Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology 7 



gory in the tables.'^ And it necessarily follows that it does not 

 include any species that does not "come within that category 

 in the tables." And consequently, the erroneous reference of 

 a subsequently described species, either by the original author 

 or a subsequent writer, cannot make that species the type of 

 a genus to which, zoologically considered, it does not belong. 



In other words, the opinion, taken as a whole, should be 

 construed as though it read, — Each new genus contains all 

 the species in the world, which come within that category in 

 the tables (i. e., the original generic diagnosis) and the first 

 species published as a member of the genus that falls within 

 the original generic diagnosis is the only species available 

 as the type. 



This, it seems to me, is not only common sense, but is the 

 proper legal construction of the language of the opinion and 

 it is exactly what I claim. 



I submit, therefore, that under a proper construction of 

 Opinion 46, the verrucosa Raf., although it was described as 

 a Pleurocera, is not available as a genotype on the ground that 

 it does not comply with and cannot "be recognized from the 

 original generic publication." 



It- 



Hannibal's designation of verrucosa as the type of Pleuro- 

 cera, in 1912, is entirely immaterial, as it was either invalid or 

 unnecessary. 



If I am right in the foregoing contention, his attempted 

 designation was absolutely void. The International Commis- 

 sion has held (Op. 15) that the author of a published name 

 has no greater rights over it than any other writer. The same 

 rule is applicable to the description of a new genus. The 

 original publication must govern and a subsequently designated 

 genotype must accord wath the generic specification. Rafinesque 



