NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 'J'J 65 



Quoy and Gaimard (1834a, 599) proposed Dolioluni as a name for 

 a new genus to contain D. dcnticitlatnm (snr la cote de Tile Vankiro) 

 and D. caiidatum (La Nouvelle-Holland et NouvcUe-Zeland). They 

 had full knowledge of the existence of Doliolitm Otto, 1832, as is 

 shown by their statement quoted in footnote 6 (see above, p. 44). 



The Appellants (see Statement of Case) consider that Doliolitm 

 1823 is a " wohl durch Phroiiiina ausgefressene Pyrosma," but they 

 do not state whether this opinion is based upon a re-examination of 

 the type specimen that was deposited at Breslau. 



One of the Appellants (Borgert, 1894a, 14-18) has divided Dolio- 

 luni 1834 into two subgenera, Doliolctta and Doliolina. He desig- 

 nates genotypes for neither, but includes in Dolioletta the genotype 

 of Dolioluni 1834, and thus uses a new subgeneric name for what 

 he apparently considers the t}'pical subgenus of Dolioluni 1834, 

 a subgenus for which, on his own premises, he should have used 

 Dolioluni s. str. instead of proposing the new name Dolioletta. This 

 latter point has apparently remained unnoticed by all his colleagues. 

 Bartsch has brought it to the attention of the Commission. 



On basis of the foregoing data, the Secretary recommends that 

 the Commission adopt as its Opinion the following : 



( 1 ) According to the premises presented by the Appellants, Dolio- 

 luni Otto, 1823, type mcditcmincum, is a synonym of Pyrosoma 1804. 



(2) Doliolitm Quoy and Gaimard, 1834, is a homonym of Dolio- 

 litm 1823, and as such should be rejected, unless it can be shown that 

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

 uniformity. 



(3) The presentation of the case by the Appellants is incomplete, 

 as it fails to consider Doliolctta Borgert, 1894. 



(4) The premise that a new name will have to be proposed for 

 Dolioluni 1834 is incorrect, for one of the Appellants has already 

 proposed Doliolctta for the typical subgenus of Doliolum 1834, 

 which presumably will supplant Doliolum 1834. 



(5) If the Rules were suspended in order to validate Dolioluni 

 1834, Doliolctta 1894 would fall into synonymy unless its genotype 

 (apparently undesignated at present) is shown to belong in a genus 

 or a subgenus other than that which contains Dol. denticulatum 

 1834. Accordingly, so far as data are available, Doliolum 1834 must 

 be suppressed if the Rules are applied and Dolioletta 1894 nuist be 

 suppressed if the Rules are suspended. 



(6) If Dolioluni 1834 is suppressed, Dolioletta 1894 can best be 

 taken as the name of the genus (so far as the foregoing data show) 

 and a new family name should then be based upon it. This is a 



