12 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 



as such, and discarded in future literature"), the g-eneric name 

 Bulimus Bruguiere, 1792, comes up for consideration, since the ques- 

 tion of a typographical error in Bruguiere is obviously excluded. 



The Secretary frankly admits that there are two sides to this case 

 and that a decision in either direction might not be entirely free from 

 the interpretation that it is in the light of settling a controversy rather 

 than in the light of an argument based on unambiguous premises. 

 Close decisions, more or less arbitrary and not entirely free from 

 utilitarian influence, are sometimes necessary and the following 

 recommendations are not entirely free from this construction. 



On basis of the foregoing discussion the Secretary recommends 

 that the Commission answer Doctor Pilsbry's questions as follows : 



1. Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, may or may not be a typographical error 

 for or an emendation of Bul'mus Adanson, 1757; the question is not 

 entirely free from doubt. If it be interpreted as a typographical 

 error the problem at issue is not solved, for Bulimus Bruguiere, 1792, 

 is obviously not a typographical error. 



2. The data submitted do not show that the type of Bulimus, 1777, 

 has ever been properly and definitely designated. 



3. Bulimus haemastomus seu B. oblongus is not available as type 

 of Bulimus, 1777, so far as the premises show, but is available as type 

 of Bulimus, 1792, and this designation is in harmony with Bruguiere, 

 1792a, p. 294. 



4. Under Opinion 16, Bulinus Mueller, 1781, has for its type 

 B. senegalensis, and the Commission so rules. 



5. As either of two rulings is possible in respect to Bulimus, I777> 

 the Commission here rules that this is not an obvious mistranscription 

 or an obvious typographical error. This ruling is based upon the 

 following premises : 



a. — In case of difiference of opinion, it seems best to give the 

 benefit of doubt to the view which will be more in harmony with 

 current nomenclature, and this interpretation is according to the 

 premises submitted. 



b. — The preponderance of evidence seems to be in favor of this 

 view. 



c. — The original Bulinus, le bulin, 1757, is not cited with Bulimus, 

 1 781, hence this is not available as the type of the latter. 



d. — If Bulimus, 1777, be interpreted as a typographical error, 

 Bulimus, 1792, remains to be considered, and no reason has been 

 advanced in the premises which shows the advisability of sacrificing 

 the advantage of 15 years in priority. 



