56 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 



has continued in Holothiiria even after this name was definitely 

 transferred to the Echinoderms. 



From the standjwint of the British Association Code of 1846, 

 which took LinncTus (1767a) 12th edition as starting point of nomen- 

 clature, the present general use of Holothuria for the Sea Cucumbers, 

 instead of for the Portuguese Man of War, is therefore justified, 

 although, as shown above, the name Holothuria should, on basis 

 of the American, French, German, and International Rules, which 

 take the loth (1758a) instead of the 12th (1767a) edition of Lin- 

 naeus as starting point, be used for the Portuguese Man of War. 



Doubtless the papers by Gill (1907a) and Poche (1907a and 1912a) 

 in discussing this case have caused more dissatisfaction with the 

 Law of Priority than has any other single case of nomenclature that 

 has ever arisen. And this case of Holothuria was one of those 

 which the Commission had particularly in mind when we worded, 

 in the way we did, the Resolutions presented to the International 

 Congress and adopted by the Congress, conferring upon the Com- 

 mission Plenary Power [§113] "to suspend the, Rules as applied to 

 any given case, where in its judgment the strict application of the 

 Rules will result in greater confusion than uniformity " and [§115] 

 " the foregoing authority refers in the first instance and especially 

 to ... . the transference of names from one genus to another." 



Holothuria is, in fact, the best example known to the Secretary in 

 the entire field of nomenclature that comes into consideration in 

 connection with the Plenary Power cited. If suspension of the 

 Rules is not justified in this case, it is doubtful whether it is justified 

 in any case. The name presents, therefore, a test case of the Plenary 

 Power. 



Unfortunately, the petitioners have presented their case of Cyclo- 

 salpa in such a way that the Commission can not act upon the case of 

 Holothuria 1758 vs. Physalia 1801 and Holothuria of authors vs. 

 Bohadschia 1833, at the present time, and it becomes necessary to 

 notify the zoological profession that these two cases will come up 

 for consideration under the Plenary Power authority. The Secre- 

 tary has taken action in this direction. He was scarcely in a position 

 to take this action earlier, on account of the fact that the petitioners' 

 case of Cyclosalpa 1827 vs. Holothuria of Poche 1912 had not 

 reached a stage in its procedure that justified further public notice. 



On basis of the premises presented by the petitioners, and the 

 supplementary data submitted in the foregoing discussion, the Secre- 

 tary recommends that the Commission adopt as its Opinion the 

 following : 



