6 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. J^) 



g. Opinion 53 covers a case identical with the one at issue, namely the 

 status of " Halicampus grayi Kp. British Museum," published as synonym 

 of " Halicampus conspicillatus," corresponding exactly to Dennacentor venus- 

 tus. Collection Marx, U. S. Nat. Mus., published as synonym of D. reticulatus. 

 In Opinion 53, written by Stejneger and Stiles, concurred in by 9 Commis- 

 sioners, dissented from by 2 Commissioners, Halicampus grayi 1856 was 

 recognized under Art. 25 and Opinion 4 as published and hence as available 

 and was given precedence over H. koilomatodon (about 1865). 



ID. According to the By-Laws of the Commission, an Opinion cannot be 

 reversed by less than a two-thirds vote. Opinion 53 has never before come 

 up for reversal and unless a two-thirds vote now obtains against Opinion 53, 

 D. vcnustus must be accepted as available from the date of 1897. 



11. As D. venustus Marx in Neumann, 1897, is under Opinion 53 clearly to 

 be accepted as a published and available name, and not as a nomen nudum, 

 it remains to enquire into its validity. Two possibilities present themselves, 

 namely, 



a. Is D. venustus a synonym of D. reticulatus, as assvmied by Neumann ? 

 If Neumann's view is sustained, the name D. venustus is clearly not valid 

 for D. reticulatus unless it be shown that no earlier name for this species 

 is available. But even then, as a synonym of D. reticulatus it would pre- 

 clude its {venustus) later use for any other species. 



b. Is D. venustus Marx in Neumann distinct from D. reticulatus? In 

 other words, should D. reticulatus as defined by Neumann be sub-divided ? 

 All authors now agree that it should be, and that certain American (Marx) 

 specimens of D. reticulatus (D. venustus) represent a distinct species. 



12. Under this latter premise it is necessary to determine if possible the 

 type specimen and the type locality of D. venustus Marx in Neumann. 



13. Obviously, the type locality can be only the originally published locality 

 and the type specimens can be only the originally published specimens. Fortu- 

 nately, Neumann has given definite information as to the locality, namely, the 

 United States of North America and he specifically cites two States, namely, 

 Texas and New Mexico. Fortunately, it is possible to identify the original 

 specimens also, on basis of the following data : 



14. When Neumann returned the Marx material to the U. S. National 

 Museum I borrowed the specimens. The <gxact date when these came into 

 my hands does not appear to be recorded in my notes. There were three bottles 

 which contained the name D. venustus on labels, namely, Marx No. 120, one 

 male, from New Mexico; No. 121, one male from Soldier, Idaho, host. Moun- 

 tain Goat; and No. 122, 3 males, i female, from Texas, host, OtAs aries. [See 

 below, under Stiles, 1910.] It seems obvious that Nos. 120 and 122 represent 

 the Marx material, and the only specimens of Marx's D. venustus mentioned 

 by Neumann, 1897a, hence, only these two are available as type material. 

 Later Stiles (1910, 44-46') definitely published Marx No. 122 as the type 

 specimen. This is the first (and so far as I know, the only) publication of the 

 Museum number of the type. 



15. From copies of correspondence in my files it is clear that I returned 

 Marx 122 to the U. S. National Museum accompanied by a letter dated March 

 19, 1909; and that I returned Marx 120 and 121 to the U. S. National Museum 

 accompanied by a letter dated l'\'bruary 20, 191 1. 



