NO. 4 OPINIONS 91 TO 97 29 



To admit the Iliibneriaii (1806) combination " Ahrcis Polymn'ia" 

 as available, as of 1806, as a generic plus specific name, means to admit 

 107 [or at least 102] combinations of essentially like status, and 

 potentially to serve notice on zoologists in groups other than Lcpidop- 

 ftra that they must familiarize themselves with the literature of 

 Lcpidoptcra in case any one of these debatably generic names com- 

 petes for priority with names in their own groups. Is this reasonable? 



The Secretary is assured by specialists in Lepidoptera that there is 

 no difficulty in tracing these Hiibnerian names. Commissioner Jor- 

 dan's report, however, cites 17 specific names which, however clear to 

 specialists in Lcpidoptcra, would present some difficulty to specialists 

 in other groups. 



On basis of the assurances given by specialists in Lcpidoptcra, the 

 Secretary is not prepared to dispute their claim, but he reverts to 

 the point that the document was intended only for specialists in Lcpi- 

 doptcra (not for the zoological profession), and it can be only through 

 special or esoteric information that the Hiibnerian (1806) names 

 can be interpreted as monotypic genera each based upon a definitely 

 recognizably pirblished species; in other words, to zoologists of 

 other groups these names, as of i8o(S, are jwiiiina niida. 



The data in this case were submitted to the Commission in Secre- 

 tary's C. L. No. 63, with request for suggestions and an informal 

 vote. The vote stood : for acceptance, 2 Commissioners ; for rejection. 

 9 Commissioners. 



Additional data were sul)mitted in Secretary's C. L. No. 97, with 

 request for formal vote. The formal vote stands : 9 for rejection, i 

 for acceptance. 



The final draft of the Opinion is sulimitted herewith for approval 

 to the Commissioners in Secretary's C. L. No. 100, with recommenda- 

 tion that the Commission adopt as Opinion the following : 



Summary. — Hubner's Tentamen, 1806, was obviously prepared, 

 essentially as a manifolded manuscript, or as a proof sheet (Cf. 

 Opinion 87), for examination and opinion Ijy a restricted group of 

 experts, i. c, in Lcpidoptcra, and not for general distribution as a 

 record in zoology. Accordingly, the conclusion that it was published 

 in 1806 is subject to debate. Even if the premise be admitted that 

 it was ]>ublished in 1806, the point is debatable whether the contained 

 binomials should Ije construed as generic ])lus sjiecific names. J'A'en 

 if it be admitted that the binomials represent coml)inations of generic 

 plus specific names they are essentially noiiiiiia nuda (as of the date in 

 question) since authors who do not possess esoteric information in 

 regard to them are unable definitely to inter])ret them without refer- 



