NO. 4 OPINIONS 91 TO 97 



OPINION 93 



Twelve Generic Names of Fishes Placed in the Official 

 List, by Suspension of tite Rules 



Summary. — The following 12 generic names of fishes are herewith placed 

 in the Official List of Generic Names, under the Plenary Power for Suspen- 

 sion of the Rules: Conger Cuv., 1817 (Muraciia conger L.) ; Corcgouus Linn., 

 1758 (Saluio lavarctus L.) ; Elcotris Bloch & Schneider, 1801 {gyrbins Cuv. 

 & Val.) ; Epincphclus Bloch, 1792 {marginalis Bloch) ; Gymnothorax Bloch, 

 1795 (reticularis Blocli) ; Malapterurus Lacepede, 1803 {Silunis clcctricus 

 L.) ; Mustclus Linck, 1790 (Sqiialiis miistclus L. [^= Mustchis lacvis]) ; 

 Polyncmiis Linn., 1758 (paradisacus L.) ; Sciacna Linn., 1758 (umbra L. =: 

 Chcilodiptcrus aquila Lacep. as restr. by Cuvier, 1815) ; Scrramis Cuv. (Perca 

 cabrilla L.) ; Stolephorns Lacep., 1803 (co)iiincrsotiianus Lacep.) ; Tcnthis 

 Linn., 1766 (jazits L.). 



Names now current are not to be discarded unless tlie reasons for change 

 show a clear-cut necessity. 



Statement and discussion of case.^ — The following cases are 

 submitted and discussed by Commissioner David Starr Jordan. The 

 U. S. Bureau of Fisheries (signattu-e H. F. Moore, Acting Commis- 

 sioner) concurs in the recommendations regarding them. 



It seems to me that a legitimate use oi the plenary power will be to 

 cast it on the side of names now current unless the reason for change 

 is a clear-cut necessity, priority of actual date for example. But in 

 cases where a reasonable argument on both sides exists, it seems 

 better tO' give current nomenclature the preference. 



The earlier writers had no conception of genotype, regarding a 

 genus merely as a convenient pigeon-hole in which to stow species, to 

 be more or less arbitrarily divided when the receptacle became too full 

 or its contents too obviously incongruous. In applying the rule of the 

 first reviser, we find many difficulties as every taxonomist knows. 

 Often a name has been dislocated by application to a species unknown 

 to the original author. Often a wiser or more characteristic choice 

 could have been made ; still more often a writer mentions a given 

 species not as a type, but rather as an illustration. And it is a rare 

 case where a designated type among the early authors can be " rigidly 

 construed " as indicated in accepted rules. 



I now ask the Commission to consider stabilizing current nomen- 

 clature in a number of genera of fishes, in which the pertinence of 

 current nomenclature has been questioned, for reasons more or less 

 plausiljle, but in no case beyond question. 



