NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO yy 63 



[namely Ap. fiagelhim] was, up to 1872, one of the three species of 

 Oikopleura [namely Appendiadaria 1820] recognizably described, 

 and they request that the Rules be suspended in order to validate 

 Appcndicnlaria Fol, 1874a, which otherwise would have to be re- 

 named, and, they add, " Der Name der Ordnung Appendiciilaridse 

 wiirde verschwinden." 



Appendicularia Fol, 1874a, and Fritillaria Fol, 1872a,"' may be 

 taken as samples of several cases of nomenclature that have come to 

 the attention of the Secretary, and in considering them it will be well 

 to hold in mind that they by no means represent isolated or unique 

 cases. In fact, the decision on these two cases will constitute a prece- 

 dent upon basis of which a number of cases may depend. 



It seems clear that this represents a case in which, if the Rules 

 are enforced, a generic name used by some authors for one group 

 {Appendicularia Fol, 1874, type sicula) will be transferred back 

 to another group {Appendicularia Cham, and Eysenh., type Hagellmn) 

 mentioned under this same name in standard text-books as late as 

 Claus (1885a) and Leunis (1886a), and this action would suppress 

 the name Oikopleura 183 1 (which is an absolute synonym of Ap- 

 pendicularia 1820) ; but the premise of the petitioners, that the 

 family [not ordinal] name Appendicidari{\\dsB would disappear, 

 is not clear. From the standpoint that the Rules would require a 

 transfer of the generic name from one genus to another, the Appel- 

 lants seem to have a stronger case than they appear to have recog- 

 nized, but it would seem that they have presented only part of the 

 facts, and that they are in error as to the required change of Ap- 

 pendiculari [ i] dse. 



Again, what will be the effect of admitting to special privilege 

 a case like this, in which an author claims the right to use in any 

 way he wishes a name which is obscure to him (Fol), but which an- 

 other author (Mertens) claims to have identified correctly with a 

 given animal collected in the original type locality, especially when 

 the name in question belongs to a group which even its leading 

 authors of modern times have not yet brought to the nomenclatorial 

 status of a genotype basis? 



The case of Appendicula 191 5 vs. Appendicularia 1874 (pre- 

 occupied) is a very simple case of the application of the law of Pri- 

 ority to one and the same genus, and would not produce much con- 

 fusion. But the Appellants have presented their case so incomplctelv 

 that it is not clear to the Secretary whether it would be wiser to sup- 

 plant Oikopleura 1831 by Appendiadaria 1820 or to suppress Ap- 

 pendicularia entirely. In view of the danger involved in validating 

 5 



