NO. 5 OPINIONS 98 TO 104 23 



is not to be regarded as a separate genus l)ut must he added to the Gnics, with 

 which it agrees in characters, habitus, and hal)its.) 



All this by way of introdtiction to a niiiuite description of the exter- 

 nal characters and internal anatomy of a fresh specimen of a Psophia 

 from the vivarium of the Prince of Orange, which forms the real 

 object of the memoir, since no specimen had come tuider the eyes of 

 any other zoologist since the time of Marcgrave and Barrere. 



It is quite obvious that Pallas did not make Grus a monotypic genus 

 with psophia as type. The argument that he mentions no other specific 

 term in conjunction with the generic name cannot prevail against the 

 fact that Pallas repeatedly refers to the existence of other Cntcs, 

 and to the species enumerated by Linne in particular. 



In addition to the previous cjuotations it is only necessary to cite the 

 first paragraph of his " Descriptio Gruis Psophiae " (p. 7) which 

 reads as follows : 



Maynitudo circiter Numcnii Arquatac; sed corpus paulo crassius atque bre- 

 vius. Proportiones membrorum omnes longe breviores etiam sunt, quam in 

 Gruibus reliquis ; ceteroquin habitus consimilis. (Size about that of Nuntcnius 

 arquata; but the body a little heavier and shorter. Ail the proportions of the 

 limbs are also much shorter than in the other Grues ; habitus otlierwise entirely 

 similar.) 



" The other Grues " refers plainly to tiie species enumerated by Linne in the 

 tenth edition,* viz.: Ardca canadensis, A. grus, A. amcricana, and A. anligone. 



The type of the genus Grus Pallas must therefore be looked for 

 among one of these species (including of course Grus psopliia Pallas) 

 in which case Ardca grus Linne becomes the type by tautonymy. 



Remarks by the secretary. — Commissioner Apstein (1915a, 

 195) agrees with Commissioner Stejneger that grus Linn., 1758, is a 

 type of Grus Pallas, but both he and Sherborn date the latter as 

 1766, instead of 1767. 



The Secretary views Grus as dating from Linn., 1758a. tat. Ardca 

 grus. 



As the argument by Stejneger and the data by Apstein give the 

 same general results as the argument by the Secretary, and as the 

 question of date appears to be non-essential in disposing of the case, 

 the Secretary supports the conclusions by Stejneger and Apstein and 

 does not emphasize his own view as to date. 



The Secretary moves that : 



If Commissioner Stejneger's Opinion on Grus is adopted by the Commission, 

 the generic name Grus Pallas, 17(16 or 1767, tat. Ardca grus, is hereby placed 

 in the Official List of Generic Names. 



* By referring specifically to Ardca ibis, see above, Pallas shows that he is 

 dealing with the loth edition though it makes no difference inasmuch as the 

 I2th edition is identical in the treatment of the Grues. 



