NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 'J'J 19 



OPINION 72 



Herrera's Zoological Formul/E 



Summary. — Designations of animals, according to the system proposed by 

 Herrera in the case submitted for Opinion, are formulse, and not names. Ac- 

 cordingly they have no status in Nomenclature, and are therefore not subject 

 to consideration under the Law of Priority. No author is under obligation to 

 cite these designations in any table of synonymy, index, or other list of names. 



Statement of case. — W. Dwight Pierce submits the following- 

 case for opinion : 



Herrera, in 1900, proposed to prefix all zoological generic names with a 

 syllable to indicate class, and to terminate them with " us " or " s," and to place 

 behind them certain initials further to assist in locating the genus : Iiisapis 

 tnellifica (I, Hy, A). 



Discussion. — The foregoing case was submitted, for consideration 

 and report, to the International Commission on Entomological Nomen- 

 clature, from the Secretary (Karl Jordan) of which the following 

 report has been received : 



The case, though based on insects, is of a general nature, and therefore one 

 for the Commission to deal with. It has been submitted to European Ento- 

 mological Committees only. Ten members have given their opinion. All 

 agree as follows : 



According to Herrera's own showing, the navies of the genera are Apis, 

 Musca, Otus, etc. If any of these names should be preoccupied, the formulae 

 Insmuscas, Insbombyxus, etc., cannot be considered as replacing preoccupied 

 names. If Herrera has published such a formula as a title for a new genus 

 (Insexus), Exus should be regarded as the name of the new genus. In 

 quoting literally from the work of Herrera, the formula " Insbombyxus " 

 should be placed between inverted commas, "....": "Insmuscas" domes- 

 tica, without the initials following in Herrera's formula. If the quotation is 

 not literal, Musca, Bombyx, etc., should be used. 



K. J. 



The Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological 

 Nomenclature concurs in general with the foregoing report, but invites 

 attention to certain features of the case submitted. 



In principle, according to the premises submitted, the designations 

 by Herrera are of essentially the same kind as the designations by 

 Rhumbler, 1910, Zoologischer Anzeiger, pp. 453 to 471, and Ver- 

 handlungen des VII Internationalen Zoologen-Kongresses, zu Graz, 

 1910 (published 1912), pp. 859 to 874. 



