace the first work subsequent to Oken in which a name was validly given to the genera and species for which names appear in the Lehrbuch and (11) to ascertain when and in what sense the rejected Oken names were first subsequently used ;
(b) to use its Plenary Powers to validate Oken’s Lehrbuch ;
(c) to rule that the Lehrbuch is not available for nomenclatorial purposes but to intimate at the same time its willingness to give sympathetic consideration to applications submitted to it for the validation of individual names in the above work which can be shown (a) to be in general use and (b) to be names, the rejection of which would give rise to name-changing with consequent instability and confusion in the nomenclature of the groups concerned.
(4) Course (a) (rejection of Oken’s ‘* Lehrbuch ’’ unaccompanied by any further action) : This seems to me to be open to strong objection. Its adoption would throw a heavy and unnecessary burden upon specialists in those groups where Oken names are in use, but, much worse than this, it would inevitably lead to the disappearance of im- portant names which ought in the interests of nomenclatorial stability
OPINION 417 37
to be preserved. It would, in my view, be inconsistent with the basic principles underlying the Régles, as laid down in the Preamble prefixed thereto by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copen- hagen, 1953 (Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 22, Decision 19), for the Commission deliberately to act in a way which courted instability and confusion in nomenclature. Moreover, the adoption of Course (a) would run counter to the expressed view of all except one of the special- ists who have communicated with the Commission on this subject. The exception is Hershkovitz (Chicago) who in a paper received on 8th November (i.e. only three days before the expiry of the Prescribed Period of Public Notice) and therefore too late for publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature examined the generic names used by Oken for mammals and expressed the view that, on the rejection of Oken’s Lehrbuch, the genera concerned would bear either the same names, though attributed to different authors and to later dates, or would bear other names now currently used for them. Without expressing a view on the foregoing conclusions beyond observing that they do not tally with views expressed by other mammalogists, it must be noted that in the only other document received in which this aspect of the problem is directly discussed—the report by Wilimovsky sub- mitted by the Committee on Zoological Nomenclature of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists—it is stated that to leave priority to take its course would lead, in the case of the names of fishes, not only to the disappearance of well-established generic names but also in some cases to the introduction as from later authors and later dates of names published by Oken, the nominal genera bearing these later names representing a different concept from that represented by the same names as published by Oken.
(5) Course (b) (validation of Oken’s ‘‘ Lehrbuch ’’ under the Plenary Powers): No one has suggested that Oken’s Lehrbuch should be validated under the Plenary Powers, and this possibility is only mentioned here, since on any theoretical analysis of the courses of action which might be adopted by the Commission this is clearly one which ought to be considered, even if only to be at once dismissed. It is only necessary to observe that the validation of Oken’s Lehrbuch would involve not only the validation of the large number of generic names not currently accepted by specialists but also the validation of the very much larger number of specific names first published in this work which are not now in use. The resuscitation of these names would involve name-changing on a very large scale and would certainly cause great confusion. From every point of view, Course (b) may therefore at once be ruled out.
(6) Course (c) (rejection of Oken’s ‘‘ Lehrbuch ’’, combined with an intimation by the Commission of its willingness to validate Oken names where necessary in the interests of nomenclatorial stability) : In some groups, for example in the Class Insecta in the Orders Hemiptera (China, in /Jitt., 21st April 1952) and the butterflies (Hemming) Oken’s
38 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
Lehrbuch does not present a serious problem, the new generic names introduced in the Lehrbuch being junior synonyms of generic names of older date. In other groups it is far otherwise. For example, in the Class Ciliophora the name Stentor Oken is involved ; in the Class Crustacea, the name Mitella; in the Class Amphibia, the name Bombina ; in the Class Pisces, a number of important names in current use; in the Class Mammalia such names as Pan, Genetta, Panthera, etc. Of the numerous specialists who have expressed opinions on the method to be adopted for preventing the confusion which would result from the disappearance of important Oken names all except one favour the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating important Oken names in current use. These include :—(1) the late Harold Kirby (University of California, Berkeley, Cal.) ; (2) G. Kolosvary (Hungary) ; (3) Dora Priaulx Henry (Seattle) ; (4) L. B. Holthuis (Leiden) ; (5) Robert Mertens (Frankfurt a.M.) ;(6) the Committee on Zoological Nomenclature of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists (W. I. Follett ; Norman J. Wilimovsky ; Charles M. Bogert ; Fred. R. Cagle ; Hobart M. Smith ; Robert C. Stebbins); (7) Ethelwynn Trewavas (British Museum (Natural History)); (8) T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (British Museum (Natural History)); (9) George Gaylord Simpson (American Museum of Natural History, New York) ; (10) J. C. Trevor (University Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge University). The one specialist who holds a different view is Philip Hershkovitz (Chicago) who, while advocating the rejection of the Lehrbuch (a question on which all the specialists concerned are agreed) also advocates (as noted in paragraph (4) above) the rejection without exception of all the names published in that work?®.
(7) Course Recommended : For the reasons set out in the Report now submitted (see paragraph 1 above), I recommend that the Com- mission should give a Ruling that in the Zoologie volume of the Lehrbuch Oken did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature and that new names in that work accordingly possess no status in nomenclature in virtue of having been so published. On the question of the procedure to be adopted in relation to generic names in common use with priority as from Oken, it is relevant to recall that in Paris in 1948 the Commission dealt with an exactly similar problem when it considered the treatment to be accorded to important names currently accepted as from non-binominal authors; the Commission then recommended, and the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology so approved, that there should be inserted in Article 25 a provision prescribing a special simplified procedure for the purpose of enabling the Commission rapidly to use its Plenary Powers for the purpose of preserving well-known names published in non-binominal works found to be invalid (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 65). At the same
*° Subsequent to the completion of the above paper a communication in a similar sense was received from Professor E. Raymond Hall (Kansas). See paragraph 19 of the present Opinion.
OPINION 417 39
Session, the Commission applied the foregoing provision for the » purpose of validating the generic name Corixa Geoffroy, 1762, a name published in the non-binominal work entitled Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux Environs de Paris, and, when dealing with foregoing work as a whole, issued a general invitation to ento- mologists to submit applications for the validation of important names -published in it, at the same time giving an assurance that sympathetic consideration would be given to applications so submitted (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 368—370). The foregoing decisions have since been embodied in Opinion 228 (Geoffroy) and Opinion 281 (Corixa). The procedure for dealing with cases such as the present has thus been already laid down and I recommend that it should now be followed.
(8) Draft Ruling submitted : In the light of the foregoing particulars, I submit in the attached Annexe the draft of a Ruling on the present case which I commend to the consideration of the Commission. The wording proposed follows closely that employed in Opinion 228 (case of Geoffroy, 1762).
ANNEXE
Draft Ruling relating to the status of Oken’s ‘‘ Lehrbuch ”’ submitted for the consideration of the Commission
RULING :—(1) In Volume 3 (Zoologie) of the work entitled Okens Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte, published in 1815—18i6, Lorenz Oken did not apply the principles of binominal nomen- clature as required by Proviso (b) to Article 25, as amended by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, and accordingly no name published in the foregoing work acquired the status of availability by reason of having been so published.
(2) The title of the foregoing work is accordingly hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature.
(3) Specialists in the groups dealt with in the foregoing work are invited to submit to the International Commission on Zoo- - logical Nomenclature applications for the validation under the Plenary Powers of any name published in it, the rejection of which would, in their opinion, lead to instability or confusion in the nomenclature of the group concerned.
40 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
19. Comment received from Professor E. Raymond Hall (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.): On 18th — November 1954, Professor E. Raymond Hall (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) addressed a letter to the Office of the Commission commenting upon the present case and also on the case of the individual name Stentor Oken, 1815 (Class Ciliophora). Though received in the Office of the Com- mission just before the issue to the Commission of the Voting Paper in the present case, Professor Hall’s letter was too late to permit of reference being made to it in the summary then submitted to the Commission (paragraph 18 above). The following is the portion of Professor Hall’s letter which was concerned with the present case :—
Receipt of a copy of comments on... the status of names published in Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte as transmitted to you under date of 3rd November 1954, by Philip Hershkovitz?” [Commission Reference Z.N.(S.) 153] prompts me to write that we have re-examined pertinent materials available here, including pages 193—218 of volume 9 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, and that we agree with Hershkovitz. That is to say, we favor dropping such of Oken’s names as are in use in favor of the next available authority or even name. Indeed, we have in practice been doing this. See, for example, our use of Spermophilus instead of Citellus in Univ. Kansas Publ., Mus. nat. Hist. 7 : 483 ; 7 : 543, 1954. Not using Oken, in our view, will be a convenience in mammalogy, and also a means of achieving desirable stability.
Ill. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL ~ COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
20. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(54)91 : On 26th November 1954, a Voting Paper (V.P.(54)91) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “the proposal relating to the nomenclatorial status of Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte submitted in the Annexe to the paper by the Secretary [i.e. in the Annexe to the paper reproduced in paragraph 18 of the present Opinion] simultaneously with the present Voting Paper ”’.
27 For Dr. Hershkovitz’s communication see paragraph 17 of the present Opinion.
OPINION 417 A]
21. The Prescribed Voting Period : As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 26th February 1955.
_ 22. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)91 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54) 91 was as follows :—
(a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty- two (22) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) :
Mertens ; Holthuis ; Hering ; Lemche ; Stoll; Bradley (J.C.); Vokes; Esaki; Jaczewski; Bodenheimer ; Dymond ; Bonnet ; Riley ; Hanké ; Boschma ; Miller ; Key ; do Amaral ; Hemming ; Cabrera (except Ruling (3) ) ; Kuhnelt ; Sylvester-Bradley ;
(b) Negative Votes : one (1) (for a portion only) :
Cabrera (Ruling (3) only) ;
(c) On Leave of Absence : one (1) :
Prantl ;
(d) Voting Papers not returned :
None.
23. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 27th February 1955, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)91, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 22 above and declaring that the proposal sub- mitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid.
42 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
24. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present °*‘ Opinion ”’ : On 2nd March 1956, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)91.
25. At the time of the submission of the present application the name applicable to the second portion of a binomen was “trivial name’’. This was altered to “specific name” by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, which at the same time made corresponding changes in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of names of this cate- gory. These changes in terminology have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion.
25. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf.
27. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Four Hundred and Seventeen (417) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.
Done in London, this Second day of March, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Six.
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
FRANCIS HEMMING
& baad “=~,
Printed in England by MrtcaLFe & CoopPER LimiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2
OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
Secretary to the Commission
VOLUME 14. Part 2. Pp. 43—68
OPINION 418
Validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Stentor Oken, 1815 (Class Ciliophora)
Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1956
Price Seventeen Shillings
(All rights reserved)
Issued 1st September, 1956
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 418
A. The Officers of the Commission
Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England).
President : Professor James Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948).
B. The Members of the Commission
(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)
Professor H. BOSCHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Histoire, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ist January 1947)
Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R. Argentina) (27th July 1948)
Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)
Dr: Sea Sea (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th uly
Professor Teiso EsAk! (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)
Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)
Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEy (British Museum (Natural History), (London) (9th June 1950)
Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950)
Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950)
Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950)
Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President)
Professor J. R. DYMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953)
Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President)
Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
Professor Béla HANKO (Mezégazdasagi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)
Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (A2th August 1953)
Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)
Dr. L. B. HoLttuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953)
Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954)
Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954)
Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954)
Professor Dr. Wilhelm KiiHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954)
hrc F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November
OPINION 418
VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE GENERIC NAME “STENTOR ” OKEN, 1815, (CLASS CILIOPHORA)
RULING :—(1) The following action is hereby taken under the Plenary Powers :—
(a) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby suppressed :—
(i) for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy :— («) Eclissa Modeer, 1790 ; (8) Ecclissa Schrank, 1803 ; (y) Linza Schrank, 1802 ; (11) for the purposes both of the Law of Priority
and of the Law of Homonymy: Stentor Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1812 ;
(b) The under-mentioned generic name is_ hereby validated : Stentor Oken, 1815 (a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes) ;
(c) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby sup- pressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy :—
(i) stentoria Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Hydra stentoria ;
(11) stentorea Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Hydra stentorea (an emenda-
SEP 9 © 1956
46 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
tion of stentoria Linnaeus, 1758, as pub- lished in the combination Hydra stentoria) ;
(d) It is hereby directed that the nominal species Stentor muelleri Ehrenberg, [1832], be inter- preted by reference to the description and figures published therefor by Ehrenberg in 1838 (Die Infusionsth. : 262) ;
(e) All type selections for the genus Stentor Oken, 1815, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and the nominal species Stentor muelleri Ehrenberg, [1832], as defined under (d) above, is hereby designated to be the type species of the foregoing genus.
(2) The under-mentioned generic name is_ hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 998: Stentor Oken, 1815, as vali- dated under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above (gender : masculine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1)(e) above : Stentor muelleri Ehrenberg, [1832], as defined under the Plenary Powers under (1)(d) above).
(3) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :—
(a) The three generic names specified in (1)(a)(i) above, as there suppressed under the Plenary Powers (Name Nos. 440 to 442 respectively) ;
(b) Stentor Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1812, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1)(a)(ii) above (Name No. 443) ;
(c) Tubaria Thienemann, 1828 (a junior objective synonym of Stentor Oken, 1815) (Name No. 444) ;
OPINION 418 47
(d) Stentorella Reichenbach, 1828 (a junior objective synonym of Stentor Oken, 1815) (Name No. 445) ;
(4) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 733: muelleri Ehrenberg, [1832], as published in the combination Stentor muelleri and as interpreted under the Plenary Powers under (1)(d) above (specific name of type species of Stentor Oken, 1815).
(5) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :—
(a) The two specific names specified in (1)(c) above, as there suppressed under the Plenary Powers (Name Numbers 312 and 313 respectively) ;
(b) solitarius Oken, 1815, as published in the combina- tion Stentor solitarius (a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes) (Name No. 314).
I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The question of the possible use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating the generic name Stentor Oken, 1815 (Class Ciliophora)!, the problem with which the
1 For the decision by the Commission rejecting Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte see Opinion 417 (published in the immediately preceding Part of the present Volume).
48 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
present Opinion is concerned, first formed the subject of corres- pondence between the Secretary and the late Professor Harold Kirby (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) in the summer of 1945. Professor Kirby then intimated that in view of the complexity of the early literature some time would need to elapse before he was in a position to submit to the Commission an analysis of the history of this case. It was agreed in later correspondence between Mr. Hemming and Professor Kirby that the issues involved in the present case should be laid before the Commission simultaneously in two documents, namely: (1) a paper by Professor Kirby dealing with the historical and taxonomic aspects of this case and indicating in general terms the nature of the solution which he desired the Commission to adopt; (2) a brief Report by the Secretary setting out the detailed action which it would be necessary for the Commission to take if it were to approve the solution advocated by Professor Kirby. The paper prepared under this arrangement by Professor Kirby, which was received in the Office of the Commission on 20th April 1950, was as follows :—
On the need for validating the name ‘‘ Stentor ’’ Oken, 1815 (Class Ciliophora) for use in its accustomed sense
By HAROLD KIRBY (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.)
Several species of well-known ciliates have for more than a century usually been placed in the genus Stentor, and because of the particular value of these ciliates for research and in class instruction, as well as the frequency with which they come to the attention of microscopists, there is a large literature under the name Stentor. The name has not yet been placed in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Examination of the nomenclatural status of the genus has shown that several points of confusion, hitherto usually ignored, must be cleared up. The name for the genus and its type species should be decisively established as soon as possible by appropriate action by the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.
2. The first record of observation of ciliates now included in Stentor was read by Abraham Trembley to the Royal Society of London in 1744 and was published in 1745 in the Philosophical Transactions, 43 : 180 ff. He reported having seen in fresh water animalcula which De Réaumur judged to belong to the general class of Polypi. Part of the
OPINION 418 49
paper is devoted to an account of clustering Polypi, which Trembley stated were named by De Réaumur “les Polypes en bouquet ”’ ; these were colonial vorticellids, probably Zoothamnium. Trembley also wrote of small Polypi of a different sort from those that are found in clusters, which De Réaumur thought proper to distinguish by the name of Tunnel-like Polypi. He gave a sufficiently informative account of these animalcula and their manner of division so that it is evident that he dealt with Stentor. He reported being acquainted with three species of these Polypi, which are respectively green, blue, and white.
3. In Employment for the Microscope (1753, pp. 330—334) Henry Baker wrote of Funnel-Animals which he found attached to a parcel of snail’s eggs, and he quoted Trembley’s account, stating in a footnote that he was pleased to find that de Réaumur and Trembley had ideas of the creature so nearly like his own. He gave a figure (pl. 13, fig. 1) which evidently depicts a species of the genus known later as Stentor, though he supplied no sufficient information by means of which one could identify it with St. polymorphus, as did Ehrenberg (1838, Infusionsth, : 263).
4. Figures of an organism of this group were published in 1775 by Rosel von Rosenhof (/nsectenbelust., 3 : pl. 94, figs. 7, 8) who discussed it in the text (:585) under the name “der schallemeynahnliche Affterpolyp’’. The figures represent one of the colorless species, which Ehrenberg (1838, Infusionsth. : 262) considered to the one that he later named St. muelleri; but the species represented by Rdsel cannot actually be identified.
5. The first scientific name given to a ciliate that now belongs to the genus Stentor was Hydra stentoria Linnaeus (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 817). The name was applied to the representation of the organism by R6sel. Under the name, Linnaeus referred to four of ROsel’s figures (nsectenbel., 3 : pl. 94, figs. 5, 6, 7, 8). Figures 5 and 6 depict a rotifer; Ehrenberg (1838, Infusionsth. : 404) included a reference to them in the synonymy of Lacinularis socialis. Thus the name given by Linnaeus in 1758 was