NO. 5 OPINIONS 98 TO 104 19 



If aiiibiyita and occUata (the tyi^e species of Prutcoccphalus and 

 1 chfhyotaenia) are congeneric, Proteocephalus, 1858, has clear i)ri- 

 ority over Ichthyotaenia, 1894, and 1 chthyotaenia is a subjective 

 synonym of Proteoccplmlns regardless of the subjective synonymic 

 status of mnbigua, filicoUis, and oceUata. 



On basis of the foregoing premises and argument the Secretary 

 recommends that the Commission adopt the following opinion : 



A generic name (example, ProfeoccpJialus, 1858) is not invalidated 

 by the earlier publication of the identical or a similar name of different 

 (higher] rank (example, Prof core pJiala, 1828). If Taenia mnbigua 

 (tod. of Proteocephalus, 1858) is congeneric with oceUata (tsd. of 

 ] chthyotaenia, 1894). Ichthyotaenia. is a subjective synonym of Pro- 

 teocephalus. 



The foregoing Opinion was submitted at the Budapest (1927) 

 Meeting to Lord Rothschild as si)ecial subcommittee of one for con- 

 sideration and report. He reported as follows : 



I desire to report on Circular Letter No. 124 that I find that PrflfcoccfhalJis 

 as a generic name can and must stand beside Proteoccphala, as Family names 

 and names of higher groups have no connection with generic designations. 



Opinion written by the Secretary. 



Opinion concurred in— 



(a), regarding Proteocephalus, by thirteen (13) Commissioners: 

 Apstein. Bather. ChajMiian, Handlirsch, Horvath. Jordan (D. S.), 

 Jordan (K.), Kolbe. Neveu-Lemaire. Stejneger. Stiles, Stone, and 

 Warren. 



Commissioner Stone states: " With the understanding that generic 

 and subgeneric names are treated exactly alike nomenclatorially, i. e., 

 an earlier subgeneric name of identical form, renders invalid a sub- 

 sequent generic name. So with species and subspecies." 



Commissioner Stejneger appended a footnote, as follows : " I sug- 

 gest, however, that the summary is not quite clear. The subgenus has 

 not the same ' rank ' as the gentis. hence someone might argue that 

 ' a generic name is not invalidated by the earlier publication of the 

 identical or similar subgeneric name.' Would not 'higher' for 'dif- 

 ferent' remedy that?" [Change adopted as an editorial correction. 



— C. W. s.i 



(b), regarding synonymy, by eleven (11) Commissioners: Bather, 

 Chapman. Handlirsch, Horvath, Jordan (D. S.). Jordan (K.), Kolbe, 

 Neveu-Lemaire, Stejneger. Stiles, and W^arren. 



Opinion dissented from — 



(a), regarding Proteocephalus, by no Commissioner. 



(b), regarding synonymy, by no Commissioner. 



