NO. 2 OPINIONS 78 TO 81 5 



1908m. — The common tick (Dermacentor andersoni) of the Bit- 

 ter Root valley < Pub. Health Rep., U. S. Pub. Health 

 & Mar.-Hosp. Serv., Wash., v. 23 (27), p. 949. 



1908. — Copy of letter, Stiles to Banks, June 10. 



1909. — Copy of letter, Stiles to Banks, Mar. 19. 



1909. — Copy of letter. Stiles to Banks, Oct. 23. 



1910. —The taxonomic value of the microscopic structure of 



the stigmal plates in the tick genus Dermacentor 

 < Bull. 62, Hyg. Lab. 



191 1. — Letter, Stiles to Banks, Feb. 20. 



2. The first actual publication of the name Dermacentor venustus occurs in 

 Neumann (18973, 365) who examined specimens of ticks from the Marx col- 

 lection, and determined them as Dermacentor reticidatus. His original reads 

 as follows : 



" D'Amerique, j'en ai 2 femelles originaires du Mont Diablo, en Cali- 

 fornie (Coll. de I'Acad. des sciences de Californie). La Collection du 

 Depart, of Agriculture de Washington et celle de la Smithsonian Insti- 

 tution en contiennent plusieurs males et femelles recueillis aussi en Cali- 

 fornie, sur le Daim, et etiquetes par G. Marx D. occidentalis. D'autres 

 proviennent du Texas et du Nouveau-Mexique et sont etiquetes D. venustus. 

 Je rapporte aussi a la meme espece 9 males et i fem.elle, jeunes, a patine 

 blanche encore peu marquee, a coloration generale brun fonce, provenant 

 de Las Paz (?) et appartenant au Museum de Berlin." 



3. Accordingly, D. venttstus was first published as a synonym of D. rcticu- 

 latus and the original publication clearly cites Texas [Marx 122] and New 

 Mexico [Marx 120] as the first published, hence type localities, unless it can 

 be shown that Marx designated some other specimens from some other 

 locality as type specimens. 



4. The first point which arises is whether or not the manuscript or label 

 name D. venustus received nomenclatorial status in this publication by Neu- 

 mann. The answer to this question is found in three opinions already issued 

 by the Commission, namely, Opinions Nos. i, 4, and 53. 



5. Status of a Manuscript Name published in Synonymy. — Article 25 of the 

 Code reads : 



" The valid name of a genus or species can be only that name under 

 which it was first designated,,,on the condition : 



(a) That this name was published and accompanied by an indica- 

 tion, or a definition, or a description ; and 



(b) That the author has applied the principles of binary nomen- 

 clature." 



6. As Neumann (1897a) is both binary and binomial, the decision reverts 

 to "(a)." This point has been discussed in several opinions, thus: 



7. Opinion i states : " The word indication in Art. 25a is to be construed 

 as follows: (A) with regard to specific names, an indication is (i) a biblio- 

 graphic reference, or (2) a published figure (illustration), or (3) a definite 

 citation of an earlier name for which a new name is proposed." 



8. Opinion 4 states : " Manuscript names acquire standing in nomenclature 

 when printed in connection with the provisions of Art. 25, and the question 

 as to their validity is not influenced by the fact whether such names are 

 accepted or rejected by the author responsible for their publication." 



