NO. 8 orrxioNs 124 to 133 



OPINION 126 



Xew NA:\rKs in d'Orhignv's. 1850, " Prodkomk " ake No^^KNCLA- 



TORIAI.I.\' A\'.\ir.AP>LE 



Summary. — On basis of evidence and expert advice of outstanding special- 

 ists, the Commission does not see its way clear to declare the new names in 

 d'Orbigny's, 1850, " Prodrome " as unavailable or as noDihia mida under the 

 Rules. 



Presentation of case. — Tlie following case has been submitted by 

 L. R. Cox and W. J. Arkell : 



That the new specific names published by A. d'Orbigny in his " Prodrome de 

 Paleontologie Stratigraphique Universelle " (3 vols., Paris, 1850) shall be con- 

 sidered as nouwia iiuda and shall have no status in nomenclature, unless they are 

 accompanied by a reference to a figure or description published by some previous 

 author. 



As specialists in the Mesozoic Mollusca, we are of the opinion that the sup- 

 pression of these names is desirable in order to avoid numerous changes in current 

 nomenclature, while few, if any, changes would result from such suppression. 

 The " Prodrome " purported to be a complete synopsis of the fossil Invertebrata 

 known to the author at the time of its compilation (1847). Besides listing all 

 species which had been described prior to that date, and providing new specific 

 names in cases of preoccupation, etc., it includes a great number of new names 

 given to previously undescribed species ; most of these came from French localities 

 and were represented in the author's own collection. In each case the horizon 

 and localities are given, and a brief comment is made on the species, but this 

 rarely occupies more than two lines and is quite inadequate as a specific diagnosis. 

 Examples : " Teredo aiitiquafiis d'Orb., 1847. Espece a tubes tres-longs. France, 

 Thouars (Deux-Sevres)" (vol. i, p. 231); " Luciiia sartliacemis d'Orb., 1847. 

 Espece tres-comprimee, prcsque circulairi'. France, Pizieux, Chaumont " (vol. 



I, P- 339)- 



If these names are discarded as itomina iinda, as here suggested, d'Orbigny's 

 species will onlj- be valid as from the dale of their earliest description by a later 

 author. Example: Astartc socialis d'Orbigny (vol. 2, p. 60) will date from its 

 description by De Loriol in 1867 (Mem. Soc. Phys. Geneve, vol. 19, p. 6y), and 

 will be referred to as " Astarte socialis de Loriol ex d'Orbigny." In most cases 

 the first descriptions of d'Orbigny's species are in a work by M. Boule and others 

 now appearing in installments in the " Annates de Paleontologie ", and figuring 

 the supposed types. In a few cases d'Orbigny's species have been guessed at 

 and misinterpreted by later authors ; such misinterpretations, if accompanied 

 by proper descriptions, will lie accepted as having the status of original descrip- 

 tions. In most cases later workers have necessarily ignored d'Orbigny's species, 

 and many of them have been described under other names, wh.ich are now 

 familiar in the literature. Names proposed by d'Orbigny as substitute-names, etc., 

 will of course remain valid, since they are accompanied by references to descrip- 

 tions in i)nvi')us literature. D'Oriiigiiy's new genera will not be valid if the only 



