NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 'J'J 21 



c. Ein Name darf nicht verworfcn oder geiindert werden etwa aus dem 

 Grunde, weil er " nicht bezeichnend " ist oder weil seine Bildung " unter 

 Missachtung philologischer Sprachregeln " erfolgte oder " weil er zu lang ist, 

 schlecht klingt " und so weiter ; doch sind f ortan derartige f ehlerhafte Wort- 

 bildungen, z. B. hybride Worter, zu vermeiden. 



Es darf z. B. der Name Oriolus persicus L. nicht etwa deshalb geandert 

 werden, weil es ein amerikanischer, in Persien nicht vorkommender Vogel ist, 

 oder Valuta lapponica L., weil es eine indische, in Lappland nicht vorkommende 

 Schnecke ist. Auch Artbezeichnungen mit gleichem Art- und Gattungsnamen 

 sind daher zulassig, z. B. Buteo buteo, Arctiis arctus. 



Article 32 of the International Code reads as follows : 



A generic or specific name, once published, cannot be rejected, even by its 

 author, because of inappropriateness. Examples : Names like Polyodon, Apus, 

 alhus, etc., when once published are not to be rejected because of a claim that 

 they indicate characters contradictory to those possessed by the animals in 

 question. 



Rhumbler's proposition was discussed informally by several of the 

 members of the Commission at the Gratz meeting, and their inter- 

 pretation was to the effect that the designations suggested by Rhum- 

 bler represented formulae and not names, hence that they had no 

 status whatever under the Code. 



Were these to be accepted as names, they could not be changed 

 in case it was discovered later that they had been given erroneous 

 prefixes designating classification. Further, the prefix En would 

 lead to confusion because of such names as Eustrongylus — a nema- 

 tode, not a mammal (E) ungulate (u). 



It is obvious that the formulas in question suggested by Rhumbler 

 and by Herrera would not be clear to readers unless they had con- 

 stantly at hand the keys to these formulce. Accordingly, in general 

 usage it would be impossible for the average reader clearly to recog- 

 nize which portions of the formulas represented generic names and 

 which portions designated classification, or whether a formula or a 

 name were present (cf. Eustrongylus) and this confusion would be 

 increased by changes in the classification. The result would be a 

 chaotic condition in Nomenclature, in which it would be impossible 

 for the average reader to orientate himself. 



If, on the other hand, the entire combination of letters and punc- 

 tuation marks adopted were accepted as the technical name, the com- 

 binations resulting from change of names depending upon change 

 of knowledge in respect to classification and distribution would be 

 such as to outweigh any possible advantage that could be gained 

 by recognizing the combinations as names, since as names they would 

 not be in this case subject to emendation. 



