14 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS , VOL. J T) 



any species, whether the same as T. cassiopc Lycett or not the same. 

 Therefore Article 35, if taken strictly and literally, does not apply, and 

 T. cassiope Lycett can be used. 



[Article 35. — A specific name is to be rejected as a homonym when 

 it has previously been used for some other species or subspecies of the 

 same genus.] 



This interpretation of Article 35 has never been discussed, but a cas- 

 ual phrase in the discussion of Opinion 54 indicates that the opposite 

 view would have been taken by the Commission in 1913. It is there 

 said, "If Phoxinus Rafinesque, 1820, is unidentifiable it becomes a 

 genus dnbium, but the name preoccupies Phoxinus Agassiz, 1835." 

 That was not the question before the commission, so that the remark 

 is an obiter dictnui. Nevertheless, such an interpretation would have 

 its value in extending the principle of Article 35 and so promoting 

 stability. Thus, in the example chosen from the " Prodrome ", T. cas- 

 siope d'Orb. may stand as a valid species or as a synonym of T. pullus, 

 in which cases T. cassiope Lycett, if different, must have a new name. 

 Or T. cassiope d'Orb. may be a species diibia. and still T. cassiopc 

 Lycett must have a new name. 



If, as claimed by the applicants, many other names of the " Pro- 

 drome " have been similarly misinterpreted by subsequent writers and 

 have come into general use for species that are not those intended by 

 d'Orbigny, then there is a prima facie case for considering suspension 

 of the Rules. It becomes necessary to discuss this proposal in more 

 detail, and to consider the arguments adduced by the applicants and 

 by the colleagues whose opinion has been asked. 



Let us take first the opinions unfavorable to the application : 



Professor Boule, as Keeper of the d'Orbigny Collection, claims 

 foremost attention. He assumes that Messrs. Cox and Arkell are 

 unacquainted with the d'Orbigny Collection. This is not the case : 

 Mr. Arkell has examined some of the originals for himself and finds 

 that in some instances more than one species is included vmder a single 

 name. This observation probably explains the phrase " supposed 

 types ", to which M. Boule naturally objects. If. as M. Boule im- 

 plies, the holotype is fixed by d'Orbigny 's MS. Catalogue, then the 

 phrase is certainly unwarranted. It may, however, be recalled that 

 De Loriol occasionally doubted whether the alleged type really was the 

 type. 



The valuable work being done on the collcclion by M. Boule or 

 under his direction does not seem to bear on the point at issue. The 

 absence of figures from the " Prodrome " was not specially given 

 by Cox and Arkell as a reason for rejecting d'Orbigny's definitions ; 



