24 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. J}, 



112). The Secretary does not accept Laport (1832, 51) and Fabr. (1803, 112) 

 as definite type designation.) 



As I see the synonymy at present, it may be summarized as follows : 



1. Cimex Linnaeus 1758, type bidens L. selected according to Kirkaldy 

 by Fabricius 1803, but at least by Kirkaldy 1899. The genus is limited by 

 removal of Acanthia Fabricius 1775 thus taking away lectularius. Ac- 

 cepted as above by Reuter 1908. 



2. Acanthia Fabricius 1775, type littoralis L. selected by Latreille 1804 

 according to Reuter 1908. The genus was limited to exclude lectularia by 

 Latreille 1797. 



3. Clinocoris Fallen 1829 — monotype lectularia L. The genus is offered 

 as substitute for Acanthia Fabricius 1803, Fallen 1829 (not Fabricius 1775, 

 Latreille 1797). Accepted by Kirkaldy 1899, 1905, 1909; Reuter 1908; 

 Girault, 1905. 



Synonyms : 



(a) Acanthia Schellenberg, 1800; Fabricius, 1803, type by elimination lectu- 

 larius; Latreille, type by designation, 1810; Fallen monotype, 1818; Fallen 

 monotype, 1829; Douglass and Scott 1865. 



(b) Cimex Latreille, 1804, type by designation lectularius; Stiles, 1907 

 (designation) ; E. Saunders, 1892; Lethierry & Severin, 1896. 



(c) Klinophilos Kirkaldy, 1899, type by original designation lectularius. 



Discussion.— The case submitted is one more to be added to the 

 many cases of generic confusion due to the fact that so many authors 

 have been content with division of genera, but have ignored the prin- 

 ciple of genotype fixation. If authors had followed the Linnaean 

 code in this case, and had, in accordance with said code,^ adopted 

 C. lectularius as type of Cimex the confusion would have been auto- 

 matically avoided. 



The premises have been set forth by Dr. Pierce in the " Presenta- 

 tion of Case." In company with Dr. Pierce the Secretary has verified 

 the references, but his interpretation of certain of the citations differs 

 somewhat from that presented by Dr. Pierce. This case of nomen- 

 clatures has been discussed in more or less detail by a considerable 

 number of authors and their views seem to be hopelessly at variance. 

 No opinion the Commission adopts can count upon universal ap- 

 proval since so many complications, giving rise to different views, 

 come into consideration. One principle develops in the case (see 

 Clinocoris) which has never been before the Commission heretofore, 

 which seems to be an entirely new principle, and yet one which seems 

 to be clearly covered by the rules. 



In addition to the literature cited by Dr. Pierce, the Secretary has 

 consulted a number of other references which are briefly summarized 



* The particular Linnaean rule in question reads " Si genus receptum, secun- 

 dum jus naturae et artis, in plura dirimi debet, turn nomcn antea commune 

 manebit vulgatissimse et officinali plantae." 



