32 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 



Nomenclature by the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology for 

 deliberation and report. Until the International Commission 

 submits its report and a decision on that report has been taken by 

 the next (Thirteenth) International Congress of Zoology, no final 

 decision can be given by the International Commission on the 

 Status of new generic names published in volumes i-ii in the 

 Conchylien-Cabinet. In these circumstances, clearly the only 

 logical course for the International Commission to adopt in this case 

 is to follow the precedent which they set at Lisbon in 1935 when 

 dealing with the strictly analogous case of the Introductio ad 

 Historiam naturalem published by Scopoli in 1777 (Lisbon Session, 

 4th Meeting, Conclusion 11),' that is to say to take the line that, 

 until a final decision has been taken on the question of the Inter- 

 pretation of the expression ' binary nomenclature,' any new generic 

 name published in volumes i-ii of the Conchylien-Cabinet of 

 Martini and Chemnitz should be accepted, if otherwise available, 

 but that this question should be re-examined if later it is decided 

 to reject generic names published by authors not applying the 

 binominal System, 

 (iv) If in this case the Cortjmission proceed as indicated in (iii) above, 

 it will nevertheless be necessary to exercise considerable care in 

 determining which are the generic (or sub-generic) names in volumes 

 I-II of the Conchylien-Cabinet which may properly be regarded as 

 satisfying the requirements of Article 25 of the Code. In this 

 connection, it will be necessary to bear in mind the following 

 considerations : — 



(a) no name has any status as a generic or sub-generic name, unless it 

 is accompanied by an indication as defined in Opinion i ' or a 

 definition or a description ; 



(b) names originally published before 1758 only acquire status in 

 nomenclature when, on being republished, they are re-inforced by 

 being adopted or accepted by the author who republishes them 

 (Opimon 5 ä) ; 



(c) the mere citation in a post-1757 work of a bibliographical reference 

 to a pre-1758 name confers no status upon that name (Opinion 

 5'): 



(d) the inclusion in a synonymy given in a post-1757 work of a pre- 

 1758 name confers no status upon a name so cited (Opinion 5 *) ; 



(e) where a not-strictly binominal author places an intermediate 

 term between the generic name and the specific trivial name (as 

 Linnaeus did in 1758 in some parts of the loth edition of the 

 Systema Naturae), no subgeneric status is thereby accorded to the 

 intermediate term so used (Opinion 124) ; 



(f) a generic or sub-generic name takes priority only from the date ■ 

 on which, for the first time, it is published in the nominative 

 Singular (Opinion 183 "). 



" See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 37-38. The case here referred to 

 was concerned with the status of the name Anguina Scopoh, 1777 (Class 

 Nematoda) and has since been dealt with by the International Commission 

 in Opinion 160. 



' See Note 5 to Opinion 1 (1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by 

 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 79-82). . 



* See 1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International 

 Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 115-126. 



^ See 1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International 

 Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 3 : 13-24. 



