NO. 7 OPINIONS 115 TO 123 17 



Bartsch writes : 



Your letter and the enclosures from B. B. Woodward are at hand. 



Dr. Dall and I have both been interested in them. We are in accord with you. 



The foregoing Opinion with the above comments was submitted to 

 the Commission for informal vote and discussion. In accordance with 

 the expressed opinion of the Commission, the Secretary has the honor 

 to recommend that the Commission adopt as its Opinion the following : 



Summary. — The Commission does not interpret Buliinus Scopoli, 

 1777, ^s ^'^ obvious typographical error; the premises do not show 

 that the genotype (which must be selected from the four originally 

 included species) has been definitely and properly designated. 

 Bitliints Mueller, 1781, has for its type Buliiius senegalcnsis, and is 

 not invalidated by Biiliiuus, 1777. Buliinus Bruguiere, 1792, type 

 liaoiiastoiiius sen obloitga is a dead homonym of Buliinus, 1777. 



Opinion prepared by Stiles. 



Opinion concurred in by eleven (11) Commissioners: Apstein, 

 Chapman (with reservation), Dabbene, Handlirsch, Horvath, Ishi- 

 kawa, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Silvestri, Stiles, Warren. 



Opinion dissented from by one ( i ) Commissioner : Bather. 



Not voting six (6) Commissioners: Bolivar, Hartert, Kolbe, 

 Neveu-Lemaire, Stejneger, Stone. 



Commissioner Chapman attaches the following reservation to his 

 vote: 



As regards the re-considcration of vote on Circular Letter No. 130, BuUmus 

 vs. Bulinus, I would concur with the Opinion that both Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, 

 and Bulinus Mueller, 1781, be retained, on the proviso that Bulimus Oken, 

 181 5, be regarded as the type genus for our Australian freshwater F/i_v^a-like 

 molluscs (see Hedlcy, 1917, Rec. Austr. Mus., vol. 12, no. i, p. 3). The shell 

 from Senegal cannot be compared with the Australian, since, as Hedley remarks, 

 the type has not been again recognized. 



