6o SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 



(3) Assuming (a) that the case of Salpa lyjS is not complicated 

 by Biphora 1792 [or 1789], and (b) that Dagysa notata 1790 is 

 congeneric with S. maxima, and (c) that maximu is the correct geno- 

 type of Salpa, the case of Dagysa 177 Z vs, Salpa 1775 appears to be 

 a very simple case of the priority of Dagysa 177Z over Salpa 1775, 

 but 



(4) No transfer of name from one group to another appears to 

 be necessary, and 



(5) No evidence is presented involving names of larval forms; 



(6) Accordingly, no special complications appear to be present 

 such as exist in the case of Holothuria. 



(7) The evidence is therefore still lacking that the strict application 

 of the Rules in this case would result in greater confusion than uni- 

 formity. 



In view of the foregoing data the Secretary recommends that 

 the Commission adopt as its Opinion the following : 



(i) If Dagysa 177Z, type notata, is a synonym of Salpa \77%, 

 the Law of Priority should be applied, unless it can be shown that 

 a strict application of the Rules will result in greater confusion than 

 uniformity. 



(2) The evidence is apparently contradictory and incomplete. 



(3) See also recommendation to table, page 69. 

 Opinion written by Stiles. 



Opinion concurred in by 10 Commissioners: Allen, Bather (part), 

 Blanchard, Hartert, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), MonticelH, Skin- 

 ner, Stejneger, Stiles. 



Opinion dissented from (in part) by i Commissioner: Bather. 



Opinion dissented from by 4 Commissioners, who vote to retain 

 Salpa under Suspension of Rules : Apstein, Handlirsch, Hoyle, Kolbe. 



Bather : I do not quite concur in Clause i of the Opinion drafted 

 by the Secretary. 



Dagysa 1773 is a generic name without a specific name. It was 

 not till 1790 that any species included in Dagysa received a name 

 that could be quoted as that of the genotype. There are zoologists 

 who, on this ground alone would hold Dagysa to be preoccupied by 

 Salpa Forskal 1775 (assuming their identity). 



But the identity of Salpa (with genotype vS'. maxima) and Dagysa 

 (with genotype D. notata) is not admitted by all the Appellants ; and 

 the doubt is due to the insufficient description of Dagysa. 



It must also be conceded that, even if the publication by Hawkes- 

 worth can be brought within the rules, it was not in very good form 



