53 



a scientific society does not constitute puLlication in tlie sense of the 

 Code. Tlie Commission is without authority to sanction usage in con- 

 travention of the provisions of the Code. 



Vote : Affirmative 15 ; negative 0. 



16. The status of prehinominal specific names (pjihlishcd prior to 1758) mider 

 Art. ?>0d. — In deciding whether a case of absolute tautonyinyis present 

 (under Art. 30 d), the citation of a clear prebinomina.l specific name in 

 synonymy is to be construed as complying with tlie demands of 

 Art. 30 d. Examples: Eqims cahalh/s (Equus cited in synonymy in the 

 sense of "the horse"), Alca torda {Alca cited in synonymy in the 

 sense of " the Alca "). 



Vote : Affirmative 10 ; negative 2 ; not voting 3. 



17. Shall the gevera of Weher, 1795, he accepted 1 — Weber's 'Nomenclator 

 Entoraologicus,' 1795, complies with the requirements of Article 25 ; 

 hence the genera in question are to be accepted, in so far as they 

 individually comply with the conditions of the Code. 



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



18. Tlie ti/pe of Tljdriis 8chneider,\1'i9. — On basis of the premises, ms^ims 

 Schneider, syn. hydrus Pallas, is type of Hydrus Schneider, Art. 30 d. 



Vote : Affirmative 14 ; negative ; not voting 1. 



19. Flesiops vs. Pharoptcryx. — From the evidence, it is not clear that this 

 case is one of nomenclatorial rather than zoological nature. So far as 

 the evidence goes, the question as to wliether Eiippell was in error in 

 accepting Plesiops as identical with Pharoptcryx must be answered from 

 a systematic point of view. If from our present-dny conception of 

 generic limits, Riippell was correct, no reason is apparent for not 

 accepting his nomenclatorial decision. 



Vote : Affirmative 31 ; negative 1 ; not voting 3. 



20. Shall the genera of Gronow, 1763, he accepted? — Gro-now. 1763, is binary, 

 though not consistently binominal. Article 2r> demands that an author 

 be binary, and Article 2 demands tliat generic naroes be uninominal. 

 Under these Articles, Gronow's genera are to be accepted as complying 

 with the conditions prescribed by the Code to render a name available 

 under the Code. 



Vote : Affirmative 11 ; negative 1 ; not voting 3. 



21. Shall the gevera of Klein, 1744, reprinted hy Walhaum, 1792, he 

 accepted .?— When Walbaum, 1792. reprinted in condensed form (but 

 did not accept) the genera of Klein, 1744, he did not thereby give to 

 Klein's genera any nomenclatorial status, and Klein's genera do not 

 therefore gain availability under the present Code by reason of being 

 quoted by Walbaum. 



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



22. Ceraticthys vs. Cliola. — Whatever Baird's original intentions may have 

 been, he and Girard originally published (1853) Ceraticthys as a mono- 

 typic genus, describing the genotype (C vigilax) and giving no indica- 

 tion that there were any intentions other than to publish a " n. g., 

 n. sp." Under Article 30 c, vigilax is the type of Ceraticthys. 



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



23. Aspro vs. Cheilodiptertis, or Amhassis.— Under the premises given, 



Centropomus macrodon may be taken as type of Aspro. 1802, and this 

 generic name suppressed as synonym of Cheilodip)terus, thus safeguard- 

 ing Amhassis. 



Vote : Affirmative 8 ; negative 1 ; not voting 6. 



