6 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 



gress of Zoolog-y to suspend the Regies as applied to any given case 

 where in its judgment the strict application of the Regies will clearly 

 result in greater confusion than uniformity, Article 30 is hereby 

 suspended in the case of Mttsca Linnaeus, 1758, and Musca domestica 

 Linneau?, 1758. is hereby designated as type of Musca, without 

 prejudice to other cases. 



Opinion prepared by Stiles. 



Opinion concurred in by 13 Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, 

 HandHrsch. Horvath. Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Kolbe, 

 Loennberg, Monticelh, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles. 



Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 



Not voting, 2 Commissioners : Dautzenberg, Hartert. 



Commissioner Jordan (D. S.) states: "The Plenary Power can and should 

 be used not in clear-cut cases of priority, but when in case of early authors, 

 either side is arguable, and deviation from current nomenclature would lead to 

 confusion rather than clarity. For early writers had no conception of genotypes 

 and used the genus as a ' pigeon-hole.' We might adopt the rule that we will 

 accept current names, unless the reason for change is clear-cut and above 

 reasonable cavil." 



Commissioner Jordan (K.) states: "May I draw your attention to the fol- 

 lowing points? 



" Under ' Discussion ' it is stated that Musca has for its type vomitoria L. 

 According to the data given by you, Latreille 1810 selected voinitoria F. as 

 type, and Townsend identified this vomitoria F. with vomitoria L. That is not 

 an identification generally accepted. Fabricius consistently describes his vomi- 

 toria as having the frons ' f ulva ' ; Latreille calls the f rons ' roussatre.' Linnaeus 

 in F. Suec. expressly says that mortuorum differs from vomitoria .... frons 

 inter oculos, una cum antennis et ore, albo aurata sit ceu membrana, quod in 

 sequenti ( = vomitoria) non obtinet. 



" Anyhow, European specialists past and present maintain that I'omitoria of 

 Fabricius is not vomitoria L. To me it seems at best doubtful which actual 

 species Latreille meant. 



" On the other hand, Macquart was quite definite in making domestica the 

 type of Musca. In these circumstances a suspension of the rules appears to me 

 a wrong move. It is inopportune to suspend the rules in face of the fact that 

 we have definite facts, statements by Robineau with regard to Calliphora and 

 by Macquart with regard to Musca and Lucilia, while Latreille's action is 

 indefinite, because it leaves us in doubt about the actual species selected. 



" Under No. 10 of the statement of the case it is said that ' This in accordance 

 with Opinion No. 11 of the Intern. Commission is type.' This statement is 

 liable to mislead those Commissioners who are unaware that vomitoria F. and 

 vomitoria L. are not clearly the same insects. The attention of the Com- 

 missioners .should have been drawn to this divergence of opinion among 

 Dipterists, i. e., the data given by Townsend do not represent the entire case. 



" The case of Musca has been submitted to the Entomological Committee on 

 Nomenclature and a few prominent Dipterists. The Committee expresses the 

 opinion that 



