COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 184. 3! 



(iv) Martini and Chemnitz use a complicated System for grouping the 

 species which they discuss. Names are given to groups of species 

 within a given genus and these group-names are usually cited in the 

 nominative plural, either with or without a quahfying adjectival 

 phrase. Sometimes, however, these group-names are cited in the 

 nominative singular as part of the names of species. The following 

 are examples of these two latter types of case : — 



(a) In Volume 4 the species assigned to the genus Buccinum Linnaeus, 

 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 734, are divided into named groups 

 of which one is called " Biiccina ore caniculato et rostrato Fusi." 

 This group is itself divided into sub-groups, the second of which is 

 called " Fusi longi, clavicula longiore et rostro elongato." In the 

 table given on p. 147 six species are placed in this sub-group. Of 

 the names there used for these species, five are polynominal in 

 form and one is binominal. For the first, third, fifth and sixth of 

 these species, the word Turris is the first word used, while the 

 word Classicuin is the first word used for the second species and 

 the word Mnrex is the first word used for the fourth species. 



(b) Volume 1 1 approaches much more closely to the binominal System 

 than the earlier volumes and contains no cases such as that cited 

 in (a) above. Nevertheless, in this volume also there are some 

 group-names which might be mistaken for generic names. In 

 the account, for example, of the genus Helix nearly all of the 

 species are correctly cited with a name of which the first word 

 is given as Helix. In two cases, however, this is not so. On p. 

 266, one species is given as ' Nux denticulata. Helix sinuata 

 major ' and on p. 267 another is given as ' Gallina Suitana.' Later, 

 however, each of these species is correctly cited with the word 

 Helix as the first word of its name, as ' Helix Nux denticulata, 

 Helix sinuata major' and ' Helix Gallina Suitana.' 



(2) The conclusions to be drawn from the foregoing examination are as 

 follows : — 



(i) Martini and Chemnitz should be regarded as having ' applied the 

 principles of binary nomenclature ' in volumes i— 11 of the Con- 

 chylien-C abinet, if the meaning to be attached to that expression is 

 the meaning adopted in Opinion 20 rendered by the International 

 Commission in the period 1 908-1 910 and published in 1 910. Under 

 this Interpretation of the expression ' binary nomenclature,' any 

 new generic name published by Martini and Chemnitz in these 

 volumes is available nomenclatorially, provided that in other 

 respects it satisfies the requirements of the Code ; but no new 

 specific trivial name published in those volumes is available nomen- 

 clatorially even if it is binominal in form, 

 (ii) If, however, the expression ' binary nomenclature ' is interpreted as 

 having the same meaning as ' binominal nomenclature,' then Martini 

 and Chemnitz in these volumes did not accept the principles of 

 ' binary nomenclature ' and in consequence new generic names 

 published in these volumes fall to satisfy the requirements of 

 proviso (b) to Article 25 of the International Code and therefore 

 have no availability (hence no validity) in zoological nomenclature 

 . as from the date of being so published. 

 (iii) The question which of the above interpretations of the expression 

 ' binary nomenclature ' is the correct Interpretation of that ex- 

 pression is at present sub judice, since at Lisbon in 1935 it was 

 expressly referred to the International Commission on Zoological 



