NO. 4 OPINIONS 91 TO 97 17 



Dr. Bartsch concurs with Dr. Dall. 



The Secretary has examined three prints of this Catalogue, one 

 of 1798, a second of 1819, and a tliird of 1906. 



If this case rested upon the edition of 1819, the Secretar}^ would 

 feel that there is distinct room for a legitimate difference of opinion 

 on the question at issue, although he would find it very difficult to 

 explain why an auctioneer's catalogue should contain detailed bihlio- 

 graphic references, the compiling of which probably cost much more 

 than the price the collection would bring at auction. 



The edition of 1798, however, bears all the earmarks of a carefully 

 prepared manuscript intended to be printed as a permanent record 

 with only incidental reference to sale. The Secretary is constrained to 

 concur with Doctors Dall and Bartsch that this (first edition, at least) 

 represents a scientific document rather than a sales catalogue, and the 

 fact that the family of the deceased author wished to sell the collection 

 seems to have its parallel in some modern zoological papers in which 

 authors ofl'er to exchange specimens (namely, to dispose of their 

 specimens for a consideration) ; the fact that the return-consideration 

 asked is specimens (with a money value.) in one case and money itself 

 in another case, appears to represent conditions identical in general 

 but differing only in detail. 



The Commission has the statement of two specialists in Conchology 

 that " Bolten's names " " are practically in miiversal use '' and that 

 " any action invalidating them would be a calamit}." On basis of this 

 expert testimony combined with the fact that no formal necessity 

 (under the Rules) appears to be present to indicate the necessity of 

 rejecting the (first edition, 1798, of this) publication, the Sec- 

 retary recommends that the Commission accept the Museum Bol- 

 tenianum, 1798, as nomenclatorially available under the International 

 Rules, 



Opinion written by Stiles. 



The foregoing Opinion was submitted to the Commission and a vote 

 was taken with the following result : 



Opinion concurred in by twelve (12) Commissioners: Apstein, 

 Bather, Dautzenberg, Horvath, Jordan, D. S., Jordan, K., Kolbe, 

 Monticclli, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles, Warren. 



Opinion dissented from l)y three (3) Coniniissioners : Ainiandale, 

 I landlirsch, Loennberg. 



Not voting, three (3) Commissioners: Dabbene, ITartert, ITcnle. 



Commissioner Annandale states : 



I feci obliijcd to dissent from tlic opinion proposed in yonr circular letter 

 No. "/i. I think it necessary to j;ive my reasons. In the first place I do not 



