NO. 3 OPINIONS 82 TO 90 21 



OPINION 87 



The Status of Proof-Sheets in Nomenclature 



Summary. — Printer's proof-sheets do not constitute publication and, there- 

 fore, have no status under the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. 



Statement of case.— Dr. Wm. H. Dall, of the U. S. National 

 Museum, presents the following case for opinion : 



Does the exhiljition, to a few friends, of a proof-sheet for correction or 

 expression of opinion, and not for publication or sale, containing a nude name, 

 constitute publication and validation of a generic name forming part of the nude 

 name? I enclose an example of such a case, which is claimed by some to 

 validate the nude name. 



Genus Megasystropha Lea 



Megasystropha Lea, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 2nd ser., vol. 8, p. 5, Jan. 1864. 



Type Planorbis ncwberryi Lea, 1858. 

 Carinifex W. G. Binney, Smithsonian Misc. Coll. No. 143, part 2, p. 74, Sept. 



1865. Type Planorbis ncwberryi Lea, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. for 1858, p. 41. 



December 9, 1863, Mr. W. G. Binney was engaged in preparing an account of 

 the land and fresh water shells of the United States for the Smithsonian, and, 

 desiring the opinion and criticism of his colleagues, he induced Professor Henry 

 to send out a set of proof-sheets (not for sale) to a limited number of persons 

 interested in the study of mollusks. In the preface to these sheets. Professor 

 Henry, while explaining their purpose, remarks : 



" As a mere proof which will undoubtedly receive many corrections, these 

 pages should not be quoted as authority or referred to as a published work." 



These proofs were in page form printed on one side of the paper and on the 

 eleventh sheet occurs the absolutely nude name " Carinifex nczvbcrryi Lea." 



There was, previously to this publication, an Ancylus newberryi Lea, 1858, a 

 Planorbis newberryi Lea, 1858, a Melania nezvberryi Lea. i860, and a Goniobasis 

 newberryi Lea, 1863, but no Carinifex nezvberryi, nor in the proof-sheets re- 

 ferred to was there any indication which of tlie above species might be intended 

 by Binney's Carinifex newberryi. 



The first publication of the genus Carinifex occurs as indicated in the preced- 

 ing synonymy in September, 1865. But Lea's name had been fully diagnosed 

 and published January or February, 1864. It would seem that under the 

 circumstances and according to the rules, Megasystropha should be accepted. 



Discussion. — The Secretary has verified the two printed refer- 

 ences in question, namely. Lea 1864, p. 5. and Binney 1865, p. 74. 



From the statement of the case it is obvious that the proof-sheets 

 stated to have been sent out December 9, 1863, were intended neither 

 as a permanent record nor as generally accessible nor as a published 

 work. Accordingly they have no status of publication under the In- 



