NO. 3 OPINIONS 82 TO 90 5 



that all of his colleagues, including Lundheck, agree), Aldrich (West 

 Lafayette), Cockerell (Boulder). 



Opposed to suspension: Professors Bezzi (Torino) ; W. L. ]\Ic- 

 Atee. J. R. Mallock, Remington Kellogg (U. S. Biological Survey) ; 

 and Silvestri (Portici). 



Letters from England indicate that English entomologists con- 

 sider that Lamarck in 1801 determined Mnsca domestica as type of 

 Miisca. This view however is not in accordance with Opinion 79 

 (C. L. 50). 



A very extensive correspondence on the foregoing proposition has 

 reached the Secretary. From a strict standpoint of classification the 

 evidence available in respect to the possible identity of Proinusca 

 1915, type M. domestica, Conostoma 1801, type Ascaris conostoma — 

 larva of fill, domestica and Conosomu 1802. type Ascaris couosoma — 

 larva of ?M. domestica, tends to eliminate Conostoma and Conosoma 

 from consideration, thus apparently resulting in the adoption of 

 Promusca for .1/. domestica unless the rules are suspended under the 

 Plenary Power authorization. And for the purpose of recommenda- 

 tion to the Commission, the Secretary adopts as his premise, based on 

 the evidence before him, the frank statement by the appellants (en- 

 tomologists) that under the rules, Miisca has for its type M. vomitoria 

 Linn, [cf . Latreille's " Mitsca vomitoria F."] and that Townsend 

 acted in accordance with the rules when he proposed a new generic 

 name for .1/. domestica. In making recommendation on this case to 

 the Commission, the Secretary is influenced by his professional ex- 

 perience not only as a zoologist familiar with zoological and medical 

 literature, but also as a public health officer, who has been very inti- 

 mately identified with the legal aspects of applied zoology and with 

 the campaigns looking toward the control of the fly nuisance through 

 the cooperation of the laity. In the opinion of the Secretary a strict 

 application of the Rules of Nomenclature in the case of M. domestica 

 would result in confusion not only in the literature of Systematic 

 Entomology but also in the literature of Applied Entomology, Gen- 

 eral Zoology, Public Health, Sanitation, and Law, and it would be 

 probably a half century, if not longer, before the literature of these 

 various phases of the subject could be harmonized in compliance with 

 the present Rules of Nomenclature. The Secretary is persuaded that 

 the Zoological profession could not justify itself in insisting upon a 

 strict application of the rules in this particular case and that a strict 

 application would produce greater confusion than uniformity. Ac- 

 cordingly, the Secretary recommends that: I'y authority of the 

 power conferred on the Commission by the Qth International Con- 



