434 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. vol. 45. 



My decision has been influenced by the fact that the names to be 

 set aside are long and Avell estabhshed not only in technical treatises 

 on ascidian classification, but as well m general zoological and bio- 

 logical literature. The principle in accordance with which this con- 

 sideration has influenced me is that names thus well established should 

 have the benefit of any reasonable doubt about the appUcabihty of 

 the rule. It seems to me that evidence for the suppression of such 

 names as those here in question ought to be as unequivocal as that 

 required to convict a man of murder in a criminal court. Viewed in 

 the light of this principle I beheve the first three indicted names, 

 Molgula, Halocynthia, and Styela, would be retained.^ 



Concerning Csesira, it appears to me that Hartmeyer has not re- 

 moved the doubt that has for years surrounded Fleming's proposal to 

 make Savigny's "Cynthie Dione" the type-species of a genus Csesira. 

 Indeed, Hartmeyer's inabflity to include dione in the h^t of "good 

 species" in his Tierreich catalogue (Hartmeyer, 1909a), and his exphcit 

 statement (Hartmeyer, 1908, p. 18) that the type-species of Csesira 

 "bedarf allerdings einer Nachuntersuchung, da die Beschreibung in 

 ernigen Punkten zu liickenhaft ist, um eine hinreichende Kennzeich- 

 nung innerhalb der Gattung zu ermoglichen," places the animal used 

 by Fleming as the type of Csesira among the species inquirendx, which 

 are excluded by the international rules from competency to serve as 

 generic types. 



The doubts about Pyura are of a very different nature. While it 

 is quite probable that the " piure " of modern Chilean fishermen sent 

 to Michaelsen (Mchaelsen, 1904, p. 15) is specifically identical with 

 Molina's P. cMlensis, the evidence before us is not conclusive. For 

 instance, the tendency of fishermen to apply the same name to animals 

 which much resemble one another^ even though they may be very 

 different zoologically considered, is well known. The ordinary fisher- 

 man would be quite unlikely to distinguish between some Halocyn- 

 thias and some Styelas, for example; so before we could be certain 

 that the animals examined by Michaelsen belong to Molina's species 

 we should have to be sure that there is but one species called "piure" 

 by the fishermen. More exhaustive collecting on the Chilean coast 

 may sometime remove this uncertainty, but in the meanwhile Halo- 

 cynthia should have the benefit of the doubt. 



Tethyum is put into a peculiarly unfortunate condition by Hunts- 

 man's disagreement with Hartmeyer. Into the merits of the case I, 

 do not need to go. It affords a striking illustration of the inabiUty of 

 the rule of priority to save nomenclature from confusion so long as 



1 It seems as though a permanent international court or commission of nomenclatorial experts may be 

 necessary (i f the present commission is not charged with this duty) to tal<e evidence and hear arguments both 

 for and against as to whether changes in particularly important instances are compelled by the rules. At 

 any rate, as matters now stand, i f our experience in tunicate nomenclature is any guide, there is little pro?^ 

 pect of improvement in the consistency and stability of zoological names. 



