32 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. "J^i 



No protest from any source has been received against the action 

 suggested. 



Commissioner Jordan and the Secretary join in recommending that 

 under Suspension of the Rules the Commission definitely reject the 

 papers named from consideration as respects their systematic names, 

 as of their respective dates, under the Law of Priority. 



The effect of the foregoing proposition is to reject as unavailable 

 (as of the dates in question) 'all systematic (chiefly generic) names 

 published as new in the foregoing works, but to leave them as avail- 

 able as of the dates when they were later adopted by authors whose 

 nomenclatorial practice is unquestioned by zoologists. Thus, a modus 

 operandi is suggested to solve in a practical way the impasse which 

 has existed for about 20 years in the views respecting the use of the 

 words " binary " and " binomial ". While neither side concedes 

 the principle it supports, both sides unite on another principle, namely, 

 that the important end in view is to obtain, not to delay, results, and 

 that the " plenary power," used judiciously and discreetly, offers us 

 a practical method to solve the problems upon which there is such 

 conscientious difference of opinion as to interpretation that consensus 

 of opinion seems hopeless. 



Opinion prepared by Stiles and Jordan, 



Opinion concurred in by 15 Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, 

 Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), 

 Kolbe, Loennberg, Monticelli, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles, Warren. 



Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 



Not voting, two (three ?) Commissioners : Dabbene, Dautzenberg. 

 and ? Hartert. 



Commissioner Bather concurred with the following reservations — " That the 

 Opinion read as follows : 



" Under suspension of the rules in any case where such suspension may be 

 considered necessary according to the interpretation now or hereafter adopted 

 by the Commission, the following works or papers are declared eliminated, etc., 

 etc. 



" I understand from Dr. E. Hartert (letter 20 Feb., 1924) that he and 

 Dr. K. Jordan both agree to the above." 



Commissioner Hartert states that he concurs " with the reservation that 

 Opinion 20 must afterwards be revoked ! " 



Commissioner K. Jordan states that he concurs " with the proviso that the 

 present vote is not taken as prejudicing a possible future vote on the reversal of 

 Opinion 20." 



Commissioner Stejneger concurs "with the express proviso that the rejection 

 of Catesby 1771 does not involve the concordance of the Editor of this edition, 

 in which the equivalent Linnaean names are given. This concordance is ap- 

 pended to the second volume and has the following title : 



