-2 2 6 Fünfte allgemeine Sitzung. 



Rüppell was in error in accepting Plesiops as identical with Pha- 

 ropteryx must be answered from a systematic point of view. If 

 from our present-day conception of generic limits, Rüppell was 

 correct, no reason is apparent for not accepting his nomenclatorial 

 decision. 



Vote: Affirmative n; negative i; not voting 3. 



20. Shall the genera of Gronow, 1763, be ac- 

 cepted? — Gronow, 1763, is binary, though not consistently 

 binominal. Article 25 demands that an author be binary and Ar- 

 ticle 2 demands that generic names 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 generaof Klein, 1744, r e p r i n t- 

 ed byWalbaum, 1792, be accepted? — When Wal- 

 baum, 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 o; not voting 3. 



22. Ceraticthys vs. Cliola. — Whatever Baird's original inten- 

 tions may have been, he and Girard originally published (1853) 

 Ceraticthys as a monotypic genus, describing the genotype (C. vig- 

 üax) and giving no indication that there were any intentions other 

 than to publish a ,,n. g., n. sp.". Under Article 30c, vigilax is the 

 type of Ceraticthys. 



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



23. Aspro vs. Cheilodiptents or Ambassis. — Under the pre- 

 mises given, Centropomus macrodon may be taken as type of 

 Aspro 1802 and this generic name suppressed as synonym of Chei- 

 lodipterus, thus safeguarding Ambassis. 



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



24. Antennarius Commerson, 1798, and Cuvier, 

 181 7, v s. Histrio Fischer, 1813. — Antennarius Commerson 

 is a uninominal generic name (Art. 2) of an author who used 

 a binary (Art. 25) (though not binominal) nomenclature. 

 It received nomenclatorial status by virtue of its publication b}' 

 Lacepede, 1798, and should date from that time instead of from 

 Cuvier, 1817. It is therefore not necessary to suppress it in favor 

 of Histrio, 1813. 



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



25. Damesiella Tornquist i8gg, vs. Damesella Walcott 1905. 

 — Under Article 36, Recommendations, it is not necessary to reject 

 Damesella 1905, because of theexistence of Damesiella 1898 (1899?). 



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



