NO. 6 OPINIONS 105 TO 114 25 



OPINION 114 



Under Suspension Siniia, Siiiiia satyrus and Pithecits 

 ARE Suppressed 



Summary. — Under Suspension of the Rules the names Siiiiia, Simia satyrus, 

 and Pithecus are hereby suppressed on the ground that their retention under 

 the Rules will produce greater confusion than uniformity. 



Statement of case. — Sec Opinion 90, p. t^'^ ; and The Nomen- 

 clature for Man, the Chimpanzee, the Orang-Utan, and the Barbary 

 Ape < Bui. 145, Hyg-. Lab., U. S. Pub. Health Service, Wash., 1927, 

 pp. 1-66, figs. I -16. 



Discussion. — The vote taken on Opinion 90 stood ten (10) in 

 favor of, and eight (8) against, suspending the Rules in order to 

 validate Simia, type S. satyrus, for the Orang-Utan; and nine (9) 

 to nine (9) on the proposition to suspend the Rules in order to validate 

 Anthropopithccus Blainville, 1838, type Simia troglodytes Gmelin, 

 1788, for the chimpanzee. xA.ccording to the premises of the proposals 

 which failed of acceptance, the specific name satyrus Linn., 1758, 

 would have to be applied to the chimpanzee, while the application of 

 Simia remained in doubt ; according to the appellants, Simia would 

 supplant Macaca (type sylvanus), but according to some authors 

 Simia would become the generic name of the chimpanzee in place 

 of Pan. 



The complicated nomenclatorial situation was studied in consider- 

 able detail by Stiles and Orleman (1927) who invited attention to the 

 potential danger which might arise in medical and public health work 

 because of continued confusion, and they expressed the view that the 

 nomenclatorial situation in regard to Simia, S. satyrus, and Pithecus, 

 was so hopeless that the most practical solution of the problem was 

 to be found in a total suppression of these three names. The data 

 shown in the bulletin (no. 145) are made part of the premises of this 

 Opinion 114. 



On motion, the Commission voted (12 to 2) to reopen the case 

 of Simia in order to examine the detailed facts to be presented. 



At the Budapest (1926) meeting of the Commission, Commissioner 

 Apstein was appointed a committee of one to consider the case and 

 to report his recommendations to the Commission. His report was 

 discussed at length by the Commission which unanimously adopted 

 two resolutions, namely: 



