500 
6. Notes on Rotatorian Nomenclature. 
By H. K. Harring, Washington. 
eingeg. 5. April 1914. 
In a recent paper! de Beauchamp devotes a considerable amount 
of space to a rather severe criticism of my “Synopsis of the Rotatoria”. 
While public discussion of questions pertaining to zoological nomencla- 
ture is as a rule unprofitable, I feel that a reply is necessary in this case, 
as all of the arguments advanced by de Beauchamp, are founded on 
erroneous interpretations of the International Code of Zoological Nomen- 
clature and, if allowed to pass unchallenged, may mislead others unfa- 
miliar with the subject and the facts. 
From what is said (p. 293) concerning Furcularia Lamarck it ap- 
pears that de Beauchamp considers the type-designations still open 
to argument. This is in opposition to Art. 30 of the Code (as amended 
at the 7th Int. Congr. Zool., Boston 1907), sect. II g: “If an author, 
in publishing a genus with more than one valid species, fails to designate 
(see a) or indicate (see b) its type, any subsequent author may select the 
type, and such designation is not subject to change (Type by subsequent 
designation)”. 
In regard to synonymic citations, de Beauchamp seems not to 
know the universally accepted rule: When an author claims to have 
recognized an earlier species, by citing it as a synonym, this assertion 
is to be accepted as correct, unless the earlier species can be shown to be 
a different and valid species. Thus, in the case of Cercaria forcipata and 
Cercaria catellina, itis absolutely immaterial whether de Beauchamp 
can recognize these species or not; all the “recognition” needed was given 
by Ehrenberg, when he cited Miiller’s names as synonyms. Conse- 
quently, whether an author carries the synonymy of Diglena forcipata 
back to Ehrenberg orto Müller, the correct name of the species is in 
any case Diglena forcipata (Müller). If de Beauchamp can establish 
Cercaria forcipata and C. cateilina as valid species, he may give new 
specific names to Ehrenberg’s forms, but not till then. 
A little reflection should convince any unbiased person that with- 
out this rule, which was accepted long before there was any thought 
of a formal code, any stability in nomenclature would be impossible. If 
any author had the privilege of accepting or rejecting as much of the 
1 Beauchamp, P. de, Documents sur les Notommatidés à mastax forcipé avec 
quelques remarques sur la nomenclature des Rotifères. Bull. Soc. Zool. France, 
vol. 38. p. 291—301, 326—335. 1914. 
