12 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 



of view interpretations which are debatable; (2) to follow historical 

 method and to accept on the principle of priority the interpretation 

 made by the first author who quotes this passage; (3) to decide the 

 case on basis of a general principle that in case of doubt it is best 

 to accept the interpretation which will upset as little as possible cur- 

 rent nomenclature. 



The Secretary recommends that the Commission give as its 

 Opinion one in harmony with this third method as applied to this par- 

 ticular case. On basis of the premises presented to the Commission 

 the Opinion would fall in favor of pusillus. 



Accordingly, the Secretary recommends that the Commission adopt 

 as its Opinion the following: 



Summary. — The case of Echinocyamus pusillus vs. Echinocyamus 

 niinutus is subject to two diametrically opposed interpretations. On 

 basis of the principle that a name in current use is not to be sup- 

 planted 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 Commission, because of the somewhat 

 uncertain status of minutus, is of the Opinion that pusillus 1776 

 should not be suppressed by minutus lyj^. 



The foregoing Opinion was submitted to Commissioner Bather for 

 a special study and he has reported as follows : 



The question put by Dr. Mortensen may be resolved into (A) 

 a question of interpretation and (B) a question of expediency. 



A. Interpretation of the phrase " echinos niinutos." Two inter- 

 pretations are possible. 



1. That Pallas intended to establish a specific name "Echinus 

 minutus." 



2. That Pallas was merely referring to some " small echini," 

 which he did not name. 



Interpretation i. The arguments in favor of this are: 



a. That the words are printed in small capitals for echinos 

 and italics for niinutos. 



b. That if this be not a name, then the objects depicted in 

 Pallas, plate I, figs. 24, 25, are the only objects in the 

 fascicle left without a name. 



c. That Gmelin, 1788, Syst. Nat. Linn., Ed. 13, p. 3194, 

 definitely accepts Echinus minutus as a species, citing Pallas 

 (loc. cit.) [N. B. The date of Gmelin tom. et pag. cit. is 

 1790]. 



