a RENUey sana

, : f gf 4 i a i 5 yi , 5 : wD Sokal : eo Raph dia tol mamas ete r acre eee BE ; Saat sania i ay hades sc ae aieiarige lca ecu taoge rates Rae ort

ibtcera rt CHa eP er ery is Ge ate Tuttle

Ee eee

a

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS

22000000028

““ EVERY MAN IS A VALUABLE MEMBER OF SOCIETY WHO, BY HIS OBSERVATIONS, RESEARCHES, AND EXPERIMENTS, PROCURES KNOWLEDGE FOR MEN ””__sSMITHSON

(PUBLICATION 3648)

CITY OF WASHINGTON PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 1941

The Lord Baltimore Prees

BALTIMORE, MD., U, 8. A.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections series contains, since the suspension in 1916 of the Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, all the publications of the Institution except the Annual Report, the annual volume describing the Institution’s field work, and occasional publications of a special nature. As the name of the series implies, its scope is not limited, and the volumes thus far issued relate to nearly every branch of science. Papers in the fields of biology, geology, anthropology, and astrophysics have predominated.

C. G. Apsort, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution.

(111)

CONTENTS

OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

1. OPINIONS 68 TO 77. 73 pp., Jan. 31, 1922. (Publ. 2657.) 2; (OPINIONS §—76.TO “SI. 32 pp., Heb. ©, 1024., (Publ. 2747.) 3. Opinions 82 TO 90. 40 pp., Dec. 16, 1925. (Publ. 2830.) 4. OPINIONS QI TO 97. 30 pp., Oct. 8, 1926. (Publ. 2873.) 5. Opinions 98 TO 104. 28 pp., Sept. 19, 1928. (Publ. 2973.) 6. OPINIONS 105 TO 114. 26 pp., June 8, 1929. (Publ. 3016.) 7. OPINIONS II5 TO 123. 36 pp., Jan. 10, 1931. (Publ. 3072.) 8. OPINIONS 124 TO 133. 44 pp., Oct. 28, 1936. (Publ. 3395.)

(v)

-

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1

*

OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

OPINIONS 68 TO 77 ey

(PUBLICATION 2657)

CITY. OF WASHINGTON

PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION JANUARY 31, 1922

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1

OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

OPINIONS 68 TO 77

(PUBLICATION 2657)

CITY OF WASHINGTON

PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION JANUARY 31, 1922

NOTICE

Previous Opinions Rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature have been issued as Special Publications of the Smithsonian Institution, unbound, as follows:

Opinions I to 25, 1938, July, 1910 (out of print). a 26° “+20, 1980, October, 4010. ° “| 300% 13752013, July, 10110 nise alee

# 38 51, 2000, Hebruary 012) 3s s 52 56, 2160, May, 1913 57“ 165, 2256, March, ‘aor Opinion 66 2350, February, 1915 *s 67 2400, April, 1916 Beginning with the present issue, a volume of the Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections will hereafter be reserved exclusively for the Opinions.

The Lord Baltimore Press

BALTIMORE, MD., U. S. A.

OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE OPINIONS 68 TO 77

OPINION 68 THE Type SPECIES OF PLEURONECTES LINN#US, 17584 SUMMARY.—Fleming, 1828, p. 196, does not designate the type of Pleuronectes.

STATEMENT OF CASE.—Chancellor David Starr Jordan has submitted the following case for opinion:

tHE SDYPE OF PLEUKRONECTES L.

The Linnean genus Pleuronectes, containing many species, was subdivided by Rafinesque, 1810, Indice d’Ittiologia Siciliana, pp. 14-15, and by Cuvier, 1817, Le Régne Animal, vol. 2, pp. 218-224. In neither case was the name Pleuro- nectes applied to any one of these subdivisions. Such application to a restricted group was first made by Fleming, 1828, pp. 196-199 (History of British Animals). He recognizes four genera of flounders, Pleuronectes, Solea (Rafinesque), Platessa (Cuvier), and Hippoglossus (Cuvier). The types of the last three genera are clearly Pleuronectes solea L., Pleuronectes platessa L., and Pleuronectes hippoglossus L. As to Pleuronectes Fleming says:

“Gen. XLVI. Pxreuronectes. Turbot. Mouth entire; teeth numerous, slender. Lateral line curved. Eyes on the left side.”

The five species named represent five modern genera, all allies of the turbot. Pleuronectes maximus L. is the type of the genus Psetta Swainson.

The first species named by Fleming is “96, P. maximus. Common Turbot.”

Under the rules of the Zoological Congress, does this act of Fleming restrict the name of Pleuronectes to the Turbot group? In this case later usage has made Pleuronectes maximus L., the Turbot, the type.

Or does Fleming fail to fix the type? In this case we go on to Bleeker, 1862, Ppp. 422-429 (Versl. en Mededeel. Kon. Akad. Wetens. Amsterdam), who makes Pleuronectes synonymous with Platessa Cuvier, the type being Pleuronectes platessa L, In this Bleeker has been followed by common usage.

Discussion.—It is to be noticed that Doctor Jordan does not ask the Commission to determine the type of Pleuronectes, but only whether Fleming in 1828 does, or does not, fix the type of this genus.

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS, VOL. 73, No. 1

2 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73

The question at issue involves an interpretation of the expression used in Article 30g of the International Rules, reading :

The meaning of the expression, select the type,” is to be rigidly construed. Mention of a species as an illustration or an example of a genus does not con- stitute a selection of a type as applied to Fleming’s action in 1828, p. 196. For earlier opinion on this general point (Art. 30g), see Opinion 45 (The Type of Syn- gnathus L. 1758), p. 103 (as applied to Rafinesque and Swainson).

The details of the premises presented by Doctor Jordan are as follows:

Linneus (1758a, pp. 268-271) included the following 16 species in his genus Pleuronectes: 1, achirus; 2, trichodactylus ; 3, lineatus; 4, ocellatus; 5, lunatus; 6, hippoglossus; 7, cynoglossus; 8, platessa; 9, flesus; 10, limanda; 11, solea; 12, linguatula; 13, rhombus ; 14, maxi- mus; 15, passer; 16, papillosus.

Rafinesque (1810, pp. 14-15, and 52-53, Indice d’Ittiologia Sicil- iana) mentions under his sixth order, I Pleronetti, three genera, as being represented among the Sicilian fishes, as follows:

VI. Orpine. I. PLeronettr. (Pages 14-15) 45. Solea (Raf. app. gen. 4.) buglossa. Raf. (Pleuronectes solea Linn.)

Sogliola comune. Linguata. a Messina Palaja. a Catania Linguatu.

46. —— Limanda. Raf. (Pleuronectes Linguata Linn.) Sogliola limanda. Lema, 6 Lima, 6 Passari.

47. —— Platessa. Raf. (Pl. platessa Linn.) Sogliola pianosa. Pianussu, 6 Passera.

48. —— Rhomboide. Raf. app. sp. 6. (Pl. limanda. var. Lac.) Sogliola romboide. Rumbu impiriali.

49. —— Cithara. Raf. app. sp. 7. Sogliola citara. Cantinu.

50. —— pegusa. Raf. (PI. pegusa. Lac.) Sogliola pegusa. Linguata ucchiuta. .

51. —— Arnoglossa. Raf. app. sp. 8. Sogliola arnaglossa. Linguata liscia. :

52. —— cynoglossa. Raf. app. sp. 9. Sogliola linguacane. Linguata mavista.

53. Scophthalmus (Raf. app. gen. 5.) maximus. (Pleuronectes maximus Linn.) Rombo massimo. Rumolo impiriali.

54. —— Rhombus. Raf. (Pl. rhombus Linn.) Rombo comune. Rumbu, 6 Linguata masculu. a Messina Passera.

55. —— diurus. Raf. app. sp. 10. Rombo doppiacoda. Rumbu dupi- acuda. .

56. Bothus rumolo. Raf. car. gen. 23, sp. 54. Boto rumolo. Rumolo. a Catania Lumeru.

Tappa. Raf. car. sp. 55. Boto tappa. Tappa. a Catania Panta.

Imperialis. Raf. car. sp. 56. Boto imperiale. Tappa impiriali, 6 Linguata impiriali.

57: 58.

NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 3

Thus, the genus Solea 1810 (see also Quensel, 1806, p. 230, genus Solea, with S. vulgaris, syn. Pleuronectes solea Linn.) contains the species Pleuronectes solea, which in 1806 and 1810 became the type of Solea by absolute tautonymy (Article 30d), and the Linnzean species Pleuronectes rhombus and Pleuronectes maximus were placed (1810) in Scophthalmus.

Cuvier (1817, pp. 218-224, Régne Animal) distributes the Linnzan species of Pleuronectes L. as follows (‘‘ Nous les divisions comme il Suite,

Pleuronectes [no species mentioned as type, and no subgenus mentioned as Pleuronectes].

subg. Platessa Cuvier, 1817, contains—

La Plie franche ou Carrelet (Pleur. platessa L.) [type by absolute tau- tonymy].

Le Flet ou Picaud (Pleur, flesus L.).

La Limande (Pleur, limanda L.).

subg. Hippoglossus Cuvier, 1817, contains—

Le Flétan (Pleuronectes hippoglossus) [type by absolute tautonymy], and several species in footnote.

subg. Rhombus Cuvier, 1817 [not Rhombus Lacépéde, 1800, of which the type

is alepidotus teste Jordan & Evermann, not Rhombus Da Costa, 1776, mollusk, not Rhombus Humph., 1797, mollusk, not Rhombus Montf., 1810, mollusk], contains—

Le Turbot (Pleuronectes maximus) (“Le pl. passer d’Artédi et de Linn. nest point different du turbot’).

La Barbue (Pleuronectes rhombus) [type by absolute tautonymy]; he mentions also Pleuronectes nudus Risso, Diaphanus Sh., Arnoglossum Rondelet, and further, in footnote, several other species.

subg. Solea Cuvier, 1817, containing—

Pleuronectes solea L. [type by absolute tautonymy].

Pleuronectes cynoglossus L.

subg. Monochires Cuvier, 1817 [not clear whether French or Latin], con-

taining—

Le Linguatula Rondelet (Pleuronectes microchirus).

subg. Achirus Lacépéde, 1802, containing—

Pleuronectes achirus L., and in footnote several other species including Pleuronectes lineatus [author not given].

subg. Plagusia Brown, 1756, not Plagusia Latreille, 1806, crustacean.

Fleming, 1828,° “in the enumeration of British animals contained in this volume (p. xviii), “as a compiler” (p. xxi), gives descrip-

*“History of British Animals, exhibiting the descriptive characters and systematical arrangement of the genera and species of quadrupeds, birds, reptiles, fishes, mollusca, and radiata of the United Kingdom; including the indigenous, extirpated, and extinct kinds, together with periodical and occa- sional visitors.”

4 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73

tions, synonymy, and occurrence in British waters for the following fishes that come under consideration in connection with this case:

g. 46. Pleuronectes. Turbot. [5 species reported. ] 96. P. maximus. Common Turbot. 97. P. rhombus. Brill.

g. 47. Solea. Sole. [2 species reported.] 101. S. vulgaris. Common sole. Syn. Pleuronectes solea Linn.

g. 48. Platessa. Fluke. [5 species reported.] 103. P. vulgaris. Plaise. Syn. Pleuronectes platessa Linn. 104. P. fcsus. Flounder. Syn. Pleuronectes flesus Linn. 105. P. limanda. Dab. Syn. Pleuronectes limanda Linn,

g. 49. Hippoglossus. Holibut. [1 species reported.] 108. H. vulgaris. Common holibut. Syn. Pleuronectes hippoglossus Linn.

The author does not state in connection with any one of these four genera what species he accepts as type species. None of the five species mentioned under Pleuronectes appears, from the premises presented, to be the type of Pleuronectes by absolute tautonymy, but species No. 97, Pleuronectes rhombus, is type of Rhombus 1817 (not Rhombus Lacép, 1800), by absolute tautonymy, and both Pleu- ronectes maximus and Pleuronectes rhombus had been placed in the genus Scophthalmus by Rafinesque, 1810. The fact that Fleming gives the vernacular name Turbot to the genus Pleuronectes, and “Common Turbot” to the species Pleuronectes maximus, cannot, “rigidly construed,” be taken as designation of type.

In the introduction to this work, Fleming (1828, p. xxi) states that his History (1828) “is destined to serve as an adjunct” to his Phil- osophy of Zoology (1822), and this statement leads the Secretary to consult said Philosophy,” in order to better understand the premises.

Fleming (1822, v. 2, Philosophy of Zoology), in the general dis- cussion on nomenclature and species, says:

p. 153, Where synonymes have unavoidably been created in consequence of the want of communication between distant observers, the rule uni- versally known, but not equally extensively observed, is to give the preference to the name first imposed.

p. 157, Where useless changes are thus produced in nomenclature, their authors, and their names should be overlooked.

In a number of places Fleming clearly determines the type species of a genus, for instance:

p. 173,. 2. Mrmetes (of Dr. Leach), Chimpanze..... The Simia troglodytes of authors, is the type of the genus. 3. StmraA. Orang-Outang..... The Simia Satyrus is the type.

DP: 474, 13. LEMURS | 20... The Lemur Macaco is the type of this genus.

NO.- I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 5

In many cases Fleming simply mentions a single species under the genus without stating that it is the type. For instance: p. 178, 27. RHINOLOPHUS. .... Rh. ferrum equinum.

28) NIVGEERTS, 6. << N. hispidus.

The foregoing citations clearly show that Fleming had a distinct conception of the type species as we understand it to-day.

The practical point arises whether Fleming intended that the citation of a single species should be accepted as a designation by him of the type species. If Fleming avers in any portion of his book that this interpretation is to be made, the Secretary has thus far been unable to find the statement. The general tendency of the entire work toward the naming of a type species is, however, striking for a book published in 1822, and the temptation is very great indeed to make the interpre- tation that Fleming actually intended to designate a type species for nearly every genus he mentioned.

In his Philosophy, Fleming (1822, vol. 2) refers to Pleuronectes as follows:

p. 388, 64. Preuronectes. With pectoral fins. This genus includes 1. Pleuro- nectes (P. platessa). 2. Hippoglossus (R. [P.] hippoglossus). 3. Rhombus (P. maximus). 4. Solea (P. solea). 65. Acuirus. Destitute of pectoral fins. Pleuronectes achirus.

The point is to be noticed that in 1822 Fleming used Pleuronectes for Pleuronectes platessa, and Rhombus for Pleuronectes maximus, while in 1828 he changed his view and used Pleuronectes for Pleuronectes maximus and Pleuronectes rhombus, but he placed Pleuronectes platessa in the genus Platessa.

Accordingly the premise presented by Doctor Jordan that Fleming (1828, 196-199) was the first to restrict the name Pleuronectes to a subdivision of the original genus is found to be erroneous. Such restriction appears to have been made at least as early as 1822 by Fleming, and his 1822 action was reversed in 1828.

It will be noticed that Fleming in 1822 adopted the four subgeneric groups used by Cuvier, 1817, and that he corrected the nomenclatural error of Cuvier, in that Fleming recognized Pleuronectes for one of the subgenera, namely, for that group which Cuvier named Platessa, and the type of which by absolute tautonymy is Pleuronectes platessa. The question is: Did Fleming here select platessa as type of Pleuro- nectes s. str.?

At least four views are possible:

(1) Type by inclusion—By the principle of “type by inclusion” platessa would become, ipso facto, the type of Pleuronectes s. str., because Pleuronectes s. str., here clearly includes Platessa 1817, for

6 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73

which platessa is type by tautonymy. But the proposal to insert into Art. 30 the principle of type by inclusion was rejected by the Com- mission at its Boston meeting.

(2) Typical subgenus —The view might be advanced that Fleming here proposed, apparently for the first time, the typical subgenus Pleuronectes, and that by citing only the name Pleuronectes platessa, he designated the type by monotypy. Art. 30c.

(3) Type oy renaming.—The view might be advanced that Fleming deliberately renamed Platessa 1817, for which the type had already been determined by absolute tautonymy, hence that platessa became automatically type of Pleuronectes s. str. Art. 30f.

(4) Type by monotypy.—The view might be advanced that Flem- ing, by quoting only platessa under Pleuronectes, definitely intended to take this as type.

In respect to this last view (4) different authors might differ in opinion, for the point might be advanced that Fleming did not dispose of all the original species of Pleuronectes 1758, and that he simply mentioned platessa as an example of Pleuronectes s. str., hence, that “\rigidly construed this is not a type selection.

Nevertheless, from the premises here presented it seems clear that Fleming, 1822, actually did propose the typical subgenus of Pleuro- nectes, that he correctly named this subgenus as Pleuronectes, and that he mentioned only one species (platessa) as representative of this typical subgenus. Accordingly, unless there are important reasons to the contrary, it would seem best to take platessa as type of Pleuro- nectes.

While the evidence seems to point to the conclusion that platessa should be taken as type species of Pleuronectes on basis of Fleming (1822, p. 388), it seems wise, in view of the possibility of a difference of opinion (4), to follow the case further in order to see how the views given under (2) and (3) would coincide with the later history of the generic name.

Without entering upon a detailed discussion of this very confused case of nomenclature, which involves many references in addition to those cited by Doctor Jordan, attention is invited to the facts that—

(a) Fleming’s action in 1822 in substituting Pleuronectes for Cuvier’s genus Platessa, 1817, is followed by Bleeker (1862), Giinther (1862), Leunis (1883), and Claus (1895), while Jordan’ and Ever- mann (1898), and Apstein (1915) definitely mention Pleuronectes platessa as the type of Pleuronectes, and

*Jordan (1917a, 13, The genera of fishes) accepts platessa as type of Pleuronectes.

NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 7

(b) On the other hand Fleming’s action of 1828 in placing Pleu- ronectes rhombus and Pleuronectes maximus in the genus Pleuro- nectes is followed later by Fleming (1842), while Jordan & Goss (1889) definitely designate Pleuronectes maximus as type of Pleuro- nectes.

In answering Doctor Jordan’s question, the Commission is of the opinion that Fleming’s action of 1828 (pp. 196-199) is not to be con- strued as fixing the type of Pleuronectes.

Opinion written by Stiles.

Opinion concurred in by 14 Commissioners: Allen, Apstein, Bather, Blanchard, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Monticelli, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles.

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner.

Not voting, 4 Commissioners: Dautzenberg, Kolbe, Roule, Simon.

The foregoing Opinion was submitted to all Commissioners for vote and to more than 350 zoologists, zoological laboratories, colleges, and scientific institutions for comment. No adverse criticism has been received by the Secretary, but the following comments have been sent to him:

Commissioner Allen: It seems to me that Fleming in 1822, by including only Pleuronectes platessa L. in his subgenus Pleuronectes, distinctly indicates, in view of his clear recognition of the need of type designations, that he regarded P. platessa L. as the type and that his action in 1828 has not necessarily any bearing on the case.

Commissioner Bather: I agree with the conclusion arrived at, but I am perhaps more influenced in coming to the conclusion by the fact that Fleming’s book of 1828 was professedly a history of British animals only, and that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary it should be so accepted. Therefore, quite apart from the existence of the 1822 work, I should not regard Fleming as fixing types in 1828.

Commissioner Hartert: It is clear that Fleming did nor formally fix the types in this case, which is perfectly parallel to that of the genera of the swallows of Forster, 1817. I accepted Forster’s genera, but the A. O. U. and as competent nomenclaturists of England and Germany disagreed with my action, holding that Forster did not formally designate the type of Hirundo.

Commissioner Hoyle: Fleming, 1828, did not fix the type of Pleu- ronectes, but I am inclined to think (from the data given) that he made platessa the type in 1822.

Commissioner D. S. Jordan: I think both cases [Pleuronectes and Sparus| practically above question—fortunately coinciding with usage.

8 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73

Commissioner Stejneger: I hold that Fleming, in 1822, actually designated the types | for Pleuronectes and Sparus] as understood in the International Code of Nomenclature.

Doctor Pappenheim (Berlin) studied the case, upon the request of Commissioner Kolbe, and presented to him the following memo- randum:

Ich schlage vor die Fischgattungsnamen Pleuronectes L.” und Sparus L.” unbedingt zu verwerfen und durch Platessa Cuv. und Chrysophrys Cuv. zu ersetzen. Als Type fur die Gattung Platessa hat nach meiner Auffassung die Art Pl. platessa (L.), fiir Chryso- phrys die Art aurata (L.) zu gelten.

Die gegenteiligen Ansichten konnten sich m. M. nur auf Fleming sttitzen, dessen Arbeiten ein systematischer Wert nicht zukommt. Anderseits geniigt zur Begriindung der Wahrung der von Cuvier auf- gestellten Namen das in den Anlagen (Letter No. 27 und No. 28) gegebene Material.

Eine Notwendigkeit, bei Verwerfung der Namen Pleuronectes’ und Sparus” und auch die Familien Namen Pleuronectide” und Sparid”’ aus nomenclatorischer Griinden zu verwerfen, liegt m. M. n. nicht vor, wie ich tiberhaupt der Meinung bin, dass die angeblich allgemein giltigen, weit international festgelegten Nomenclaturregeln in begriindeten Fallen, wie den beiden vorliegenden aus systematisch- morphologischen Grtinden vernachlassigt werden konnen.

Ich werde jedenfalls in Zukunft ohne Ruchtsicht auf etwaige gegen- seitige Entscheidungen der Kommission die Namen Pleuronectes” und Sparus” nicht mehr anwenden.

William C. Kendall, Lewis Radcliffe, and Hugh M. Smith (U. S. Fish Commission) unite in the conclusion that Fleming (1822) should be regarded as having designated platessa as the type of Pleuronectes and the fact that the disposal of the matter otherwise in 1828 should not affect the question; that if, however, Fleming or other authors cannot be accepted, the question lies between Swainson (1839, v. 2, p. 302) and Bleeker (1862, 428), and that Bleeker does not designate the type in the sense that the exact rule of the Zoological Congress seems to require any more specifically than was evidently intended by Swainson.

Miss Mary J. Rathbun: My opinion is that platessa should be regarded as the type of Pleuronectes by action of Fleming in 1822, and that Fleming 1828, 196, does not designate the type of Pleuronectes.

Favorable replies have been received also from: P. P. Calvert, C. Tate Regan, A. A. Tyler, and H. L. Viereck.

Oldfield Thomas: The tendency of the proposed answers appears to be that Fleming’s 1822 quotations of species should be accepted as genuine selections, a view with which I agree.

>

NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 9

OPINION 69 THE Type SPECIES OF Sparus LInN=us, 1758 SUMMARY.—Fleming, 1828, 211, does not designate the type of Sparus.

STATEMENT OF CASE.—Chancellor David Starr Jordan has sub- mitted the following case for opinion:

THE TYPE OF SPARUS L.

The genus Sparus L. was subdivided by Cuvier (1817, vol. 2, pp. 271-274, Régne Animal), who failed to retain the name for any of its parts.

Fleming (1828, pp. 211-212, History of British Animals) recognized three genera among the Linnzan species—Sparus, Pagrus Cuvier (Sparus pagrus L.) and Dentex Cuvier (Sparus dentex L.). Under Sparus he says:

“Gen. LXVII. Sparus, GIrtHEAD. Four or six teeth in each jaw, in one row; the rest of the jaw paved with large round teeth, with blunt summits.”

One species is mentioned, Sparus aurata L., which is the common Gilt- head,” the type of Chrysophrys Cuvier, 1817, and of Aurata Risso, 1826.

Does this constitute a restriction of Sparus to S. aurata? Common usage so regards it. Later authors have proposed to use the name for other Lin- nan species of Sparus.

The other species, formerly referred to Sparus, are never called Gilthead.”

Discusston.—The case of Sparus involves the same principles as the case of Pleuronectes (see Opinion 68).

The details of the premises presented by Doctor Jordan are as follows:

Linneus (1758a, pp. 277-282, Systema Naturz) included in the genus Sparus 22 species, as follows: 1, aurata; 2, annularis ; 3, sargus ; 4, melanurus; 5, smaris; 6, mena; 7, saxatilis; 8, orphus; 9, hurta; 10, erythrinus; 11, pagrus; 12, boops; 13, cantharus; 14, chromis; 15, salpa; 16, synagris; 17, dentex ; 18, spinus ; 19, virginicus ; 20, mormy- rus; 21, capistratus ; 22, galileus.

Cuvier (1817, vol. 2, pp. 268-272, Regne Animal) distributed original Linnzan species among the following systematic units : PERCOIDES

g. Smaris Cuvier, 1817 [not Smaris Latreille, 1796, arach.], including—

Sparus mena L. Sparus smaris L. [type by absolute tautonymy], together with certain other species mentioned in footnote.

g. Boops Cuvier, 1817, including—

Sparus salpa L.

Sparus melanurus L. Sparus boops L. [type by absolute tautonymy].

10 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73

ge. Sparus Cuvier, 1817. [Cf. Sparus Linn., 1758.] (“Que je réduits aux espéces de l’ancien genre de ce nom, dont les machoires peu extensibles sont garnies, sur les cOtes, de molaires rondes, semblables a des pavés. Ils vivent généralement de fucus. Je les subdivise comme il suit”) : [subg.] Sargus Cuvier, 1817 [not Sargus Fabr., 1798, dipteron], con- taining— La Sargue ordinaire (Splarus] sargus L.) [type by absolute tautonymy]. [subg.] Les Daurades [Latin name not given], containing— La Daurade ordinaire (Sp[arus] aurata L.), together with several other species mentioned in footnote. [subg.] Pagrus Cuvier, 1817, containing— Le Pagre ordinaire (Sp[arus] argenteus Schn.) [=pagrus Linn., teste Jordan and Evermann]. Le Pagel (Splarus] erythrinus L.), and 3 species in footnote. g. Dentex Cuvier, 1817, containing— Le Denté ordinaire (Sp[arus] dentex L.) [type by absolute tau- tonymy], and several species mentioned in footnote. g. Cantharus Cuvier, 1817 [not Cantharus Bolt, 1798, mollusk, not Can- tharus Montf., 1808, mollusk], containing— Le Canthére ordinaire (Sp[arus] cantharus L.) [type by absolute tautonymy], and several species in footnote.

Fleming (1828, pp. 211-212, History of British Animals) reports and describes the following original Linnzean species of the genus Sparus for Great Britain:

g. 47. Sparus Gilthead. [1 species reported.]

136, S. aurata. g. 48. Pagrus Braize. [2 species reported. |

137, P. vulgaris. Common Braize. Syn. Sparus pagrus Linn. g. 49. Dentex. [1 species reported.]

139, D. vulgaris. Syn. Sparus dentex Linn.

The author does not state in connection with any one of these three genera what species he accepts as type species ; but Sparus pagrus had become the type of Pagrus in 1817, by absolute tautonymy (argen- teus= pagrus, see Jordan and Evermann, 1898). Sparus dentex had become the type of Dentex in 1817, by absolute tautonymy. Sparus aurata does not appear, from the premises presented, to be the type of Sparus by absolute tautonymy, but Cuvier, 1817, had placed Sparus aurata in the genus Sparus, subgenus Les Daurades (no Latin name used), to which subgenus Cuvier later (1829) gives the name Chryso- phris (=Chrysophrys, 1830), of which it was the first species men- tioned. Prior to this date (1829), however, Fleming (1822, Philoso- phy of Zoology) had adopted three of Cuvier’s subgenera of Sparus,

NO.. I % OPINIONS 68 TO 77 II

and had retained for Les Daurades the subgeneric name Sparus, as

shown in the following quotation:

p. 392, 92. Sparus. Teeth on the sides round, with flat summits. Jaws nearly fixed. 1. Sargus (S. sargus). 2. Sparus (S. aurata). 3. Pagrus (S. pagrus).

Accordingly, the premises presented by Doctor Jordan appear to be incomplete, for Fleming’s action of 1828 in adopting Sparus for Sparus aurata is virtually simply an adoption of his action of 1822.

The same question and the same possibilities of interpretation now arise in respect to Fleming’s action of 1822 in regard to Sparus, that arose in connection with his action of 1822 in regard to Pleuronectes (see Opinion No. 68, The Type of Pleuronectes L.).

While the evidence in the foregoing seems to point to the conclusion that aurata should be taken as type species of Sparus on basis of Flem- ing 1822, p. 392, it seems wise, in view of the possibility of a difference of opinion in regard to the interpretation, to follow the case further, in order to see how this view would coincide with the later history of the generic name.

Without entering upon a detailed discussion of this case, which involves many references in addition to those cited by Doctor Jordan, attention is invited to the facts that—

(a) Fleming’s action of 1822 in retaining Sparus for the species Sparus aurata is followed by Fleming, 1828, and Fleming, 1842°*; and

(b) Cuvier’s action of 1829 in placing the species Sparus aurata in the genus Chrysophris, 1829 (Chrysophrys, 1830) is followed by Swainson (1829), Cuvier & Valenciennes (1830), Burmeister (1837) who gives Sparus Linn. as synonym, Ginther (1859), Ludwig’s Leunis (1883), Claus (1885), Knauer (1887), R. Blanchard (1890), and Railliet (1895), while Apstein (1915a), definitely designates Sparus aurata as type of Chrysophrys.

From the two quotations given in the foregoing—1822 and 1828— it will be seen that in 1828 Fleming is simply reporting the presence of Sparus aurata in British waters, and that, rigidly construed,” he does not here designate a type species for the genus Sparus, but in 1822 he distinctly recognizes a typical subgenus (Sparus s. str.) to include Cuvier’s 1817 Les Daurades.” Cuvier’s 1829 genus Chryso- phris (1830 Chrysophrys), therefore,.includes Fleming’s 1822 typical subgenus Sparus.

In answering the question presented by Doctor Jordan, the Com- mission is therefore of the opinion that Fleming, 1828, p. 211, did

* Also Jordan (1917a, 13, The genera of fishes).

12 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73

not designate the type for Sparus aurata for British waters, and that in using the generic name Sparus for the species Sparus aurata, he simply acted nomenclaturally in accordance with his action of 1822.

Opinion written by Stiles.

Opinion concurred in by 14 Commissioners: Allen, Apstein, Bather, Blanchard, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Monticelli, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles.

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner.

Not voting, 4 Commissioners: Dautzenberg, Kolbe, Roule, Simon.

The foregoing Opinion was submitted to all Commissioners for vote and to more than 350 zoologists, zoological laboratories, colleges, and scientific institutions for comment. No adverse criticism has been received by the Secretary, but the following comments have been sent to him:

Commissioner Allen: Again it seems to me that Fleming may be correctly assumed to have fixed the type of Sparus in 1822 (by mono- typy) as Sparus aurata Linn. Fleming’s Sparus (1822 and 1828) = Les Daurades Cuvier (1817), to which Fleming appears to have been the first to assign a name, selecting Sparus for it.

While Fleming did not formally, or in the strict sense of Article 30 of the International Code, designate a type for either Pleuronectes or Sparus, I should not in the least hesitate, were I forced to give a decision in the case, to decide that, for all practical purposes, Fleming did indicate Pl. platessa L. as the type of Pleuronectes, and Sp. aurata L. as the type of Sparus; at least I should hold that such a decision was warranted by usage and in harmony with many precedents.

Commissioners Bather, Hartert, D. S. Jordan, and Stejneger: Same remarks as under Opinion 68.

Commissioner Hoyle: As regards Sparus, I am not clear about the action of Cuvier, 1817. If an author divides the genus and does not retain the original name for one of the parts, does not that render his action null and void? Or can we pick out one of his parts, apply the old name to that and neglect his new one?

Favorable opinions have been received from: P. P. Calvert, Barton W. Evermann, W. C. Kendall, Lewis Radcliffe, Hugh M. Smith, Oldfield Thomas, A. A. Tyler, and H. L. Viereck.

Miss Mary J. Rathbun: Also that aurata became the type of Sparus in 1822 by Fleming, and, therefore, he did not designate the type of that genus in 1828.

Doctor Pappenheim: See remarks under Opinion 68.

NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 13

OPINION 70

‘THE Case oF LIBELLULA AMERICANA L., 1758, vs. LIBELLULA AMERICANUS Drury, 1773

SUMMARY.—In view of the fact that Libellula americanus Drury, 1773, is an evident lapsus calami for Gryllus americanus, the lapsus is to be corrected, and the specific name in this instance, americanus 1773, is not invalidated by Libellula americana 1758.

STATEMENT OF CASE.—A. N. Caudell presents the following case for opinion:

Shall the specific name americanus Drury, 1773, be suppressed in favor of serialis Thunberg, 1815?

The pertinent references are:

' 1770, Drury, Illustrations of Nat. Hist., vol. 1, plate 49.

1771, Linneus, Mantissa Plantarum, p. 533. 1773, Drury, Illustrations of Nat. Hist., vol. 1, index. 1815, Thunberg, Mem. Acad. Imp. Sci., St. Petersb., vol. 5, p. 241.

Drury, 1770, figured two locusts, but used no names except an indication that figure 2 of the plate was related to [or identical with*] Gryllus tartaricus of Linnzus.

Linneus, 1771, refers to the above plate by Drury, and names figure I as Gryllus ? squarrosus.

Drury, 1773, in index, refers to the above work of Linnzus, quoting the name squarrosus, but the species is placed under the generic name Libellula. No. 2 of the plate is here given the specific name americanus and is, like the name squarrosus Linn., placed under Libellula.

Thunberg, 1815, described the species Gryllus serialis, which has been found to be a synonym of the above americanus of Drury.

In the tenth edition of Linnzus’ Systema Nature, there is described a true dragon fly under the name Libellula americana, and thus the above combina- tion of Libellula americanus by Drury apparently makes the latter a primary homonym. However, this inclusion of this species by Drury in the genus Libellula seems to be an error, or lapsus calami, for the following reason:

1. The insect Gryllus tartaricus of Linnzeus, which Drury mentions in 1770 as related to his figure 2, is a locust, that is, the genus Gryllus as then used.

2. In the index of vol. 1 of Drury’s Illustrations in 1773, mention is made of the reference of squarrosus to the genus Gryllus by Linneus in 1771, and in the absence of other evidence there seems no reason to think Drury intended other than to follow him; squarrosus is figure 1 of the plate, and the second figure, americanus, also a locust, would clearly be treated the same.

3. The termination of the two species as appearing in the index, 1773, is “us,” an ending agreeing with Gryllus but not with Libellula. It is to be noted, however, that Drury is not consistent in his termination, as in the index the names cincta and squamosus are included under the genus Vespa.

*“T have not seen it anywhere described unless the insect mentioned by Linneus .... is the same with this.”

I4 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73

4. The previous plate, no. 48, contains only dragon flies, that is, the genus Libellula, and the mistake of failing to change the name of the genus to Gryllus for the species figured on plate 49, either by the author or the type- setter, seems easy.

5. Drury was an entomologist and one not likely to mistake a locust for a dragon fly, and thus not liable to place this large grasshopper in a Neuropterous genus.

The above reasons make it quite clear that the inclusion of americanus, at its first appearance, in the genus Libellula was an error or a lapsus calami, and Art. I9 is apparently an authority for setting aside such reference.

Discuss1on.—The Secretary has, in the presence of A. N. Caudell, verified the facts submitted in respect to Libellula americanus Drury, 1773, index, as applied to plate 40, figure 2, of Drury, 1770, and is con- vinced that a lapsus for Gryllus americanus is present.

The portions of the Code which come into consideration in this case are as follows:

ARTICLE 35.—A specific name is to be rejected as a homonym (1) when it has previously been used for some other species of the same genus. Ex- amples: Tenia ovilla Rivolta, 1878 (n. sp.), is rejected as homonym of T. ovilla Gmelin, 1790.

ARTICLE 19.—The original orthography of a name is to be preserved unless an error of transcription, a lapsus calami, or a typographical error is evident.

In the Code of the American Ornithologists’ Union, 1892, p. 47, Canon 33, which corresponds to Articles 34 and 35 of the International Code, reads as follows:

A generic name is to be changed which has previously been used for some other genus in the same kingdom; a specific or subspecific name is to be changed when it has been applied to some other species of the same genus, or used previously in combination with the same generic name. [Italics not in the original. ]

By a strict construction of Canon 33 of the A. O. U. Code, the inter- pretation might be made that Libellula americanus 1773, even though a lapsus, is invalidated by Libellula americana 1758.

The case in question is one of several of its kind that has come to the attention of the Secretary, but this is the first instance in which the Commission has been requested to render a definite opinion upon cases of this nature.

*A reference to Drury, 1782 (Illustrations of Nat. Hist., vol. 3, p. xviii, footnote), has been brought to the attention of the Secretary. This reads: “The reader is desired to correct an error in the index, where this and the following insect are ranked among the Libellula, but should be among the Grilli Locusta’ This quotation supports the opinion as written.

NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 15

It is clearly the intent of the International Code, as shown by Article 1g, to permit the correction of an evident error of transcription, a lapsus calami or a typographical error, and upon basis of this intention the Secretary recommends that the Commission adopt as its opinion the following:

In view of the fact that Libellula americanus Drury, 1773, is an evident lapsus calami for Gryllus americanus, the lapsus is to be cor- rected, and the specific name in this instance, americanus 1773, is not invalidated by Libellula americana 1758.

Opinion written by Stiles.

Opinion concurred in by 15 Commissioners: Allen, Apstein, Bather, Blanchard, Dautzenberg, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (Ix.), Monticelli, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles.

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner.

Not voting, 3 Commissioners: Kolbe, Roule, Simon.

Bather agrees with the conclusion but submits evidence from Dur- rant contained in footnote, p. 73.

Hartert adds: The Commission has nothing to do with the A. O. U. Code.

K. Jordan adds: Article 35 is not clear. The expression pre- viously used for some other species in the same genus ”’ is too general. It should be stated that the species new at the time and published in combination with the same generic name ”’ are meant.

bo

16 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73

OPINION 71

INTERPRETATION OF THE EXPRESSION TyPICAL SPECIES” IN WEstwoop’s (1840) SyNopPSsis.

SUMMARY.—The species cited by Westwood, 1840 (An Introduction to the Modern Classification of Insects, vol. 2, Synopsis, separate pagination, pages 1 to 158), as “typical species” are to be accepted as definite designations of genotypes for the respective genera. The question whether any given species under consideration represents the valid genotype or not is dependent upon two points: First, whether the species was available as genotype and, second, whether this designation in 1840 is antedated by some other designation.

STATEMENT OF CASE.—J. C. Crawford and Chas. H. T. Townsend have requested an Opinion upon the question whether the species cited by Westwood (1840) in his Synopsis, and designated Typical species are to be accepted as types of the genera in question. Dr. Townsend’s presentation of the case reads as follows:

J. O. Westwood published in volume 2 of his Introduction to the Modern Classification of Insects, in 1840, under the title of Synopsis of the Genera of British Insects,” 158 octavo pages of generic diagnoses, including a specific name with each genus. With reference to the function of this specific name, we find footnote on first page stating that following data are given in first line of each genus: “1. Name of the genus; 2. Name of its founder; 3. Synonym of the genus; 4. Author of the synonymical genus; 5. Number of British species; 6. Typical species; 7. Reference to the best figure.”

It is plainly evident that this Synopsis is entirely restricted to the British species, and that the selection of the “typical species” has necessarily been restricted in each case to the British fauna, thereby resulting often in a geno- type that is not typical in the sense of the founder of the genus.

Does the Commission rule that mention in this Synopsis” of the typical species,” meaning unquestionably “typical British species,” constitutes a valid designation of genotype?

Westwood makes the following statement in the preface (p. vi, vol. 1) to his “Introduction”:

At the same time, in order that this work may serve as a precursor to the works of Curtis, Stephens, &c., I have added a synopsis of the British genera, brought down to the present time. The idea of the addition of this synopsis was derived from Latreille’s ‘“ Considérations Générales,” in which the genera are shortly characterised, and the names of the typical species given in an Appendix. ‘The additions of generic synonymes, references to generic figures, and indications of the number of British species, will render the synopsis more complete, although it must be evident that it can serve but as a guide to more extended research.”

Covkt. ical

NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 17

Discussion.—The question has been submitted by the Secretary of this Commission to the Secretary of the International Commission on Entomological Nomenclature, who has reported as follows:

Although some members of the Entomological Committee are of opinion that Westwood did not mean to designate genotypes in the modern sense, it is unanimously agreed that the species mentioned by Westwood under a genus should be considered genotype, if it was originally included in the genus, and if no genotype has been designated prior to Westwood.

That some authors have used the expression ‘‘ Typical species simply in the sense of a characteristic example of a genus, and that others have used it in the sense of Type species,’ seems quite clear. Accordingly each paper must be judged separately in deciding whether the case in question fulfills the requirements of the Code that ‘“ the meaning of the expression select the type is to be rigidly construed. Mention of a species as an illustration or example of a genus does not constitute a selection of a type.”

In connection with Westwood’s Synopsis, there are two points of evidence that seem to come into special consideration in arriving at an interpretation of his use of the expression Typical species.”

First, Westwood (18309, vol. 1, p. vi, Introduction to Modern Classi- fication of Insects) distinctly states that The idea of the addition of this synopsis was derived from Latreille’s Considérations Générales, in which the genera are shortly characterised,