NO. 5 OPINIONS 98 TO 104 7 



The case has ah-eady i)roduce(l considerable confusion in hterature 

 and it seems obvious that unless the name Entamoeba is definitely 

 suppressed both the nomenclatorial and the taxonomic status of the 

 species which come into consideration will become even more con- 

 fused. 



Accordingly, 



(a) since the original authors did not give the derivation of the two 

 names in question, 



(b) since C'hatton (1910. Ann. Zool. exp. gen., 282, and 191 2, Bull. 

 Soc. zool. France, p. 115) interpreted the two names as orthographic 

 variants, hence identical in origin, and therefore homonyms, 



(c) since Chatton's action appears to be the earliest interpretation 

 available to the Secretary and therefore has priority, 



(d) since (under Opinion 6) Chatton's paper (1912, Bull. Soc. 

 zool. France, p. 113) is to be interpreted as designating blattae as type 

 of " Entanwcha" 1897 ( = 1895), [emendation of Endamoeha, but 

 obviously construed as identical with Entamoeba^, 



(e) since the concurrent use of the two generic names as closely 

 allied separate units has already given rise to a confusion which prom- 

 ises to increase rather than to decrease, 



(f) since zoologists are accustomed to use words of similar deri- 

 vation as respects the c^id and ent interchangeably, and 



(g) since, conceivably. Entamoeba and Endamoeba might have 

 been derived from Iv and d/xoifty with d and t for sake of euphony, 

 or still more probably, and more scholastically, derived from eVSov 

 or ei'To? and a/xot/Syj, the one or the other adverb being used as seemed 

 the better at the moment, whether for euphony's sake or for other 

 reason (that they have the same meaning, etc.) and since they are 

 therefore of the same meaning and practically, though not academic- 

 ally, of the same ultimate derivation iy (+ ios or -|- dom) and afioi/3T], 

 the Secretary recommends that the name Entamoeba 1895, either with 

 type Iwiiiiu{s = coIi as definitely designated by Brumpt, 1913. p. 21. 

 or with blattae as accepted by Chatton and Lalung (1912, in) and 

 as implied by Chatton (1910, 282), be definitely invalidated by Enda- 

 moeba Leidy, 1879a, p. 300, type blattae, irrespective of the point 

 whether the type of Entamoeba be considered blattae or coll. 



The foregoing ()])inion was submitted to vote by mail and carried 

 as follows : 



Opinion concurred in by twelve {i2) Commissioners: Apstein, 

 Horvath, Jordan (D. S.), Kolbe, Foennberg, Monticelli, Neveu- 

 Femaire, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles. Stone, Warren. 



