Opinion 168 on the Principles to be observed in interpreting Article 30 of the International Code in Relation to the Names of Genera based upon erroneously determined species (Opinion supplementary to Opinion 65)


Hemming, F.

Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2(38): 411-426

1945


OPINIONS
AND
DECLARATIONS
RENDERED
BY
THE
/
1NTER-
NATIONAL
COMMISSION
ON
ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
Edited
by
FRANCIS
HEMMING,
C.M.G.,
C.B.E.
Secretary
to
the
Commission
VOLUME
2.
Part
38.
Pp.
411-430.
OPINION
168
On
the
principles
to
be
observed
in
interpreting
Article
30
of
the
International
Code
in
relation
to
the
names
of
genera
based
upon
erroneously
determined
species
(Opinion
supplementary
to
Opinion
65)
LONDON:
Printed
by
Order
of
the
International
Commission
on
Zoological
Nomenclature
Sold
at
the
Publications
Office
of
the
Commission
41,
Queen's
Gate,
London,
S.W.7
1945
Price
five
shillings
(All
rights
reserved)
rssued
25th
September,
1945
INTERNATIONAL
COMMISSION
ON
ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
COMPOSITION
OF
THE
COMMISSION
The
Officers
of
the
Commission
President
:
Dr.
Karl
Jordan,
Ph.D.,
F.R.S.
(United
Kingdom).
Vice-President
:
Dr.
James
L.
Peters
(U.S.A.).
Secretary
:
Mr.
Francis
Hemming,
C.M.G.,
C.B.E.
(United
Kingdom).
The
Members
of
the
Commission
Class
1946
Herr
Professor
Dr.
Walter
ARNDT
(Germany).
Dr.
William
Thomas
CALMAN
(United
Kingdom).
Professor
Teiso
ESAKI
(Japan).
Professor
Bela
von
HANKO
(Hungary).
Dr.
Tadeusz
JACZEWSKI
(Poland).
Dr.
Norman
R.
STOLL
(U.S.A.).
Class
1949
Senor
Dr.
Angel
CABRERA
(Argentina).
Mr.
Francis
HEMMING
(United
Kingdom)
(Secretary
to
the
Commission).
Dr.
Karl
JORDAN
(United
Kingdom)
(President
of
the
Commission).
Dr.
Joseph
PEARSON
(Australia).
Monsieur
le
Docteur
Jacques
PELLEGRIN
(France).
Herr
Professor
Dr.
Rudolf
RICHTER
(Germany).
Class
1952
Senhor
Dr.
Afranio
do
AMARAL
(Brazil).
Professor
James
Chester
BRADLEY
(U.S.A.).
Professor
Ludovico
di
CAPORIACCO
(Italy).
Professor
J.
R.
DYMOND
(Canada).
Dr.
James
L.
PETERS
(U.S.A.)
(Vice-President
of
the
Commission).
Dr.
Harold
E.
VOKES
(U.S.A.)
Secretariat
of
the
Commission
:
British
Museum
(Natural
History),
Cromwell
Road,
London,
S.W.
7.
Publications
Office
of
the
Commission
:
41,
Queen's
Gate,
London,
S.W.
7.
Personal
address
of
the
Secretary
:
83,
Fellows
Road
(Garden
Flat),
London,
N.W.
3.
s
olitskraNZ7
ti
f
t$
N
v
1
31945
/frilrioNAL
tims
Z.
OPINION
168.
ON
THE
PRINCIPLES
TO
BE
OBSERVED
IN
INTERPRETING
ARTICLE
30
OF
THE
INTERNATIONAL
CODE
IN
RELATION
TO
THE
NAMES
OF
GENERA
BASED
UPON
ERRONEOUSLY
DETERMINED
SPECIES
(OPINION
SUPPLEMENTARY
TO
OPINION
65).
SUMMARY.—Article
30
of
the
International
Code
is
to
be
inter-
preted
as
meaning
that,
as
a
specimen
is
the
type
of
a
species,
so
a
species
is
the
type
of
a
genus.
Opinion
65
is
to
be
interpreted
as
directing
(i)
that,
in
the
absence
of
evidence
to
the
contrary,
it
is
to
be
assumed
that
the
original
author
of
a
genus
correctly
identi-
fied
the
species
assigned
by
him
thereto,
whether
the
species
in
question
was
designated
as
the
type
of
the
genus
by
that
author
or,
no
species
having
been
so
designated,
is
a
species
selected
as
the
type
by
a
later
author
acting
under
rule
(g)
in
Article
30
of
the
Code,
and
(ii)
that
in
the
latter
event
it
is
to
be
further
assumed
that
the
later
author
correctly
identified
the
species
so
selected,
but
(iii)
that,
where
there
is
evidence
that
either
or
both
of
these
assump-
tions
is
at
variance
with
the
facts,
the
case
should
be
submitted
with
full
details
to
the
International
Commission
on
Zoological
Nomenclature,
and
(iv)
that,
pending
their
decision
thereon,
the
genus
should
be
regarded
as
of
doubtful
status.
I.—THE
STATEMENT
OF
THE
CASE.
In
1935
Commissioner
Francis
Hemming
prepared
for
the
consideration
of
the
International
Commission
on
Zoological
Nomenclature
a
paper
dealing
with
certain
difficulties
which
had
arisen
in
the
interpretation
of
Opinion
65
(which
relates
to
the
determination
of
the
types
of
genera
based
upon
erroneously
determined
species)
and
asking
for
a
clarification
of
that
Opinion,
with
special
reference
to
the
status
of
certain
genera
in
the
Order
Lepidoptera
(Class
Insecta).
2.
The
portion
of
the
foregoing
paper
relating
to
the
interpre-
tation
of
Opinion
65
reads
as
follows
1
:-
1
The
text
of
Part
2
of
this
paper
dealing
with
individual
generic
names
in
the
Order
Lepidoptera
is
not
reproduced
in
the
present
Opinion,
which
is
concerned
only
with
the
general
principles
discussed
in
Part
1.
The
several
portions
of
Part
2
dealing
with
individual
generic
names
are,
however,
414
OPINIONS
AND
DECLARATIONS
RENDERED
BY
THE
INTERNATIONAL
ON
THE
PROBLEM
OF
GENERA
BASED
UPON
ERRONEOUSLY
DETERMINED
SPECIES,
WITH
SPECIAL
REFERENCE
TO
CERTAIN
GENERA
IN
THE
LEPIDOPTERA
RHOPALOCERA
By
Francis
Hemming,
C.B.E.
Introductory
While
preparing
my
Generic
Names
of
the
Holarctic
Butterflies,
the
first
volume
of
which
appeared
last
year,*
I
found
myself
confronted
with
the
names
of
a
number
of
genera
based
upon
erroneously
determined
species.
When
I
turned
to
Opinion
65,
I
found
that,
although
the
title
of
that
Opinion
("
Case
of
a
genus
based
upon
an
erroneously
determined
species
")
is
of
a
general
character,
thus
indicating
that
the
International
Commission
intended
it
to
cover
all
the
classes
of
genera
involved,
the
actual
subject
matter
dealt
with
by
the
Commission
in
the
"
summary
"
is
very
limited.
It
is
confined
indeed
to
one
only
of
the
classes
of
case
concerned,
and
that
one
of
the
least frequent,
although
a
second
class
of
case
is
discussed
in
the
"
statement
of
the
case
"
on
which
that
Opinion
is
founded.
On
the
other
hand,
Opinion
65
gives
implicit
guidance
regarding
the
principles
to
be
'
,
applied
in
dealing
with
the
other
classes
of
case.
Moreover,
that
Opinion"
lays
down
the
important
general
proposition
that,
where
any
specialist
encounters
a
genus
which
appears
to
be
based
upon
an
erroneously
deter-
mined
species,
he
should
submit
full
particulars
to
the
Commission.
2.
In
view
of
the
relatively
large
number
of
cases
which
I
have
en-
countered
in
a
single
Sub-Order
(Rhopalocera)
of
one
Order
(Lepidoptera)
of
insects,
it
cannot
be
doubted
that
in
the
Animal
Kingdom
as
a
whole
the
number
of
genera
based
upon
erroneously
determined
species
must
be
considerable.
For
this
reason
alone
it
is
clearly
desirable
that
the
Inter-
national
Commission
should
now
elucidate
the
principles
laid
down
im-
plicitly
in
Opinion
65.
The
lack
of
such
guidance
is
already
causing
real
inconvenience
to
those
whose
business
it
is
to
determine
the
types
of
genera
in
various
groups
and
is
retarding
the
development
of
classification.
3.
The
preparation
of
such
an
Opinion
would
not
involve
the
Commission
in
any
substantial
amount
of
additional
work,
since
it
will
in
any
case
be
necessary
for
the
Commission
to
formulate
for
their
own
guidance
the
principles
involved
before
they
can
reach
decisions
on
the
particular
cases
in
the
Order
Lepidoptera
now
submitted.
Once
those
principles
have
been
formulated,
there
is
clearly
everything
to
be
gained
by
their
being
set
out
in
a
special
Opinion
supplementary
to
Opinion
65
in
a
form
readily
accessible
to
all
systematic
workers.
4.
The
primary
object
of
the
present
application
is
to
secure
decisions
from
the
International
Commission
on
the
identity
of
the
types
of
those
genera
in
the
Order
Lepidoptera
which
I
have
found
to
be
based
upon
er-
roneously
determined
species.
For
the
reasons
explained
above,
the
secondary
object
of
this
application
is
to
ask
the
International
Commission,
once
they
have
settled
those
cases,
to
render
an
Opinion
setting
out
the
principles
that
have
guided
them
in
so
doing.
5.
Part
1
of
the
present
paper
is
therefore
concerned
with
the
general
problem
of
the
different
classes
of
genera
based
upon
erroneously
determined
species.
In
this
Part,
I
indicate
the
solution
which
appears
to
me
to
follow
from
the
principles
implicit
in
the
Opinion
rendered
by
the
Commission
as
Opinion
65.
quoted
in
the
Opinions
dealing
with
those
names,
namely
Opinions
169
(Lycaeides
Hubner)
(pp.
431-442
below)
,
173
(Agriades
Hubner),
175
(Polyommatus
Latreille),
177
(Euchloe
Hubner),
179
(Princeps
Hubner),
and
181
(Carcharodus
Hubner).
*
This
volume
was
published
by
the
Trustees
of
the
British
Museum
(Natural
History)
on
28th
July
1934.
COMMISSION
ON
ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE.
OPINION
168.
415
6.
Part
2
deals
with
the
particular
cases
in
the
Order
Lepidoptera
on
which
I
am
asking
for
decisions
from
the
International
Commission.
A
full
statement
of
the
relevant
facts
is
given
for
each
of
the
genera
concerned,
together
with
suggestions
for
the
solution
of
the
problems
involved.
Part
i
.
The
Problems
Raised
by
Genera
Based
upon
Erroneously
Determined
Species
7.
The
problems
associated
with
genera
based
upon
erroneously
deter-
mined
species
were
discussed
by
the
International
Commission
on
Zoological
Nomenclature
at
their
meeting
held
in
1910
at
Graz
during
the
Eighth
International
Congress
of
Zoology.
As
the
result
of
that
discussion,
Dr.
C.
W.
Stiles,
as
Secretary
to
the
Commission,
opened
a
public
debate
on
this
question
in
a
paper
which
appeared
in
Science
in
April
1911
under
the
title
"
What
is
the
genotype
of
X-us
Jones
1900,
based
upon
a
species
erroneously
determined
as
albus
Smith
1890
?
"
The
statement
of
the
case
as
given
in
that
paper
read
as
follows
:—
Statement
of
case—Jones
proposes
the
new
genus
X-us,
190o,
type
species
albus
Smith,
189o.
It
later
develops
that
albus
Smith,
189o,
as
determined
by
Jones,
1900,
is
an
erroneous
determination.
What
is
the
genotype
of
X-us,
1900
;
albus
Smith,
1890,
or
the
form
erroneously
identi-
fied
by
Jones
as
albus
in
1900
?
8.
As
the
result
of
the
publication
of
this
paper
extensive
correspondence
ensued
between
the
Secretary
to
the
Commission
and
specialists
in
various
groups,
and
this
correspondence
was
laid
before
the
Commission
at
their
meeting
held
at
Monaco
in
1913
during
the
meeting
of
the
Ninth
Interna-
tional
Congress
of
Zoology.
The
Commission
then
decided,
on
Dr.
Stiles's
proposal,
to
refer
the
whole
of
the
documents
of
the
case
to
a
specially
constituted
Committee
consisting
of
Commissioners
Hartert,
Allen
and
Hoyle
"
for
recommendation
as
to
action."
9.
The
Report
submitted
by
the
Hartert—Allen—Hoyle
Committee
was
as
follows
:—
Case
of
a
genus
based
upon
a
wrongly
determined
species
The
Committee
is
of
the
opinion
that
as
a
specimen
is
the
type
of
a
species,
so
a
species
is
the
type
of
a
genus,
and
hence
that
when
an
author
names
a
particular
species
as
the
type
of
a
new
genus
it
is
to
be
assumed
that
it
has
been
correctly
determined.
If
a
case
should
present
itself
in
which
it
appears
that
an
author
has
based
his
genus
updn
certain
specimens
rather
than
upon
a
species,
it
should
be
submitted
to
the
Commission
for
consideration.
1o.
The
foregoing
Report
was
accepted
by
the
Commission
who
thereupon
adopted
it
and
ordered
it
to
be
published
as
their
Opinion'
on
this
subject.
t
Effect
was
given
to
this
decision
in
March
1914
on
the
publication
of
Opinion
654
The
title
and
"
summary
"
(i.e.
the
operative
portion)
of
that
Opinion
are
as
follows
:—
Case
of
a
genus
based
upon
erroneously
determined
species.
SUMMARY.—If
an
author
designates
a
certain
species
as
genotype,
it
is
to
be
assumed
that
his
determination
is
correct;
if
a
case
presents
itself
in
which
it
appears
that
an
author
has
based
his
genus
upon
certain
definite
specimens,
rather
than
upon
a
species,
it
would
be
well
to
submit
the
case,
with
full
details,
to
the
Commission.
At
the
present
moment,
it
is
difficult
to
lay
down
a
general
rule.
11
.
It
will
be
noted
that
the
"
summary
"
of
Opinion
65
deals
in
terms
only
with
the
special
case
where
a
genus
is
based
upon
particular
speci-
mens
rather
than
a
particular
species
although
the
"
statement
of
the
case
"
t
See
Stiles,
1914,
Smithson.
miscel.
Publ.
2256
:
169.
Published
in
1914,
ibid.
2256:
152-169.
416
OPINIONS
AND
DECL4RATIONS
RENDERED
BY
THE
INTERNATIONAL
upon
which
this
Opinion
is
founded
is
concerned
with
the
case
of
a
genus
based
upon
an
erroneously
determined
species.
Only
for
the
first
of
such
types
of
case
does
the
"
summary
"
lay
down
clearly
the
action
to
be
taken.
Unlike
the
"
summary,"
the
title
to
this
Opinion
is
quite
general,
thereby
indicating
that
the
Commission
intended
that
this
Opinion
should
apply
to
all
the
types
of
case
in
which
a
genus
may
be
based
upon
an
erroneously
determined
species.
It
was
undoubtedly
to
these
other
types
of
case
that
the
observation
in
the
last
sentence
of
the
"
summary,"
that
"
at
the
present
moment,
it
is
difficult
to
lay
down
a
general
rule
"
was
directed.
Twenty-one
years
have
gone
by
since
Opinion
65
was
published
by
the
Commission
and
no
further
guidance
has
been
issued
to
zoologists
on
this
subject.
Throughout
this
period
it
has
therefore
been
necessary
for
systematists
to
deal
with
the
various
classes
of
case,
other
than
the
single
one
expressly
covered
in
the
"
summary
"
of
the
above
Opinion,
as
best
they
could
in
the
light
of
the
general
principles
deducible
from
that
Opinion.
Results
obtained
by
such
means
are
obviously
liable
to
challenge
until
the
International
Commission
as
the
final
judicial
authority
gives
a
clear
and
unequivocal
decision
on
the
points
of
principle
involved.
12.
The
lack
of
such
a
decision
has
not
so
far
caused
as
much
incon-
venience
as
might
have
been
expected
since
in
the
case
of
many
groups
the
war
of
1914-1918
materially
delayed
the
detailed
study
of
generic
names
in
the
light
of
the
present
Code,
which
in
1914
was
only
nine
years
old.*
In
recent
years,
however,
a
great
deal
of
work
has
been
done
in
this
field
and
a
stage
has
been
reached
where
in
some
groups
almost
the
only
genera,
the
types
of
which
are
open
to
challenge,
are
genera,
the
names
of
which
fall
in
one
or
other
of
the
classes
covered
by
Opinion
65.
It
is
manifest
therefore
that
if
the
Commission
is
to
assist
specialists
to
secure
stability
of
nomen-
clature
in
their
respective
groups,
one
of
their
most
urgent
tasks
is
the
elucidation
of
those
parts
of
Opinion
65
which
in
1914
they
left
to
be
dealt
with
by
implication.
13.
Most
but
not
all
of
the
problems
involved
will
be
settled
automatically
by
the
International
Commission
when
they
give
decisions
on
the
names
in
the
Order
Lepidoptera
dealt
with
in
Part
2
of
the
present
paper.
There
are
seven
principal
classes
of
case
involved,
including
the
class
(class
"
C
"),
on
which
a
definitive
ruling
was
given
in
the
"
summary
"
of
Opinion
65,
and
the
class
(class
"
A
")
dealt
with
in
the
"
statement
of-
the
case
"
upon
which
that
Opinion
is
based.
The
classes
in
question
are
the
fol-
lowing
:—
CLASS
"
A
"
:—a
genus
of
which
the
type
was
designated
by
the
original
author
but
there
is
doubt
regarding
the
identity
of
the
species
so
designated.
CLASS
"
B
"
:—a
genus
of
which
the
type
was
not
designated
by
the
original
author
of
the
genus
and
both
that
author
and
the
author
who
subsequently
designated
the
type
referred
to
the
species
under
an
erroneously
determined
name.
CLASS
"
C
"
:—a
genus
based
upon
certain
specimens
rather
than
upon
a
species.
CLASS
"
D
"
:—a
genus
of
which
the
type
was
designated
by
the
original
author
but
the
species
so
designated
was
a
"
composite
species."
CLASS
"
E
"
:—a
genus
of
which
the
type
was
not
designated
by
the
original
author
of
the
genus
and
the
originally
included
species
first
designated
as
the
type
by
a
later
author
was
a
"
composite
species."
CLASS
"
F
"
:—a
genus
of
which
the
type
was
not
designated
by
the
original
author
of
the
genus
and
the
species
first
designated
as
the
type
by
a
later
author
is
a
component
species
of
a
"
composite
species
"
included
in
the
genus
by
the
original
author
of
the
genus.
CLASS
"
G
"
:—a
genus
of
which
the
type
was
not
designated
by
the
original
author
of
the
genus
and
there
is
doubt
whether
the
species
first
designated
as
the
type
by
a
later
author
is
an
originally
included
species.
*
The
present
Code
was
adopted
by
the
International
Congress
of
Zoology
at
Berlin
in
1901.
The
editing
of
the
texts
was
not
completed
until
1904
and
the
report
of
the
Comite
de
Redaction,
containing
the
text
of
the
Code
adopted
at
Berlin,
was
not
published
until
1905.
COMMISSION
ON
ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE.
OPINION
168.
417
14.
At
this
point
it
is
necessary
to
refer
briefly
to
two
interpretations
of
Opinion
65,
each
of
which
is
based,
as
it
seems
to
me,
upon
a
complete
misunderstanding
of
the
intention
of
the
International
Commission.
These
interpretations
are
:—
(i)
If
the
original
author
of
a
genus
when
designating
its
type
or,
if
the
type
is
not
so
designated,
the
later
author
when
selecting
the
type,
uses
a
wrongly
determined
trivial
name
for
the
species
so
designated
or
so
selected,
the
type
of
the
genus
is
in
all
circumstances
the
species
to
which
properly
belongs
the
specific
trivial
name
erroneously
so
used.
Note
:—In
its
most
extreme
form
this
interpretation
claims
that
the
type
of
a
genus
is
not
a
species
but
the
name
of
a
species.
(ii)
The
type
of
a
genus
is
not
and
cannot
be
a
species,
since
that
is
an
abstract
conception
quite
inappropriate
for
this
purpose.
The
type
of
a
genus,
like
the
type
of
a
species,
must
therefore
be
the
actual
specimen
from
which
the
first
published
description
of
the
genus
was
drawn
up.
Note
:—This
argument
implies
that
a
given
specimen
might
be
the
holotype
both
of
a
species
(see
the
second
part
of
Section
A
of
the
Appendix
to
the
International
Code)
and
of
a
genus.
It
implies
also
that,
if
the
author
of
a
genus
based
his
description
upon
two
or
more
specimens,
each
of
those
specimens
would
be
a
paratype
of
the
genus,
if
at
the
same
time
he
designated
a
holotype,
and
in
other
cases
would
be
a
co-type
of
the
genus.
15.
Of
these
interpretations,
interpretation
(i)
would
be
valid
only
if
the
International
Commission
had
declared
in
Opinion
65
that
in
all
circum-
stances
the
type
of
a
genus
is,
and
must
remain,
the
species
to
which
properly
belongs
the
specific
trivial
name
cited
at
the
time
when
the
type
of
the
genus
was
designated
by
its
author
or
selected
by
a
subsequent
author,
irrespective
of
any
evidence
that
may
be
available
regarding
the
intentions
of
the
author
by
whom
the
type
was
designated
or
selected
as
the
case
may
be.
But
quite
clearly
this
interpretation
is
the
opposite
of
the
intention
of
Opinion
65,
for
in
the
"
summary
"
of
that
Opinion
the
International
Commission
expressly
provided
for
the
recognition
of
a
mistake
having
been
made
by
the
author
in
one
class
of
case
and
clearly
implied
that
in
suitable
instances
they
were
prepared
to
accord
a
similar
recognition
in
other
classes
of
case.
Except
on
this
basis,
no
explanation
is
possible
of
the
request
made
in
the
"
summary
"
that
doubtful
cases
should
be
submitted
"
with
full
details
"
to
the
Commission.
16.
The
origin
of
interpretation
(ii)
is
no
doubt
to
be
found
in
the
refer-
ence
in
the
"
summary
"
of
Opinion
65
to
the
possibility
that
a
genus
might
be
founded
upon
"
certain
definite
specimens
rather
than
upon
a
species."
The
context
clearly
shows
however
that
these
words
were
inserted
in
the
"
summary
"
not
for
the
purpose
of
upholding,
still
less
for
enjoining,
such
a
method
of
founding
a
genus
but
for
the
purpose
of
condemning
it
and
of
pointing
out
that,
where
the
reviser
of
a
genus
encounters
such
a
case,
he
must
regard
the
identity
of
the
type
as
open
to
doubt
until
the
question
has
been
referred
to,
and
settled
by,
the
International
Commission.
Like
interpreta-
tion
(i),
interpretation
(ii)
must
be
rejected
as
fallacious.
17.
The
general
question
of
what
is
the
type
of
a
genus
is
made
perfectly
clear
both
in
Article
3o
of
the
International
Code,
the
opening
words
of
which
refer
expressly
to
the
"
type
species
of
genera
"
and
in
the
addition
to
Article
25
approved
by
the
International
Zoological
Congress
at
its
meeting
at
Budapest
in
1927,
which
in
referring
to
the
type
of
a
genus,
refers
to
the
"
type
species
"
and
to
nothing
else.
Moreover,
as
pointed
out
in
paragraph
9
above,
the
same
proposition
is
stated
with
even
greater
precision
in
Opinion
65
itself,
for
in
the
Resolution
adopted
by
the
Commission
at
Monaco
upon
which
that
Opinion
is
founded
and
from
which
it
derives
its
authority,
it
is
expressly
laid
down
that
"
as
a
specimen
is
the
type
of
a
418
OPINIONS
AND
DECLARATIONS
RENDERED
BY
THE
INTERNATIONAL
species,
so
a
species
is
the
type
of
a
genus."
The
contention
involved
in
interpretation
(ii)
that
the
type
of
a
genus
is
or
may
be
not
a
species
but
a
specimen
is
therefore
wholly
untenable.
18.
The
foregoing,
however,
is
not
the
question
with
which
Opinion
65
is
concerned.
What
the
Commission
had
set
themselves
to
consider—and
what
they
therefore
dealt
with—in
that
Opinion
was
an
entirely
different
problem
and
one
concerned
with
procedure
only.
It
was
to
define
the
action
which
the
reviser
of
a
genus
should
take
when
he
finds
(or
thinks
that
he
finds)
evidence
showing
that that
genus
is
based
upon
an
erroneously
determined
species.
The
action
enjoined
upon
revisers
in
that
Opinion
was
that
they
should
guide
themselves
by
the
preliminary
assumption
that
the
author
who
designates
the
type
of
a
genus
correctly
identified
the
species
so
designated.
The
Commission
went
on
however
to
qualify
this
inj
unction
by
the
proviso
that,
if
in
the
opinion
of
the
reviser
there
are
grounds
for
believing
that
the
foregoing
preliminary
assumption
is
at
variance
with
the
facts,
he
should
submit
the
case,
with
full
details,
to
the
International
Commission.
19.
Opinion
65
is
imperfect
not
because
its
meaning
is
obscure
but
because
the
wording
of
the
"
summary
"
and
therefore
the
explicit,
as
contrasted
with
the
implicit,
scope
of
that
Opinion
is
narrower
than
the
title
of
the
Opinion
which
(as
already
observed)
is
quite
general
and
covers
the
whole
range
of
genera
based
upon
erroneously
determined
species.
The
position
in
regard
to
this
Opinion
is
somewhat
similar
to
that
which
has
arisen
with
regard
to
Opinion
II
(relating
to
the
interpretation
of
Latreille's
Considerations
generales
of
i8io).
The
title
of
that
Opinion
indicated
that
it
was
intended
to
define
the
extent
to
which
Latreille
designated
genotypes
in
that
work,
but
the
"
summary
"
dealt
only
with
part
of
the
problems
involved
and
left
the
remainder
to
be
inferred.
To
remedy
this
situation,
the
Commission
are
now
being
asked
to
render
an
Opinion
supplementary
to
Opinion
II
dealing
in
express
terms
with
those
parts
of
the
subject
which
were
not
clearly
defined
in
that
Opinion.
Both
Opinion
II
and
Opinion
65
give
valuable
guidance
on
the
subjects
with
which
they
are
respectively
concerned
but
neither
Opinion
covers
the
whole
of
the
ground.
The
difficulties
in
regard
to
Opinion
II
will
be
overcome
if
the
Commission
now
agree
to
render
the
proposed
supplementary
Opinion.
2
So
also
will
the
difficulties
which
have
arisen
in
regard
to
Opinion
65
if
in
that
case
also
the
Commission
agree
to
render
a
supplementary
Opinion
dealing
with
those
parts
of
the
subject
which
were
not
expressly
covered
when
that
Opinion
was
drafted
over
twenty
years
ago.
20.
I
accordingly
recommend
that
the
International
Commission
should
render
an
Opinion
supplementary
to
Opinion
65
:—
(i)
re-affirming
the
proposition
laid
down
by
the
Commission
at
Monaco
I
that
"
as
a
specimen
is
the
type
of
a
species,
so
a
species
is
the
type
of
a
genus
"
;
(ii)
declaring
that
an
author
when
considering
a
genus
should
start
with
the
assumption
that
the
original
author
of
the
genus
correctly
identi-
fied
both
the
type
species,
if
he
designated
a
species
as
such,
and
also
the
other
species
placed
by
him
in
that
genus,
and
further
that,
where
the
original
author
did
not
designate
a
type,
the
first
author
See
paragraphs
9
and
io
above.
2
The
proposal
to
render
an
Opinion
supplementary
to
Opinion
1
1
was
approved
by
the
International
Commission
on
Zoological
Nomenclature
at
their
meeting
held
at
Lisbon
on
the
afternoon
of
16th
September
1935
(Lisbon
Session,
3rd
Meeting,
Conclusion
1).
That
decision
has
since
been
embodied
in
Opinion
136
(see
1939,
Opinions
and
Declarations
rendered
by
the
International
Commission
on
Zoological
Nomenclature
2
:
13-20).
COMMISSION
ON
ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE.
OPINION
168.
419
to
select
one
of
the
originally
included
species
as
the
type
also
correctly
identified
the
species
so
selected
;
(iii)
indicating
that,
where
in
the
opinion
of
the
reviser
of
a
genus
there
is
evidence
that
either
or
both
of
the
foregoing
assumptions
are
at
variance
with
the
facts,
the
identity
of
the
type
of
the
genus
must
for
the
time
being
be
regarded
as
doubtful
and
that
accordingly
a
reviser
encountering
such
a
case
should
submit
it
with
full
details
to
the
International
Commission
for
decision.
2I.
These
are
the
principles
which
appear
to
me
to
be
inherent
in
Opinion
65
and
which
I
have
adopted
in
formulating
for
the
consideration
of
the
International
Commission
the
recommendations
in
regard
to
the
genera
in
the
Order
Lepidoptera
set
out
in
Part
2
of
the
present
paper.
It
follows
therefore
that,
if
the
Commission
approve
those
proposals,
it
will
be
because
they
have
accepted
the
foregoing
interpretation
of
Opinion
65.
Equally,
if
the
Commission
approve
this
interpretation
of
that
Opinion,
they
will
find
no
difficulty
in
approving
the
proposals
submitted
in
regard
to
the
individual
cases
dealt
with
in
Part
2.
22.
The
object
of
the
International
Commission
in
indicating
in
Opinion
65
that
doubtful
cases
should
be
referred
to
them
with
full
details
can
only
have
been
to
secure
absolute
finality
regarding
the
identity
of
the
type
of
any
genus
so
submitted.
If
this
object
is
to
be
secured,
decisions
in
such
cases
will
need
to
be
taken
by
the
Commission
not
under
their
ordinary
powers
but
under
the
plenary
powers
conferred
upon
them
by
the
Ninth
International
Zoological
Congress
at
Monaco
in
1913,
for
it
is
only
by
this
means
that
their
decision
in
such
a
matter
can
be
placed
beyond
the
reach
of
subsequent
dispute.
23.
To
sum
up
this
part
of
the
case,
the
object
of
the
present
application
is
to
request
the
International
Commission
on
Zoological
Nomenclature
to
render
an
Opinion
supplementary
to
Opinion
65,
re-affirming
the
principle
quoted
in
sub-paragraph
(i)
of
paragraph
20
above
and
prescribing
the
method
of
procedure
indicated
in
sub-paragraphs.
(ii)
and
(iii)
of
that
paragraph.
II.
—THE
SUBSEQUENT
HISTORY
OF
THE
CASE.
3.
The
questions
raised
in
Commissioner
Hemming's
application
were
considered
by
the
International
Committee
on
Entomological
Nomenclature
at
their
meeting
held
at
Madrid
in
September
1935
during
the
Sixth
International
Congress
of
Entomology.
The
International
Committee
unanimously
agreed
to
recommend
the
International
Commission
on
Zoological
Nomenclature
to
render
an
Opinion
clarifying
the
meaning
of
Opinion
65
in
the
manner
proposed
and,
as
regards
the
genera
in
the
Order
Lepidoptera
(Class
Insecta)
dealt
with
in
Part
2
of
that
application,
to
render
Opinions
declaring
that
the
types
of
those
genera
were
the
species
indicated
in
that
paper,
i.e.
the
species
intended
by
the
original
authors
concerned
and
not
the
species
to
which
properly
belong
the
trivial
names
erroneously
used
for
those
species
by
the
authors
concerned.
3
3
For
the
numbers
of
the
Opinions
subsequently
rendered
by
the
Inter-
national
Commission
on
Zoological
Nomenclature
in
regard
to
the
generic
names
here
referred
to,
see
footnote
1.
420
OPINIONS
AND
DECLARATIONS
RENDERED
BY
THE
INTERNATIONAL
4.
The
above
and
other
resolutions
adopted
by
the
Interna-
tional
Committee
at
their
meeting
held
at
Madrid
were
confirmed
by
the
Sixth
International
Congress
of
Entomology
at
the
Con-
cilium
Plenum
held
at
Madrid
on
12th
September
1935.
III.
—THE
CONCLUSION
REACHED
BY
THE
INTER-
NATIONAL
COMMISSION
ON
ZOOLOGICAL
NOMEN-
CLATURE.
5.
The
question
of
the
interpretation
of
Opinion
65
and
the
associated
question
of
the
types
of
the
genera
in
the
Order
Lepido-
ptera
(Class
Insecta)
dealt
with
in
Commissioner
Hemming's
application
were
considered
by
the
International
Commission
on
Zoological
Nomenclature
at
their
meeting
held
at
Lisbon
on
the
morning
of
Monday,
16th
September
1935.
In
the
course
of
the
discussion
on
the
general
principles
involved,
attention
was
drawn
to
the
following
considerations
:
(a)
The
difficulties
that
had
arisen
in
regard
to
the
interpretation
of
Opinion
65
were
largely
due
to
technical
faults
in
that
Opinion
due
to
the
fact
that
the
"
summary
"
of
that
Opinion
was
drawn
in
much
narrower
terms
than
those
of
the
decision
taken
by
the
International
Commission
when
at
Monaco
in
March
1913
they
had
agreed
to
render
an
Opinion
on
this
subject.
(b)
The
"
summary
"
of
Opinion
65
was
restricted
to
the
special
case
where
the
author
of
a
genus
designated
its
type
but
in
reality
based
his
genus
upon
certain
definite
specimens
rather
than
on
a
species
and
where
it
was
later
found
that
the
specimens
so
used
by
the
author
of
the
genus
were
not
referable
to
the
species
designated
by
that
author
as
the
type.
On
the
other
hand,
the
decision
to
render
this
Opinion
was
in
form
a
decision
to
accept,
adopt,
and
publish
the
report
of
a
special
Committee
of
Three
Commissioners
(the
Hartert—
Allen—Hoyle
Committee).
The
proposition
in
that
report
(and
therefore
in
the
decision
taken
by
the
Commission
at
Monaco
in
1913)
was
that
"
as
a
specimen
is
the
type
of
a
species,
so
a
species
is
the
type
of
a
genus."
For
some
(now
unascertainable)
reason
this
proposition
had
been
omitted
from
the
"
summary
"
of
Opinion
65.
The
result
had
been
unfortunate,
since
this
omission,
coupled
with
the
reference
in
the
Monaco
decision
and
(consequently)
in
the
"
summary
"
to
Opinion
65
to
the
possibility
of
an
author
basing
a
genus
upon
"
certain
definite
specimens,"
had
lent
some
apparent
support
to
the
proposition
that
the
type
of
a
genus
was
or
might
be
a
specimen
rather
than
a
species.
(c)
Further,
the
decision
taken
at
Monaco
covered
a
narrower
field
than
did
the
documents
attached
to
the
"
statement
of
the
case
"
on
which
the
discussion
leading
up
to
that
decision
was
based,
for
the
case
so
stated
was
not
confined
to
the
class
of
case
where
the
mis-
identified
species
had
been
designated
as
the
type
by
the
original
author
but
was
applicable
also
to
the
case
where
the
misidentified
species
became
the
type
by
being
selected
as
such
by
a
later
author.
The
title
of
the
Opinion
"
Case
of
a
genus
based
upon
erroneously
determined
species
"
was
wider
even
than
the
"
statement
of
the
case
"
and
clearly
covered
every
type
of
case
in
which
a
genus
could
be
based
upon
an
erroneously
determined
species.
COMMISSION
ON
ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE.
OPINION
168.
421
(d)
What
was
now
required
was
an
Opinion
setting
out
in
the
clearest
and
most
unambiguous
manner
possible
exactly
what
was
the
scope
of
the
decision
intended
to
be
conveyed
by
Opinion
65
and
the
procedure
that
should
be
adopted
by
zoologists
when
confronted
with
cases
falling
within
the
scope
of
that
Opinion
as
so
defined.
Only
by
this
means
would
an
end
be
put
to
the
doubts
and
perplexities
caused
by
Opinion
65
in
its
present
form.
6.
In
view
of
the
fact
that
a
decision
on
either
part
of
the
present
application
would
inevitably
determine
also
the
decision
to
be
taken
on
the
other
part,
the
International
Commission
considered
the
two
parts
together.
Their
decision
thereon
was
as
follows
(Lisbon
Session,
2nd
Meeting,
Conclusion
23)
:
(a)
to
re-affirm
the
decision
taken
at
their
Monaco
Session
in
1913
that
Article
30
of
the
International
Code
is
to
be
interpreted
as
meaning
that,
as
a
specimen
is
the
type
of
a
species,
so
a
species
is
the
type
of
a
genus
;
to
interpret
Opinion
65
as
directing
(i)
that,
in
the
absence
of
evidence
to
the
contrary,
it
is
to
be
assumed
that
the
original
author
of
a
genus
correctly
identified
the
species
assigned
by
him
thereto,
whether
the
species
in
question
was
designated
as
the
type
of
the
genus
by
that
author
or,
no
species
having
been
so
designated,
is
a
species
selected
as
the
type
by
a
later
author
acting
under
Article
30
(g)
of
the
Code,
and
(ii)
that
in
the
latter
event
it
is
to
be
further
assumed
that
the
later
author
correctly
identified
the
species
so
selected,
but
(iii)
that,
where
there
is
evidence
that
either
or
both
of
these
assumptions
is
at
variance
with
the
facts,
the
case
should
be
submitted
with
full
details
to
the
International
Commission
on
Zoological
Nomenclature,
and
(iv)
that,
pending
their
decision
thereon,
the
genus
should
be
regarded
as
of
doubtful
status
;
(b)
in
the
light
of
(a)
above,
to
suspend
the
rules
in
the
case
of
the
undermentioned
genera
and
to
declare
the
types
of
the
genera
in
question
to
be
the
species
indicated
below
:—
Name
of
genus
Type
of
genus
(1)
Lycaeides
Hubner,
[1819],
4
Veyz.
bek.
Schmett.
(5)
:
69
(2)
Agriades
Hubner,
[1819],
Verz.
bek.
Schmett.
(5)
:
68
and
Latiorina
Tutt,
1909,
Ent.
Rec.
21.
:
To8
Papilio
argyrognomon
Bergstrasser,
[1779],
Nom.
Ins.
2
:
76
(the
species
misidentified
as
Papilio
argus
Linnaeus,
1758,
by
Schiffer-
mUller
&
Denis,
1775,
and
by
Hubner
and
later
authors)
Papilio
glandon
Prunner,
I
798,
Lepid.
pedemont.
:
76
(the
species
misidentified
as
Papilio
ovbitulus
Prunner,
1798,
by
Esper,
[1799],
by
Hubner
and
other
authors)
4
As
explained
in
note
(33)
on
page
68
of
vol.
1
of
Bull.
zool.
Nomencl.,
it
was
believed
at
the
time
of
the
Lisbon
Session
that
signatures
5
to
15
of
HUbner's
Verz.
bek.
Schmett.
were
published
in
1823.
With
the
discovery
and
examination
of
HUbner's
surviving
manuscripts,
it
has
since
been
ascertained
that
of
these
signatures
nos.
5
to
II
were
published
in
1819
(see
Opinion
150
in
1943,
Opinions
and
Declarations
rendered
by
the
Interna-
tional
Commission
on
Zoological
Nomenclature
2
:
161-168).
The
dates
were
corrected
in
the
Official
Record
of
the
Proceedings
of
the
International
Commission
at
their
Lisbon
Session
as
agreed
upon
at
the
Fifth
Meeting
of
the
Commission
at
that
Session
(Conclusion
I
(c)).
422
OPINIONS
AND
DECLARATIONS
RENDERED
BY
THE
INTERNATIONAL
(3)
Name
of
genus
Polyommatus
Latreille,
1804,
Nouv.
Dict.
Hist.
nat.
24
(Tab.)
:
185,
200
(4)
Euchloe
Hubner,
[1819],
V
erz.
bek.
Schmett.
(6)
94
(5)
Princeps
Hubner,
[1807],
Samml.
exot.
Schmett.
1
:
pl.
[116]
and
Orpheides
Hubner,
[I
819]
,
V
erz.
bek.
Schmett.
(6)
:
86
(6)
Carcharodus
Hubner,
[1819],
V
erz.
bek.
Schmett.
(7)
:
IR)
and
spilothyrus
Duponchel,
1835,
in
Godart,
Hist.
nat.
Lepid.
France
Suppl.
1
(Diurnes)
:
415
Type
of
genus
Papilio
icarus
Rottemburg,
1775,
Naturforscher
6
:
21
(the
species
misidentified
as
Papilio
argus
Linnaeus,
1758,
by
Latreille,
1804)
Euchloe
ausonia
Hubner
var.
esperi
Kirby,
1871,
Syn.
Cat.
diurn.
Lep.
:
506
(the
species
misidentified
as
Papilio
belies
Linnaeus,
1767,
by
Stoll
(in
Cramer),
and
by
Esper
and
Hubner)
Papilio
demodocus
Esper,
[1798],
Ausl.
Schmett.
(14)
:
205
(first
described
by
Linnaeus
in
1764
as
Papilio
demoleus,
a
name
given
by
him
in
1758
to
another
species
;
similarly
misidentified
by
Hubner)
Papilio
alceae
Esper,
[1780],
Die
Schmett.
1
(Bd.
2)
Forts.
T
agschmett
.
:
4
pl.
51
fig.
3
y
(the
species
misidentified
as
Papilio
malvae
Linnaeus,
1758,
by
Denis
and
Schiffermiiller,
1775,
and
by
Hubner
and
Duponchel)
(c)
to
render
Opinions
in
the
sense
of
(a)
and
(b)
above.
5
7.
At
the
meeting
of
the
Commission
held
on
Tuesday,
17th
September
1935
(Lisbon
Session,
4th
Meeting,
Conclusion
17),
Commissioner
Francis
Hemming,
who,
in
the
absence
through
ill-
health
of
Dr.
C.
W.
Stiles,
Secretary
to
the
Commission,
had
been
charged
with
the
duty
of
preparing
the
report
to
be
submitted
by
the
Commission
to
the
Twelfth
International
Congress
of
Zoology,
reported
that,
in
accordance
with
the
request
made
by
the
Commission
on
the
previous
day
(Lisbon
Session,
3rd
Meeting,
Conclusion
3(b)),
he
had
made
a
start
with
the
drafting
of
the
Commission's
report
;
that
he
had
made
considerable
progress
in
spite
of
being
hampered
by
the
lack
of
standard
works
of
reference
;
and
that
he
did
not
doubt
that
he
would
be
in
a
position
to
lay
a
draft
report
before
the
Commission
at
their
next
meeting,
though
in
the
time
available
it
would
be
quite
impracticable
to
prepare
the
drafts
of
paragraphs
relating
to
all
the
matters
on
which
decisions
had
been
reached
during
the
Lisbon
Session
of
the
Commission.
As
agreed
upon
at
the
meeting
referred
to
above
(Lisbon
Session,
3rd
Meeting,
Conclusion
3(a)(iii)),
he
was
there-
5
The
above
is
an
extract
from
the
Official
Record
of
Proceedings
of
the
International
Commission
at
their
Session
held
at
Lisbon
in
1935
(see
1943,
Bull.
zool.
Nomencl.
1
:
23-25).
COMMISSION
ON
ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE.
OPINION
i68.
423
fore
concentrating
upon
those
matters
that
appeared
the
more
important.
Commissioner
Hemming
proposed
that
those
matters
which
it
was
found
impossible
to
include
in
the
report,
owing
to
the
shortness
of
the
time
available,
should
be
dealt
with
after
the
Congress
on
the
basis
of
the
records
in
the
Official
Record
of
the
Proceedings
of
the
Commission
during
their
Lisbon
Session.
For
this
purpose,
Commissioner
Hemming
proposed
that
all
matters
unanimously
agreed
upon
during
the
Lisbon
Session
should
be
treated
in
the
same
way,
whether
or
not
it
was
found
possible
to
include
references
to
them
in
the
report
to
be
submitted
to
the
Congress,
and
therefore
that
every
such
decision
should
be
treated
as
having
been
participated
in
by
all
the
Commissioners
and
Alternates
present
at
Lisbon.
The
Commission
took
note
of,
and
approved,
the
statement
by
Commissioner
Hemming,
and
adopted
the
proposals
submitted
by
him,
as
recorded
above,
in
regard
both
to
the
selection
of
items
to
be
included
in
their
report
to
the
Twelfth
International
Congress
of
Zoology
and
to
the
procedure
to
be
adopted
after
the
Congress
in
regard
to
those
matters
with
which,
for
the
reasons
explained,
it
was
found
impossible
to
deal
in
the
report.
8.
The
decisions
involving
suspension
of
the
rules
in
the
case
of
the
names
dealt
with
in
paragraph
(b)
of
Conclusion
23
of
the
Second
Meeting
of
the
Lisbon
Session
(quoted
in
paragraph
6
above)
were
embodied
in
paragraph
29
of
the
report
which
at
their
meeting
held
on
the
morning
of
Wednesday,
18th
September
1935,
the
Commission
(Lisbon
Session,
5th
Meeting,
Conclusion
6)
unanimously
agreed
to
submit
to
the
Twelfth
International
Con-
gress
of
Zoology.
It
was
not
found
possible
in
the
time
available
to
include
in
the
report
the
decision
recorded
in
paragraph
(a)
of
Conclusion
25,
which
was
therefore
left
to
be
dealt
with
under
the
procedure
referred
to
in
paragraph
7
above.
The
Com-
mission's
report
was
unanimously
approved
by
the
Section
on
Nomenclature
at
its
joint
meeting
with
the
International
Com-
mission
held
on
the
afternoon
of
the
same
day.
It
was
thereupon
submitted
to
the
Twelfth
International
Congress
of
Zoology
by
which
it
was
unanimously
approved
and
adopted
at
the
Concilium
Plenum
held
on
Saturday,
21st
September
1935,
the
last
day
of
the
Congress.
9.
In
accordance
with
the
decision
taken
by
the
Commission
at
Lisbon
in
regard
to
their
procedure
at
that
Session,
the
action
proposed
in
regard
to
the
generic
names
specified
in
paragraph
(b)
of
Conclusion
23
of
the
Second
Meeting
of
that
Session
was
duly
424
OPINIONS
AND
DECLARATIONS
RENDERED
BY
THE
INTERNATIONAL
advertised
in
1936
in
two
or
more
of
the
journals
specified
in
the
Resolution
adopted
by
the
Ninth
International
Congress
of
Zoology
at
their
meeting
held
at
Monaco
in
March
1913,
by
which
the
said
International
Congress
conferred
upon
the
International
Commission
on
Zoological
Nomenclature
plenary
power
to
suspend
the
rules
as
applied
to
any
given
case
where,
in
the
judgment
of
the
Commission,
the
strict
application
of
the
rules
would
clearly
result
in
greater
confusion
than
uniformity.
6
In
the
period
that
has
elapsed
since
the
advertisement
in
the
said
journals
of
the
proposed
suspension
of
the
rules
in
the
case
of
the
names
specified
in
paragraph
(b)
of
Conclusion
23
of
the
2nd
Meeting
of
the
Lisbon
Session
of
the
International
Commission,
no
communication
of
any
kind
has
been
received
by
the
International
Commission
objecting
to
the
suspension
of
the
rules
in
the
manner
proposed.
Io.
The
present
Opinion
was
concurred
in
by
the
twelve
(12)
Commissioners
and
Alternates
present
at
the
Lisbon
Session
of
the
International
Commission,
namely
:
Commissioners
:
—Calman
;
Hemming
;
Jordan
;
Pellegrin
;
Peters
;
and
Stejneger.
Alternates
:
—do
Amaral
vice
Cabrera
;
Ohshima
vice
Esaki
;
Bradley
vice
Stone
;
Beier
vice
Handlirsch
;
Arndt
vice
Richter
;
and
Mortensen
vice
Apstein.
The
present
Opinion
was
dissented
from
by
no
Commissioner
or
Alternate
present
at
the
Lisbon
Session.
12.
The
following
five
(5)
Commissioners
who
were
not
present
at
Lisbon
nor
represented
thereat
by
Alternates
did
not
vote
on
the
present
Opinion
:—
Bolivar
y
Pieltain
;
Chapman
;
Fantham
;
Silvestri
;
and
Stiles.
13.
At
the
time
when
the
vote
was
taken
on
the
present
Opinion,
there
was
one
(I)
vacancy
in
the
Commission
consequent
upon
the
death
of
Commissioner
Horvath.
IV.
—AUTHORITY
FOR
THE
ISSUE
OF
THE
PRESENT
OPINION.
WHEREAS
the
Ninth
International
Congress
of
Zoology
at
its
meeting
held
at
Monaco
in
March
1913,
adopted
a
Resolution
conferring
upon
the
International
Commission
on
Zoological
6
See
Declaration
5
(1943,
Opinions
and
Declarations
rendered
by the
International
Commission
on
Zoological
Nomenclature
1:
31-40).
COMMISSION
ON
ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE.,
OPINION
168.
425
Nomenclature,
acting
for
the
International
Congress
of
Zoology,
plenary
power
to
suspend
the
rules
as
applied
to
any
given
case
where,
in
the
judgment
of
the
Commission,
the
strict
application
of
the
rules
would
clearly
result
in
greater
confusion
than
uni-
formity,
provided
that
not
less
than
one
year's
notice
of
the
possible
suspension
of
the
rules
as
applied
to
the
said
case
should
be
given
in
two
or
more
of
five
journals
specified
in
the
said
Resolu-
tion,
and
provided
that
the
vote
in
the
Commission
was
unani-
mously
in
favour
of
the
proposed
suspension
of
the
rules
;
and
WHEREAS
the
By-Laws
of
the
International
Commission
on
Zoological
Nomenclature
provide
that,
except
in
cases
involving
the
suspension
of
the
rules,
an
Opinion
is
to
be
deemed
to
have
been
adopted
by
the
said
International
Commission
as
soon
as
a
majority
of
the
Members
of
the
Commission,
that
is
to
say
ten
(io)
Members
of
the
said
Commission,
have
recorded
their
votes
in
favour
thereof,
provided
that,
where
any
proposed
Opinion
involves
a
reversal
of
any
former
Opinion
rendered
by
the
Com-
mission,
such
proposed
Opinion
shall
obtain
the
concurrence
of
at
least
fourteen
(14)
Members
of
the
Commission
voting
on
the
same
before
such
Opinion
is
to
be
deemed
to
have
been
adopted
by
the
Commission,
and
WHEREAS
the
first
portion
of
the
Twenty
Third
Conclusion
of
the
Second
Meeting
of
the
International
Commission
on
Zoological
Nomenclature
at
their
Lisbon
Session
held
in
September
1935,
that
is
to
say
the
portion
set
out
in
the
summary
to
the
present
Opinion,
neither
requires,
in
order
to
be
valid,
the
suspension
of
the
rules
nor
involves
a
reversal
of
any
former
Opinion
rendered
by
the
Commission,
while
the
second
portion
of
the
said
Conclusion
does
require
such
suspension
of
the
rules
;
and
WHEREAS
not
less
than
one
year's
notice
of
the
possible
sus-
pension
of
the
"rules
as
applied
to
the
second
portion
of
the
said
Twenty
Third
Conclusion
has
been
given
to
two
or
more
of
the
journals
specified
in
the
Resolution
adopted
by
the
Ninth
Inter-
national
Congress
of
Zoology
at
its
meeting
held
at
Monaco
in
March
1913
;
and
WHEREAS
the
vote
in
the
Commission
at
their
Lisbon
Session
was
unanimously
in
favour
of
the
decision
recorded
in
the
said
Twenty
Third
Conclusion
and
at
that
Session
twelve
(12)
Members
of
the
Commission
signified
their
concurrence
therein
either
personally
or
through
Alternates
;
426
OPINIONS
AND
DECLARATIONS
RENDERED
BY
THE
INTERNATIONAL
Now,
THEREFORE,
I,
FRANCIS
HEMMING,
Secretary
to
the
International
Corn-
mission
on
Zoological
Nomenclature,
acting
in
virtue
of
all
and
every
the
powers
conferred
upon
me
in
that
behalf
by
virtue
of
holding
the
said
Office
of
Secretary
to
the
International
Com-
mission,
hereby
announce
on
behalf
of
the
International
Com-
mission,
acting
for
the
International
Congress
of
Zoology,
the
present
Opinion
relating
to
the
matters
dealt
with
in
the
first
portion
of
the
Twenty
Third
Conclusion
of
the
Second
Meeting
of
the
International
Commission
at
their
Session
held
at
Lisbon
in
September
1935,
and
direct
that
it
be
rendered
and
printed
as.
Opinion
Number
One
Hundred
and
Sixty
Eight
(Opinion
168)
of
the
said
Commission.
In
faith
whereof
I,
the
undersigned
FRANCIS
HEMMING,
Secre-
tary
to
the
International
Commission
on
Zoological
Nomenclature,
have
signed
the
present
Opinion.
DONE
in
London,
this
fifteenth
day
of
July,
Nineteen
Hundred
and
Forty
Three,
in
a
single
copy,
which
shall
remain
deposited
in
the
archives
of
the
International
Commission
on
Zoological
Nomenclature.
Secretary
to
the
International
Commission
on
Zoological
Nomenclature.
FRANCIS
HEMMING