l6 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 



OPINION 102 



ProteocepJiala Blainville, 1828, vs. ProteoccpJialus 

 Weinland, 1858 



SUMMARY. — A generic name (example Frotcoccphalits, 1858) is not invali- 

 dated by the earlier publication of the identical or a similar name of higher 

 rank (example ProteocepJiala, 1828). If Taenia ambigua (tod. of Froteo- 

 cephalus, 1858) is congeneric with occUata (tsd. of Ichthyotacnia, 1894), Ichthyo- 

 tacnia is a subjective synonym of Proteoccphalus. 



Satement of case. — Prof. George R. LaRue of the University of 

 Michigan has presented the following case for opinion : 



1 wish to submit for a ruling the question of the availability of the generic 

 name Protcocephalus Weinland, 1858. The facts are substantially these: 



Weinland (1858a, p. 53) proposed the generic name Proteocephalus, desig- 

 nating Taenia ambigua Dujardin as type and assigning Taenia UlicoUis and 

 T. dispar to the genus. 



It so happens that Blainville (1828, p. 552) had already used the name 

 Proteocephala for a family of Cestodaria with the single genus Caryophyl- 

 laeus. The question now arises whether Proteocephalus Weinland, 1858, is 

 invalidated by the prior use of Proteocephala Blainville, 1828, as the designa- 

 tion of a family. As I see it the question resolves itself into two parts, namely, 

 whether two words differing only in termination ("us" and "a") are to be 

 considered as homonyms, and whether the use of a name to designate a family 

 bars the subsequent use of that name to designate a genus. 



The first question seems to have been answered in the first recommendation 

 following Art. 36 of the International Code, see Bulletin No. 24, Hygienic 

 Laboratory, Wash., p. 47. 



The second question does not seem to be covered by the Code as published 

 in 1905. Art. 34 which governs the rejection of a generic name which has 

 previously been used to designate another genus obviously does not apply and 

 no recommendation appears to have been made by the Commission to cover 

 cases similar to the one in question. 



The argument against the use of the name Proteocephalus Weinland, 1858, 

 has been stated by Luehe (1899, Zool. Anz., v. 22: 525-526). Since he has been 

 followed in his use of the name Ichthyotacnia . by Rudin (1916), Meggitt 

 (1914), Wagner (1917), M. Plehn (1924), it has seemed well to quote Luehe's 

 argument : 



" Railliet (1899, Sur la classification des Teniades. In: Centrhl. f. Bact. u. 

 Paraskde. Bd. 26, p. 33 f ) hat inzwischen den Namen Ichthyotacnia Lonnb., 

 1894, als synonym eingezogen zu Proteocephalus Weinl., 1858. Dass letzterer 

 Name an sich seines grosseren Alters wegen prioritatsberechtigt ware, ist 

 zuzugeben und war auch mir bekannt. Gleichwohl sehe ich keine Veranlassung 

 ihn zu Ungunsten des bisher allgemein iiblichen Gattungsnamens Ichthyotacnia 

 auszugraben. Schon 1828 namlich hat Blainville (Diet. Sci. nat., T. 57, p. 552) 

 den Namen Proteocephala gebraucht fiir eine Cestodenfamilie (einzige Gat- 

 tung Caryophyllaeus) . Wenn nun auch dieser Name, weil den heute geltenden 



