NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 'jy 51 



Under ordinary circumstances the nomenclatorial decision might 

 well be based upon this original publication alone, without addi- 

 tional historical review, but on account of the complications that 

 have arisen, it seems wise to follow the literature further. 



Linnaeus (1767a, 1089-1091) included in Holothiiria the four 

 (1758a) species of the two original groups (A, Holothiiria 1741, and 

 B, Thalia 1756) and added five other species that are recognized 

 by authors as belonging to two other categories, namely. 



Group C, Sea Cucumbers [cf. Fistularia Forskal, 1775, preoccupied by Fis- 

 tularia 1758a, a fish] [cf. also Bohadschia Jaeger, 1833]. 



1. H. frondosa Gunnerus, 1767, 115, [cf. CucuDiaria;] 



2. H. phantapus Linn., 1767a, 1089, [cf. P solus;] 



3. H. tremula Gunnerus, 1767, 119, [cf. Holothiiria authors;] 



8. H. pentactes Linn., 1767a, 1091, [cf. Cucumaria.] 



Group D, Vermes, Gephyrca. [Cf. Priapulus Lamarck, i8i6b, 76-77, mt. 

 caudatHS=^ priapus 1767 renamed.] 



9. H. priapiis Linn., 1767a, 1091. 



Here is found the origin of the present day confusion. Many 

 authors have taken the 12th edition of Linnoeus (1767a) as the start- 

 ing point of their nomenclature, and, in fact, the British Association 

 (1846) Code of Nomenclature adopts this date as basic. Other 

 authors have taken the loth edition of Linnaeus (1758a) as starting 

 point, as provided for in the A. A. A. S., the A. O. U., the French, 

 the German, and the International Rules. Accordingly, there was a 

 period during which different authors might follow rules in good 

 faith and still arrive at different nomenclatorial results. Hence, to 

 understand the case, we must follow three (A-C) of the groups, 

 A-D, still further. 



This case may, in fact, be taken as a typical example of a number 

 of complicated nomenclatorial problems that confront us, and it 

 would be well to hold the cause in mind in reaching a conclusion. 



Group A, the Portuguese Man of War. Holothuria 1741 = Arethusa 

 1756= Physalis = Aretusa i789=:Physalia 1801. 



Holothuria physalis has been taken as basis of Holothuria by the 

 following authors : 



Blumenbach (1791a, 428 and 1799a, 421) adopts Holothuria m 

 its original (1741) sense, mentioning only one species, H. physalis. 

 For his use of Thalia see below, p. 52. 



Gill (1907a, Aug. 9, 185-186) definitely designates H. physalis as 

 genotype of Holothuria 1758, as shown by the Commission (1910, 

 p. 34) in Opinion No. 16. 



