382 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXII. No. 



africanus," as determined by Allen. On page 

 38, it is said : " The species C. africanus, ac- 

 cepted as genotype by Allen, is not one of the 

 original species of 1758." As a matter of fact 

 Allen designated C. apricarius, one of the 

 original species, as the genotype of Gharadrius 

 and made no reference whatever to C. afri- 

 canus. Apparently this error could have 

 originated only through a clerical error in 

 transcription, africanus being written in place 

 of apricarius." 



Opinion 17 is to the effect that the genera 

 in Weber's " JSTomenclator entomologicus," 

 1795, " are to be accepted, in so far as they 

 individually comply with the conditions of 

 the code." 



Opinion 18 makes Coluber hydrus Pallas 

 the type of Hydrus Schneider, under the 

 principle of tautonymy, and is further an 

 " adjudication " of Art. 30d. 



Opinion 19 is on Plesiops Oken, 1817, ex 

 " Les Plesiops " Cuvier, 1817, vs. Pharopteryx 

 Eiippell, 1828, a case partly zoological, partly 

 nomenclatorial, and the decision is provi- 

 sional. The discussion of the case and the 

 rulings have, however, important bearings. 

 Plesiops had originally no other basis than a 

 diagnosis. The author of Pharopterus later 

 affirmed its identity with Plesiops. 



Opinion 20 is on the question " Shall the 

 genera of Gronow, 1793, be accepted?" 

 Gronow's nomenclature is binary but not 

 binomial. " His generic names, therefore, 

 correspond to the provisions of the Code, and 

 are to be accepted as available under the 

 Code." 



Opinion 21 is on the question " Shall the 

 genera of Klein, 1744, reprinted by Walbaum, 

 1792, be accepted? " As Walbaum did not ac- 

 cept "the genera of Klein, 1744, he did not 

 thereby give to Klein's genera any nomen- 

 clatorial status, and Klein's genera do not 

 therefore gain availability under the present 



' Also on page 38, " Cervus " appears in the list 

 of bird genera in place of Corvus, and elsewhere 

 in this brochure are minor typographical errors, 

 implying hasty proofreading, among them being 

 errors of date, as 1802 for 1803 (p. 56), 1898 for 

 1798 (p. 57), etc. 



code by reason of being quoted by Wal- 

 baum." The case is also covered by Opinion 

 5, published in' Science (I. c.) in 1907. This 

 decision bears on other nearly parallel cases 

 not here cited. 



Opinion 22 relates to Ceraticthys vs. Cliola, 

 Ceratichthys Baird and Girard, 1853, being a 

 monotypic genus, the single species originally 

 referred to it is its type, although the diag- 

 nosis was later modified and the type trans- 

 ferred to a later genus Cliola. 



Opinion 23, on " Aspro vs. Cheilodipterus^ 

 or Amiassis." Aspro was published by La- 

 cepede in 1803 in inedited manuscript of 

 Commerson; the name was not adopted by 

 Lacepede, but his publication of it prevents 

 the use of Aspro for a later genus (Cuv. and 

 Val., 1828). By selecting as genotype the- 

 third of the five species named under it by 

 Commerson (no genotype having been desig- 

 nated), Aspro would become a synonym of 

 the earlier genus Cheilodipterus. 



Opinion 24. " Antennarius Commerson,, 

 1798, and Cuvier, 1817, vs. Eistrio Fischer, 

 1813." Antennarius was published by Lace-_ 

 pede in the same way as Aspro, and is in com- 

 mon use from Cuvier, 1817, but unless 

 Antennarius is tenable from Lacepede it 

 would be superseded by Histrio Pischer, 1813. 

 As Antennarius was given nomenclatorial' 

 status by its publication (though by another 

 author) , " it may therefore be accepted as a 

 generic name dating from 1798." 



Opinion 25. " Damesiella Tornquist, 1899, 

 vs. Damesella Walcott, 1905." Both names- 

 are accepted under " Art. 36, Eecommenda- 

 tions." It is stated in the " discussion ":- 

 " The only paragraph now in the code under 

 which the names Damesiella and Damesella 

 can be judged is the one reading ' 8, [recom- 

 mendation] h. Words formed by an arbi- 

 trary combination of letters.' Under this- 

 paragraph, Damesiella is not identical with 

 Damesella." The two names were both pro- 

 posed in honor of the same man. Dr. W. 

 Dames! They are thus identical in origin 

 and construction, except that an i is added in 

 Damesiella, presumably for euphony. 



J. A. Allen 



