NO. 6 OPINIONS 105 TO 114 



OPINION 107 



Ecliinocyamits piisillits vs. Echiiiocyaiiius iiiiiutfus 



Summary. — The case of llchinocyamus ftisillus vs. Echinocyamiis miuutus 

 is subject to two diametrically opposed interpretations. On basis of the prin- 

 ciple that a name in current use is not to be supplanted by an earlier but 

 rarely adopted or an unadopted name unless the argument is unambiguous 

 and unless the premises are not subject to difference of opinion, the Commis- 

 sion, because of the somewhat uncertain status of miuutus, is of the Opinion 

 that piisilhis 1776 should not be suppressed by minutus 1774. 



Statement of case. — The following case has been submitted by 

 Dr. Th. Mortensen, Copenhagen, for Opinion : 



The name pusillus dates from 1776, when O. Fr. Miiller [1776a] in his 

 " Zoologiae Danicae Prodromus," p. 236, established the species Spatagus pusil- 

 lus. The diagnosis " ovalis, ambulacris quinis, ano remoto," although short, is 

 sufficient for distinguishing the species from the two other Spatagus-s^&cits 

 there described, and the species was later on excellently figured on Plate 91 

 of the " Zoologia Danica," so that there is not the slightest doubt about which 

 species is meant by the "Spatagus pusillus" of the "Prodromus." 



In 1778 the name Echinocyamiis angulosus was given to the same species by 

 N. G. Leske, in his "Additamenta ad Jac. Th. Kleinii Naturalem dispositionem 

 Echinodermatum," p. 151. But, of course, the name pusillus has priority. As a 

 matter of fact, this common European species has almost universally been 

 designated as Echinocyamus pusillus (O. Fr. Miiller) — until in 1914 H. L. 

 Clark, in the work " Hawaiian and other Pacific Echini. The Clypeastridae, 

 Arachnoididae, Laganidae, Fibulariidae and ScutelHdae " (Mem. Mus. Comp. 

 Zoo!., vol. 46 (i), p. 61), designated it as Echinocyamiis miuutus, reviving the 

 name Echinus m.inutiis from P. S. Pallas (1774) Spicilegia Zoologica, Fasc. 10, 

 stating: "When Pallas' description of his Echinus viinutus is carefully exam- 

 ined in connection with his fig. 25, pi. i, and due consideration is given to his 

 remarks about habitat and occurrence, it is almost impossible to doubt that 

 his name was given to the fibulariid which O. F. Midler two years later called 

 Spatagus pusillus. Althougli Echinocyamus pusillus is the name used in the 

 Revision and other later publications, I am therefore obliged to replace it with 

 Echinocyamus minutns (Pallas)." 



In my paper " Notes on some Scandinavian Echinoderms, with Descriptions 

 of Two New Ophiurids" (Vidensk. Medd. Dansk Naturliist. Foren., Bd. 72, 

 1920, p. 69) I objected to this : " On examining Pallas' description of this 

 'Echinus miuutus'" it is, Iiowcvcr, easily seen that he does not name any 

 Echinus minutus at all. lie writes:' "In Tabula I hujus fasciculi sub figura 

 24 & 25 Echinos minutos adjeci, de quibus hie verbnlo,"^ which means " I have 

 added some small sea-urchins." Nowhere does he name a species "Echinus 

 minutus"; if he had so named a species he would not have omitted a reference 



'P. S. Pallas, Spicilegia Zoologica, ]'~asc. 10, 1774 (p. 34). 

 ^ In the quotation erroneously " verhiculus." 



