NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 59 



especially in view of the numerous instances in which the nomencla- 

 ture of the author is consistent. 



Poche (1912a, 411-412) replying to Ihle (1911a) points out that 

 Hawkesworth uses many Linnsean names consistently, and Poche 

 insists upon the validity of Dagysa 1773. 



Ihle (1912a, 27) accepts Salpa, without mentioning type species, 

 and adopting as earlier generic synonyms: Dagysa 1773 (which he 

 marks as " non. bin."), and HolotJiurium 1774, and he gives D. 

 notata (part) as synonym of 6\ vagina. Schulze (1912a, 27) adds 

 in a footnote: 



Linne hatte in der 10. Auflage seiner Systcma naturae im Jahre 1758 in 

 seiner Gattung 4 Arten anfgefiihrt. Die erste Art. H. physalis, die jetzt unter 

 dem Namen Pliysalia bekannt ist, muss als erste angefiihrte Species den Gatt- 

 ungsnamen Holothuria behalten, der vor Physalis die Prioritat hat. Fiir die 

 iibrigen 3 Arten [Thalia 1756] des Linneschen Genus, unter denen sicli sicher 

 als Salpen erkennbare Tiere befinden muss ein neuer Gattungsname gewiihlt 

 werden und da bietet sich als Name des nachsten in Betracht kommenden 

 Beschreibers Forskal der Name Salpa. — Der Herausgeber [Schulze] im Ein- 

 verstandnis mit dem Autor. 



[On p. 17, however, Ihle gives these three species as doubtful synonyms of 

 Cyclosalpa pinnata.] 



Schulze (1912a, 27) considers that Tlialia Browne should be 

 classified as Salpa. while Ihle (1912a, 15) places Tlialia as a doubt- 

 ful synonym of Cyclosalpa. 



Apstein ( 1915a, 186) cites maxima as type of Salpa. 



In connection with this case the point might well be mentioned 

 that while Gmelin (1790a, 3129-3130) cites the original 11 species 

 of Salpa under the generic name Salpa, Bruguiere ( 1792a [or 1789, 

 teste Sherborn 1902a, 128], x, 178-183) cites 9 of them under the 

 generic name Biphora^^ and one of these is maxima (type of Salpa, 

 teste Apstein). Ihle (1912a, 27) gives Biphora as synonym of Salpa. 

 Whether Biphora complicates the question of Salpa or not, is not 

 evident from the premises submitted. 



The petitioners ask that Salpa be protected, and from the refer- 

 ences they give they apparently have in mind a protection from 

 Dagysa 1773. 



On basis of the premises submitted, supi^lemented by the details 

 given in the foregoing, the Secretary draws the following conclu- 

 sions : 



(i) Dagysa lyjZ is civailable from its publication in 1773. 



(2) The case is j^resented with evidence that is not complete 

 enough to permit more than a tentative opinion ; 



