NO. 7 OPINIONS 115 TO 123 3 



In the case now before the Commission, it would appear from the 

 premises that Leucochila and Lcucochihis represent very closely allied 

 groups. So closely allied, in fact, that the possible concurrent use of 

 the two names might lead to serious confusion if both names were to 

 become valid. If these two names belonged in widely different groups, 

 for instance, in mammals and sponges, the chances for confusion 

 would be very much reduced and another point of view might, perhaps, 

 be entirely justified. The case represents, in fact, one very similar to 

 Endamocba and Entamoeba and on practical grounds it is in the 

 interest of clarity that Lcucocliilus be definitely suppressed. 



Accordingly, the Secretary recommends that the Commission adopt 

 as its Opinion the following: 



1. LcitcocliUits, 1881, is theoretically excluded from being an objec- 

 tive synonym of Lcucocliila, i860, but it might be, theoretically a 

 subjective synonym ; and 



2. For the purpose of this Opinion, and on practical grounds (in 

 order to prevent confusion), the Commission herewith considers 

 LeucocJiilns, 1881, a homonym of Lcucocliila, i860, and therefore 

 not entitled to stand. 



Opinion written by the Secretary. 



The foregoing draft of Opinion was forwarded to B. B. Wood- 

 ward of London, England, with request that he give the Com- 

 mission the benefit of his views. He replied as follows : 



Lcucochihis and Lcucocliila are absolute homonyms. They are merely the 

 masculine and feminine forms of one and the same name. 



It is too generally overlooked that these inflections of gender were universally 

 held by the early systematic zoologists to be such and not to qualify in any way 

 for generic distinction. To alter this now would create an untold amount of dis- 

 turbance in past nomenclature, which is quite unjustifiable and would be 

 mischievous. 



The framers of the original Rules were all good systematic zoologists as well 

 as good scholars. They took this view so much as a matter of course that they 

 did not think of specifying anything so obvious to them in their Rules. They 

 never dreamt that a later school of enthusiastic but less well-informed natural- 

 ists (zoologically and classically) would arise to challenge it. 



The Recommendation attached to Rule 36 does not really touch the present 

 or similar cases, of which there are far too many for a piecemeal consideration 

 of them to be profitably undertaken. 



In my opinion the Commission would be best advised, taking advantage of 

 the present instance, to lay down the principle that : " Names of genera differ- 

 ing only in their termination, when that is indicative solely of gender, cannot 

 be employed for distinct genera, but must be considered to be homonyms." 

 Occasion might be taken to point out that the frequently misquoted case of 

 Piciis and Pica does not apply here since these names are two distinct Latin 

 substantives, not modern makeups and not merely variations in gender of one 

 and the same word. 



