NO. 5 OPINIONS 98 TO 104 21 



OPINION 103 



The generic name Grus, t^pe Ardca (jrus 



Summary. — The type of (,nts Pallas, 1767, is Ardca (jrus Linn., 1758, by 

 absolute tautonymy. (irus is hereby placed in the Official List of Generic 

 Names. 



Presentation of case. — Dr. Witmer vStone of tlie Academy of 

 Natural Sciences. Philadelphia, requests an opini(Mi on the type of 

 Grns. His presentation of case is as follows : 



Application of Generic Name Grus. 



hi his Systema Natura, 1758. Linnaeus divides the genus Ardca into four sec- 

 tions, Crisfatac. Griics, Cicouiac, and Ardcac. 



(i) Are any of these citahle as genera? The last three seem to be exactly 

 parallel to the divisions of Simia regarded as subgenera by Stiles and Orleman 

 (Jour, of Mam. Feb. 1926). 



(2) If not citable from here, are not Grus and Ciconia citable from Pallas 

 (Spicilegia Zool. IV, p. i. 1767) as covering the species included in Linnaeus' 

 groups'.^ 



Pallas in his work discusses and describes a new species Grus psofhia and 

 the genus Grus has recently been quoted from here as applying solely to this 

 species (the only one mentioned) thus becoming a synonym of Psophia. 



Previously it was regarded as applying to all the species of Linnaeus' section 

 Grues. and Ardca grus was by tautonymy the type. This I think is the correct 

 view. Pallas states that the birds included in Ardca by Linnaeus are divisible 

 into three genera and then cites Ardcac, Ciconiae and Grues — the three Lin- 

 naean groups and refers to " Gruibus reliquis" in describing and comparing 

 his new and evidently aberrant species. 



Discussion of case. — hy Commissioner Stejneger. 



The type of Grus Pallas, 1767, is Ardca grus Linnaeus, 1758. 



The question of the recognition of the quasigeneric names which 

 I .innaeus and suhsequent authors of the eighteenth century applied to 

 sectional divisions of genera without ajiparent intention to use them 

 nomenclatorially is .so complicated and requires such extensive re- 

 •search, not only as to the manner of their application hy these authors 

 themselves, hut particularly as to the effect their legitimation at this 

 late date would have upon already otherwise stahilized and current 

 nomenclature, that it is thought unwise to raise it with regard to a 

 case which is susceptihlc of definite and identical settlement hy other 

 means. 



The question laid l)cfure the Commission hy Dr. Stune is essentially 

 this: 



