2 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 



tions from the Commissioners as to the best procedure. In reply to 

 this Circular Letter the following suggestions reached the Secretary : 



A. — The following thirteen Commissioners suggested that the names should 

 he suppressed : Apstein, Bather, Chapman, Handlirsch, Horvath, D. S. Jordan, 

 K. Jordan, Kolbe, Loennberg, Neveu-Lemaire, Stiles, Stone, and Warren ; 



B. — The following four Commissioners suggested that the names should be 

 suppressed under Suspension of the Rules: Horvath, D. S. Jordan, Stiles, and 

 Warren ; 



C. — The following two Commissioners suggested that the names are not 

 available under the Rules : Kolbe and Loennberg ; 



D. — The following two Commissioners suggested that the question be further 

 discussed in the August 1927 (Budapest) meeting of the Commission: Bather 

 and Monticelli ; 



E. — The following four Commissioners suggested that the author be re- 

 quested to introduce for the designations in question names more in harmony 

 with the International Rules : Chapman, D. S. Jordan, Stiles, and Stone ; 



F. — Not voting, four Commissioners : Dabbene, Hartert, Ishikawa, and 

 Stejneger. 



The Secretary has communicated with Professor Dybowski who 

 has replied that he intended the designations in question only as pro- 

 visional names and that the time is not rii)e f(jr the definite naming 

 of these animals. 



In Circular Letter No. 138 the attention of the Commission was 

 invited to the fact that 13 of the 14 Commissioners who replied to 

 Circular Letter No. 120 agree that the designations in question 

 should be suppressed and that the only difference of opinion which 

 had arisen involved the question whether they should be suppressed 

 under Suspension of the Rules or whether they should be declared not 

 available under the Rules. No Commissioner voted for the retention 

 of the names. 



Professor Dybowski's statement that the names were only pro- 

 visional implies that an author may suggest a provisional name and 

 afterwards change it. This suggestion, however, is not in harmony 

 with Article 32. 



The names are availalile under Article 8j & k, and the question 

 that they have not been published has not been raised by any person. 

 On the contrary, they have distinctly been published under Article 

 25 of the International Rules. 



It appears to the Secretary that of the two methods suggested 

 (namely, suspension or unavailability) the suppression of the names 

 under Suspension of the Rules is the more ])ractical, although either 

 method would bring about the same ultimate result, and that by sup- 

 pressing the names under Suspension of the Rules, this result will 



