Report on Mr. C.W. Sabrosky's proposal for the suppression under the plenary powers of the pamphlet entitled "Nouvelle classification des mouche a deux ailes" by J. W. Meigen, 1800 Z. N. (S). 191

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9 REPORT ON MR. C. W. SABROSKY'S PROPOSAL FOR THE SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE PAMPHLET ENTITLED " NOUVELLE CLASSIFICATION DES MOUCHES A DEUX AILES " BY J. W. MEIGEN, 1800. Z.N.(S).191 By R. V. Melville {Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Foreword The subjoined report, as explained in its introductory paragraphs, was designed to show how Mr. C. W. Sabrosky's proposal for the suppression of Meigen's Nouvelle Classification des M ouches a deux Ailes could be completed ; that is, it was envisaged as an integral part of that proposal, and in accordance with that view, was submitted to the Commission for a vote on 7 October 1959. At the close of the Voting Period on 7 January 1960, 24 Commissioners had voted in favour, and 2 against the proposals contained in the report. Professor J. Chester Bradley, President of the Commission, whilst voting in favour of these proposals, took the view that they constituted virtually a new application to the Commission ; that no vote on Mr. Sabrosky's original appUcation (B.Z.N. 6 : 131-141) had been formally taken ; and that an Opinion embodying the result of the vote on the report would be premature and irregular. In his view, the report should first have been published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and then presented to the Commission as a proposal alternative to that of Mr. Sabrosky, so that the latter could clearly be seen to have been expressly subjected to a vote. By this course, dipterists who had not already been consulted (see p. 17 below), and workers in the other groups aflFected, would have been given an opportunity to comment on the issues involved. In order to avoid the possibility of doubt arising now or in the future as to the vahdity of the vote taken on this most comphcated issue, Mr. Melville's report is now pubUshed below and the prescribed pubhc notice of the possible use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers in the manner indicated, is being given. If, after the expiry of six months from the date of this pubhcation, no objection has been received to the proposals embodied in the report, the vote already taken by the Commission will be regarded as rejecting Mr. Sabrosky's original proposal (total suppression of Meigen's 1800 names) and accepting the modified version set out by Mr. Melville below, and an Opinion will be pubUshed giving effect to that decision. If, on the other hand, objections are received, these will be circulated to the Commission with a BuU. zool. Nomend., Vol. 18, Part 1. December 1960.