MO. I OPINIONS 68 TO ']'/ 41 



III addition, these names were included in Circular Letter no. 2, 

 Series 191 5, mailed March 191 5 to approximately 350 zoologists 

 and zoological institutions of various kinds. 



As a result of publication and Circular Letter no. 2, seven persons 

 returned the list with no action taken, hence these persons come under 

 the paragraph which reads : "In case you fail to mark any name one 

 way or the other, I will interpret this as meaning that you have no 

 opinion either for or against the name in question." 



Twenty-eight persons took action on various names ; some on all 

 of the names, others only on names with which they were best ac- 

 quainted. Twent}'-seven persons raised no objection to any of the" 

 names and made no comment of any objective importance, except 

 that, at the request of the Secretary, Commissioner Apstein, who 

 originally submitted the list, added the species he considered should 

 be accepted as type species for each of the six genera in question. 

 One reply was received discussing the cases in detail and objecting 

 to a suspension of the Rules as unnecessary. 



The data collected were summarized in Circular Letter no. 1 1 ^ 

 and transmitted to the Commission. 



^The following is a portion of Circular Letter no. 11: 



As this is the first case that comes to the Commission for action under the 

 Plenary Power, it seems wise tliat the papers in the case be laid before the 

 Commission for discussion before the Secretary prepares a formal Opinion for 

 vote. 



In accordance with this thought the Secretary has the honor to invite your 

 attention to the Seventh List of Generic Names, to Circular Letter no. 2, and 

 to the foregoing replies to said letter. 



If you will give me your views as to the general direction that the formal 

 Opinion should take, I will collate all of the views expressed, and report to you 

 upon them. This plan will naturally result in some delay, but the case is one 

 of such importance, because it makes a precedent, that I cannot escape the 

 feeling that the Secretary should receive from all of the Commissioners their 

 preliminary views before he attempts to frame an Opinion. 



In connection with your views kindly give consideration to the following 

 points : 



1. The names in question have been submitted favorably and unanimously 

 by 12 specialists in the group involved ; 



2. All of the provisions prescribed by the Congress in reference to the 

 suspension of the Rules have been complied with ; 



3. No objection to any of the said names has been raised — 



a. By any specialist in the group in question, 



b. By any specialist [except Bartsch] in any other group, 



c. By any general zoologist. 



4. Is it your "Opinion" that a suspension of the Rules in these six cases 

 is based upon a question of convenience, or that the application of the Rules 

 in these cases would "clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity"? 



