NO. 3 OPINIONS 82 TO 90 9 



Acanthica are of the same genus, or that though they are not, the words "the 

 same," in Article 35, mean " which has been at some time regarded, by anyone, 

 as the same" (and that is not what the article says, the article clearly con- 

 templating identity in fact) — unless it can be so argued, Gould's name is good 

 and stands, as in my considered opinion it does. 



Discussion. — Generic concepts change from generation to genera- 

 tion, from year to year, and from individual to individual. The 

 generic concept of Taenia Linn., 1758, now covers three genera which 

 are usually classified in two different orders. Article 35 does not desig- 

 nate any particular generation, decade, or individual as basis for 

 "the same genus," hence it includes "the same genus" (as, for in- 

 stance, the one known as Taenia) in the concept of any or of all 

 generations, decades, or individuals. That this is the logical inter- 

 pretation of Article 35 becomes obvious from Article 36, which in 

 citing a typical example (Taenia ovilla 1790 and 1878) states " Taenia 

 omlla, 1878, is suppressed as a homonym, and can never again be 

 used : It was stillborn and cannot be brought to life, even when the 

 species is placed in another genus (Thysanosoma)". When Taenia 

 ovilla, 1878, was suppressed, the conception of Taenia had changed 

 very radically from that which existed in 1790 ; still this case is cited 

 in the Rules as a typical example. Acanthica pyrrhopygia 1827 and 

 1848 represent a case of homonymy identical in principle with that of 

 Taenia ovilla 1790 and 1878. A. pyrrhopygia 1848 was "stillborn" 

 and cannot be brought to life under the Rules. 



Any other interpretation of the Rule of Homonyms would lead to 

 a situation surrounded with uncertainty and resulting in unnecessary- 

 changes in specific combinations. For instance — 



Assume that in 1890 Professor X considered T. ovilla 1878 as 

 generically distinct from T. ovilla 1790, but that ovilla at that date 

 ( 1890) had not been suppressed ; and that as oznlla 1878 was available 

 in the genus (Thysanosonw) which in his conception was distinct 

 from Taenia, he introduced and continued to use the specific name. 



Assume, further, that in 1 891 Professor Y considered Taenia and 

 Thysanosoma as one and the same genus and that tuider the Rules 

 he suppressed oznlla 1878 because of oznlla 1790; he would then use 

 (with his generic concept) both a generic name (Taenia) and a spe- 

 cific name (giardi) for one and the same species for which Professor 

 X (with his generic concept) would use another generic name (Thy- 

 sanosoma) and another specific name (ovilla 1878). Thus, one and 

 the same species (oznlla 18^8 = giardi 1879) would have two dififerent 

 names according to the concept of the two authors, and since oznlla 

 1878 was not suppressed in Taenia until 1891, it would still be valid 



