8 SMITHSOIsriAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 



Opinion dissented from by three (3) Commissioners: Bather, 

 Handlirsch, Jordan (K.)- 



Not voting, two (2) Commissioners: Chapman, Hartert. 



The points raised in the dissenting votes were sent to all Com- 

 missioners and a new ballot was taken with the following result : 



Concur with the original Opinion, eight (8) Commissioners : Hand- 

 lirsch, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Neveu-Lemaire, Monticelli, 

 Stiles, Stone, and Warren. 



Dissent from original Opinion, three (3) Commissioners: Apstein, 

 Bather, and Horvath. 



Not voting, six (6) Commissioners: Chapman, Dabbene, Hartert, 

 Kolbe, Loennberg, and Stejneger. 



All papers were tabled until the Budapest meeting of the Commis- 

 sion. Commissioner K. Jordan was appointed a committee of one to 

 restudy the case for the Commission. He reported as follows : 



Endamocba Lcidy. 1879 with hlattac as only species. 



Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895, with two species, hlattac and coli, 

 none being designated as genotype. 



When Casagrandi and Barbagallo proposed Entamoeba as a new genus they 

 were unaware of the existence of the name Endamocba Leidy, 1879. 



Which spelling of the name should be used? The question can be decided 

 on nomenclatorial grounds and on philological grounds : 



A. Nomenclatorial Considerations 



In 1912 Chatton separated from Entamoeba the species coli as genotype of 

 his new genus Loschia, leaving blattac as only original species in Entamoeba. 

 As nobody had dealt, nomenclatorially, with Entamoeba prior to 1912, Chat- 

 ton's action made blattac the type of Entamoeba. In 1912 the two concepts 

 stood like this : 



Endamocba Leidy, 1879, type blattac. 



Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895, type blattac. That is to say, the 

 second name falls as a synonym of Endamocba. 



B. Philological Considerations 



In zoology the prefixes Ento- and Endo- are frequently interchanged. In 

 zoological terminology they are located as being identical. They come under the 

 category of names of which the spelling in Latin varied to a slight extent and 

 which the Rules of Nomenclature do not accept as different, such as auctum- 

 naU.<! and autumnalis (p. 87 of Rules). Entamoeba is philologically the same 

 as Endamocba. ^ 



On motion and second, the foregoing report was adoi)ted liy unani- 

 mous vote of those present, namely: Apstein. Bather, Hartert, He- 

 dicke, Jordan (K.), Muesebeck, Rothschild. Stejneger. and Stiles, and 

 authorized to be jjublished. 



