September 16, 1910] 



SCIENCE 



381 



ductory portion has already appeared in 

 Science (issue for September 2, 1910). 



Opinion 6 is to the effect that where a 

 genus contained originally only two species, 

 and no type was specified, and a second au- 

 thor later removed one of the species as the 

 monotype of a new genus, the remaining 

 species became necessarily the type of the 

 original genus. 



Opinion 7 is to the effect that " the expres- 

 sion ' n.g., n.sp.' used in the publication of a 

 new genus for which no other species is other- 

 wise designated as genotype is to be accepted 

 as designation under Art. 30ffl." 



Opinion 8 relates to the retention of ii or i 

 in specific patronymic names, and the ruling 

 is to the effect that ii is to be retained when 

 so originally employed, in accordance with 

 Art. 19, which is : " The original orthography 

 of a name is to be preserved unless an error 

 of transcription, a lapsus calami, or a typo- 

 graphical error is evident." This is also the 

 rule of the original A. 0. U. Code (Canon 

 XXXVII.) , but in the revised edition of this 

 code it is provided that masculine specific 

 patronymics in the genitive singular are al- 

 ways to end in a single i, unless the name 

 originally terminated with i, when another i 

 is to be added. This amended rule has been 

 followed in the new edition of the Check- 

 List. 



Opinion 9 deals with the use of the name 

 of a composite genus for a component part 

 of it requiring a name, the decision being 

 that under some circumstances it may be so 

 used, but not under certain other circum- 

 stances. 



Opinion 10 relates to the designation of 

 genotypes for genera with identical limits, 

 proposed without designation of type. The 

 ruling in this case is that " any subsequent 

 author may designate the genotypes, and if 

 the types designated are not specifically iden- 

 tical, the two generic names may (other things 

 being equal) be used for restricted genera 

 containing the types in question." 



Opinion 11 deals with the designation of 

 genotypes by Latreille, 1810, in his " Table 

 des genres avec I'indication de I'espece qui 



leur sert de type," and decides that " from the 

 evidence submitted no reason is apparent why 

 Latreille's type designations should not stand 

 as such." 



Opinion 12 relates to a case of preoccupa- 

 tion of names, generic and specific, and is de- 

 cided on the principle of priority. 



Opinon 13 relates to the use of a pre-Lin- 

 nsean " specific " name, untenable under the 

 law of priority, the case being one of Cates- 

 by's names (1743), reprinted later (1771) by 

 Edwards but not adopted by him. Under 

 Opinion 5, the 1771 reprint of Catesby does 

 not render his names available. 



Opinion 14 takes up the question of Etheo- 

 sioma Eafinesque, 1819. At first view this 

 seems a complicated case, but it is easily re- 

 solvable under Art. 30a. In its- principal 

 features the case is nearly parallel with that 

 of Ixoreus Bonaparte, and upholds the de- 

 cision of the A. 0. U. Committee regarding 

 the genotype of that genus. 



Opinion 15 relates to C raspedacusia sower- 

 hii Lancaster, and is settled by application of 

 the law of priority, which clearly covers the 

 case. The opinion reaffirms previous rules 

 respecting what constitutes publication and 

 the absence of any right on the part of an 

 author over his published names " not com- 

 mon to other writers." This case gave oppor- 

 tunity for one of the commissioners to recom- 

 mend the rule adopted by some botanists to 

 establish an exempt class, nomina conser- 

 vanda. 



Opinion 16 considers the status of pre- 

 binomial specific names (published prior to 

 1758) under Art. 30d. The gist of this opin- 

 ion is : " In deciding whether a case of abso- 

 lute tautonymy is present (under Art. 30d), 

 the citation of a clear prebinomial specific 

 name in synonymy is to be construed as 

 complying with the demands of Art. 30rf. 

 Examples : Equus cahallus {Equus cited in 

 synonymy in the sense of 'the horse ')> 

 Alca tarda (Alca cited in synonymy in the 

 sense of ' the alca ')." 



In connection with this opinion a singular 

 error is to be noted on pp. 33 and 38, where 

 the tjT)e of Charadrius Linn, is given as " C. 



