52 



9. The use of the name of a composite genus for a component part requiring 



a name. — The decision as to whether the name of a composite genus, 

 wheii made vip wholly of older genera, is tenable for a component part 

 requiring a name, depends upon a variety of circumstances. There are 

 circumstances under which such name may be used, others under which 

 it may not be used. (Article 30.) 

 Vote; Affirmative 13; negative 0; not voting 2, 



10. Designation of genotypes for genera puhlished with identical limits. — If 



two genera with the same linaits ai-e formed independently by different 

 authors, without designation of genotypes, aiiy subsequent author may 

 designate the genotypes ( Ai-t. 30 g) ; and if the types designated are n»t 

 specifically identical, the two generic names may (other things being 

 equal) be used for restricted genera containing the types in question. 

 (Article 25.) 

 Vote : Affirmative 9 ; negative 4 ; not voting 2. 



11. The designation of genotypes hy Latreille, 1810. — The " Table des genres 

 avec I'indication de I'espece qui leur sert de type," in Latreille's (1810) 

 ' Considerations generales,' should be accepted as designation of types 

 of the genera in question. (Article 30.) 



Vote: Affirmative 12 ; negative 1 ; not voting 2. 



12. Stephanoceros fimhriatus (Goldfnss, 1820) vs. Stephanoceros eichkomii 

 Ehrenberg, 1832. — The generic name Stephanoceros, 1832, is to be vised 

 in preiereuce to Coronella, 1820 (pre-occupied, 1768); the specific name 

 fimhriatus, 1820, takes prei^edence o>er eichkomii, 1832, which is ad- 

 mittedly (Ehrenberg, 1832 b, 125, and 1838 a, 400-401) yim/w/a^afs, 1820, 

 renamed. Ehrenberg was right in rejecting Coronella, 1820, but in 

 error in rejecting fimhriatus, 1820; no reason is apparent for per- 

 petuating his eiTor. 



Vote : Affirmative 14 ; negative ; not voting 1. 



13. The specific name of the Samd-Crah. — Catesby's (1743) pre-Linnsean name 

 arenarius is not available under the Code, although "reprinted" in 

 1771; quadrattis, 1793, is stated to be pre-occupied; albicans, 1802, 

 being the next specific name in the list becomes valid, under the 

 premises submitted. 



Vote: Affirmative 12 ; negative 0; not voting 3. 



14. The type S2)ccies of Etheostoma Eafinesque, 1819. — The designation of 

 E. blennioides Eafinesque, 1819, as type oi Etheostoma ^^Oxveaqiie, 1819, 

 by Agassiz, 1854, is not invalidated by the fact that Agassiz used as basis 

 for his generic diagnosis characters taken from an erroneous specific 

 determination of 1839. Not only does Agassiz distinctly state that 

 " Eth. blennioides Eaf." is type of " Etheostoma Raf.," but even if the 

 question of the erroneous identification of E. blennioides by Kirtland be 

 taken into consideration, the conclusion must be drawn that this erroneous 

 identification did not exclude the original specimens of E. blennioides 

 from being covered by this specifiic name; on the contrary, the name 

 as used by Kirtland, 1839, still involved the type specimens; removing 

 now the erroneously determined specimens of 1839, which by article 

 30 e (a) are excluded from consideration in designating the genotype, 

 the original type specimens of 1819 remain and, upon the premises 

 submitted, represent the type of the genus. 



Vote : Affirmative 9 ; negative 4 ; not voting 2. 



15. Craspedacusta sowerbii Lankester, 1880, n. g., n. sp., vs. Limnooodium 

 victoria AUman, 1880, n. g., n. sp., a freshwater Medusa. — Craspeda- 

 custa sowerbii Lankester, 1880, June 17, has clear priority over Liimio- 

 codium victoria AUman, 1880, June 24. Presentation of a paper before 



