l8 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 



Discussion. — Professor LaRue's premises raise two distinct 

 points. The first of formal nomenclature, the second a question of 

 nomenclature dependent to some extent upon subjective conceptions 

 of synonymy. 



ProtcocepJuiIus Weinl., 1858a, 53. tod. Taenia ambigua versus the 

 dead family name Proteocephala Blainville, 1828a, v. 57, 552. — Art. 

 34 of the International Code is unambiguous. It reads as follows : 

 " A generic name is to be rejected as a homonym when it has previ- 

 ously been used for some other genus of animals. Example: Trichina 

 Owen, 1835, nematode, is rejected as homonym of Trichina Meigen, 

 1830, insect." 



There is nothing in Art. 34 which provides that a generic name 

 becomes a homonym if the identical name has previously been used 

 for a systematic unit of some other rank (for instance, species, family, 

 order, etc.). On the contrary Art. 33 definitely states that: "A 

 name is not to be rejected because of tautonymy, that is, because the 

 specific or the specific and subspecific names are identical with the 

 generic name. Examples : Trutta trutta, Apus apus apus." 



The fact that Proteocephala is a dead family name because it is not 

 formed in accordance with Art. 4 (ending idae) has no bearing upon 

 the present case, which opens up the very broad question whether 

 generic names are to be invalidated as homonyms because of the prior 

 publication of an identical name for a supergeneric group. If this 

 kind of homonymy were to be admitted, numerous cases would arise 

 for adjudication. The history of nomenclature clearly shows that the 

 rule of homonyms is applicable only as applied to systematic units 

 of identical rank except in so far as the contrary might be implied 

 from the custom of some authors to consider tautonyms as homonyms. 

 As pointed out above, however, Art. 33 distinctly provides that tau- 

 tonyms are not homonyms. 



The answer to Professor LaRue's first question is, therefore, that 

 Proteocephala, 1828, has no nomenclatorial bearing on Proteocephalns. 

 1858. 



Proteocephalns, 1858, tod. ambigua versus Ichthyotaenia, 1894, tsd. 

 ocellata. — It is to be noticed that Taenia ambigua is a species inquir- 

 enda fide Liihe, 1899k, but that it is a synonym of fHicoUis fide LaRue, 

 T914; also that filicollis is a synonym of ocellata fide Liihe, 1899k, 

 but that it is distinct from occlhita fide LaRue, 191 1. Thus there is a 

 difference of opinion between Liihe and LaRue in regard to the sub- 

 jective synonymy in ca.se of the names ambigua, filicollis, and ocellata. 

 This difiference of opinion belongs in the field of systematic zoology, 

 not in the field of nomenclature. 



