JSorth African Specimens o/Apus cnncriforniis. J07 



no ambiguity or doubt lias ever attached to tlic iiainc Ajjcf, 

 until the introduction of the Rules gave authority to unearth 

 names which were still-boru and should have remained 

 decently interred. 



It has been found that Scopoli in 1777 had named as 

 Apus the bird which we have hitherto known as (Ji//jsc/us; 

 wherefore, not only must Cypselus lapse, but Apus, Latreille 

 (18()1), applied to our Crustacean, must also disapi)ear as 

 being preoccupied by Apus, Scopoli. But Scopoli had on a 

 previous ])age described a Crustacean under the name of 

 Apos, so that, as this name has priority over Apus, it is 

 open to argument that the latter, which differs by only one 

 letter, is thereby invalidated. The ground, therefore, on 

 which Apus is transferred to a bird is not, even according 

 to the liules, by any means secure, and, having regard to 

 the extreme inconvenience of the change, it is surprising 

 that anyone should be found to support it. 



Apos, Scopoli, might conceivably be used pari passu with 

 Apus, but Scopoli's Crustacean was an Anostracan, and his 

 name is a synonym oi Branchijms, In view of these facts, 

 Keilhack (1909) has revived the genus Triops, Schrank *, to 

 replace the Crustacean genus Apus, a course which has been 

 followed by others. 



I am, however, of the opinion that, where the International 

 Rules obviously conflict with common-sense, there is no 

 obligation that they should be followed, and that, though 

 allegiance to rules of nomenclature is in general desirable 

 and necessary, they should not be allowed entirely to fetter 

 individual judgment. Further, that those concerned with 

 the systematics of one group of the animal kingdom should 

 have regard to the consequences of their actions upon other 

 groups with which they are not familiar. 



In this particular instance, I hold that ornithologists 

 should acknowledge that Apos, Scopoli^ invalidates Apus, 

 Scopoli, and should retain Cijpselas, which is a well- 

 established name. If this be admitted, Apus, Latreille, may 

 (by the rules of common-sense f) continue to be used in its 

 old sense, and Triops, Schrank, may return to the obscurity 

 from which it was unearthed. 



Ghigi (1921) has recently described three new species 

 of Apus from the Mediterranean region, all of which are 



* Schrank wrote this name both Triops and Triopes. Ghigi (1921) 

 uses a third name — Tluiops. 



t It must be admitted that Apus, Latr.. is in any case eoudennied as a 

 liomonvm bv Art, 'dA.o( the Intornalional liules. 



