NO. 6 OPINIONS 105 TO 114 II 



Otlier iianu's with certainty rcfcTrins^ to liic same luirtipcan species are: 

 Echinus pulvinulns J^eniiant ( Itritisli Zoology, uSu [, 140] ) (not in tlie I. I'.d., 

 1777)- Fibularia tamitiiui Lamarck, 1816 [I), 17], Echinocyamus minimus 

 Girard, Proc. Best. Soc. N. 11., 1830, [367,] Echinocyamus parthcnopaeus 

 Costa and Echinocyamus spcciosus Costa (Monogr. dcgli Echinociami viventi 

 e fossili nelle Province Napolitane, Mem. Atti r. Accad. Sci. Fis. e Matem. 

 Napoli III, [14,] 1869). None of these, of course, comes into consideration; 

 neither can the name angulosus of Leske he used, as this is later than the name 

 pusilhts. The question reduces itself to this: Must the species be named 

 piisillus, the name under which the species is first duly described and — excel- 

 lently — figured, and under which tlie species has been universally known for 

 more than half a century, or should we reject this name for ininutiis of Pallas, 

 aliTnost certainly not meant by this author as a name, very poorly descril)ed, 

 exceedingly poorly figured, and only from the locality given recogniza1)le as 

 referring partly to the European species of Echinocyamus/ 



Discussion. — The Secretary has verified the reference to Pallas, 

 1774, which is the most important reference involved in this case. He 

 has also reverified certain of the other references which form im- 

 portant premises. The article by Pallas is written in Latin and, as 

 frequently happens in such circumstances, a confusion can easily arise 

 hy interpreting as binomials a })urely descriptive combination of words 

 consisting" of a noun and an adjective or by interpreting a binomial 

 as descriptive rather than as a taxonomic name. A case in point is 

 Pallas, 1772, fasc. 9, page 83; " Cancrum caninum " is obviously a 

 translation of Hondskrabbe, but it might easily be erroneously inter- 

 preted as a specific binominal used possibly in some earlier publica- 

 tion. 



The fact that " Echinos minutos "' is printed in the plural does not 

 seem to be decisive as respects the point at issue, for on page 35 

 Botryllus sfcllaftis (in singular) is given also as " Botrylli stellati " 

 (in plural). 



echinos is printed in small caps while mijiittos is given in italics. 

 This does not appear to give a definite clue ; on page 33 the same 

 editorial method is used for buccinum (small caps) and monodoii 

 (italics) which is apparently a specific name and is given in the Index. 



In the interpretation by the Secretary the case at hand is one in 

 which there can be a legitimate difference of opinion, and in regard 

 to which either of the proposed interpretations appears reasonable. 

 The omission of the name from the Index might easily be a ])urely 

 editorial oversight. While inclining to the interpretation advanced 

 by Mortensen, the Secretary would not be willing to argue very 

 strongly against that advanced by Clark. Under the , circumstances 

 three courses apj^ear to be open: ( 1 ) to decide the case by majority 

 vote based u\)(m rather fine distinctions .and from the Secretary's point 



