427 



would come under the generic description as originally published, and the first species 

 published in connection with the genus (as Aclastus rufipes Ashmead, 1902) becomes 

 ipso facto the type. 



47; Carcharias, Carcharhinus and Carchaivdon. — Carcharias Rafinesque, 

 1810, is monotypic, type Carcharias iaiirns Rafinesque. 



48j The Status of Certain Generic Names of Birds Published by Brehm in 

 Isis, 1828 and 1830. — In so far as the names in question are dependent solely upon 

 a vernacular name, the generic names of Brehm, 1828 and 1830, are nomina nuda, 

 and are not entitled to citation from the dates in question. 



49) Sipiionopliora asdepiadifoUi vs. Neciarophora asclepiadis. — On basis of the 

 data submitted, asclepiadifolii Thomas, 1879, stands in preference to asclepiadis 

 Cowen. 1895. 



50, Apliis aqiiilegiae flava vs. Aphis irirhoda. — Since the w&raQ Aphis aquilegiae 

 flava Kittel, 1827, is polynominal and is not available under the Code, Aphis trirhoda 

 Walker, 1849, is the correct name for this species. 



51) Shall the names of Museum Calonnianum, 1797, be accepted? — The Mu- 

 seum Calonnianum, 1797, is not to be accepted as basis for any nomenclatorial work. 



52) Semotihis corporalis vs. Semotilus biillaris. — On the premises submitted, 

 corporalis has priority over bullaris. It is not feasible for the Commission to issue 

 an opinion upon the question : What constitutes an adequate description ? The ci- 

 tation of the type locality of a species is not sufficient to establish a name under 

 Art. 25a of the Code. If specific characters are given in addition to the type loca- 

 lity, the type locality becomes a part of the description and is to be considered as an 

 important element in determining the identity of species. 



63) Halicampus koilomatodon vs. Halicampus grayi. ■ — The specific name grayi 

 Kaup, 1856, takes priority over koilomatodon Bleeker, »about 1865«. 



54) Phoxinus Rafinesque vs. Phoxinus Agassiz. — The genera Dohula^ Phoxinus, 

 and Albiirnus date from Rafinesque, 1820. The claim is made by J o r d a n & E v e r- 

 mann, 1896, that P/io.t;mz<s Agassiz, 1835, is identical with Phoxinus Rafinesque, 

 1820, therefore they claim to have recognized Phoxinus, 1820. This claim is to be 

 considered correct until proved to be incorrect, and Cyprimis phoxinus is the type 

 both of Phoxinus, 1820, and of Phoxinus, 1835. If it is claimed that Alburnus, 1820, 

 is identical with Alburnus, 1840, Cyprinus alburnus becomes the type of Alburnus 

 1820. 



55) The type of the genus Ondatra Link. — On basis of the premises submitted, 

 «ibethicus is the type of Ondatra Link. 



56) The type oî Filaria Müller, 1787. — Müller (1787, pp. 64 and 70) cites, 

 clearly through error, the same figure (plate 9, fig. 1) of Redi for Ascaris renalis 

 Gm.Q\. 2i,\\à Filaria martis (jm&\. Gmelin (1790a, 3032 and 3040) continued this 

 lapsus. Rudolphi (1809a, 69) recognized and corrected the error since his time 

 Filaria martis has been consistently distinguished from Ascaris renalis, and no 

 ground is now present for not recognizing Rudolphi's correction of Müller's 

 lapsus. Accordingly, F. martis stands as type of Filaria, and Filaria is not to be 

 substituted for Dioctnpliyme, Dioctophyma, or Eustrongylus. 



59 The Opinions have now been a policy for six years. They have 

 been received by various Zoologists in different ways. Some of our colle- 

 agues in the profession are urging us to continue this policy, on the ground 

 that it is the logical method of settling difficult questions. Others are 

 opposed to the policy and one man has even practically challenged our right 

 to issue the series. 



60 This Commission is well aware of the fact that in issuing 56 opin- 

 ions we have not been able to decide on both sides of every question and 

 thus to please every person. 



61j It may not be out of place to remark that these Opinions have 



