180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 744 ABLABES CHINENSIS GtJNTHER, 1889 (REPTILIA): VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name sumichrasti Bocourt, 1 886, as published in the binomen Henicognathus sumichrasti, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The specific name sumichrasti Bocourt, 1886, as published in the binomen Henicognathus sumichrasti (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 827. (3) The specific name chinensis Giinther, 1889, as published in the binomen Ablates chinensis, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2092. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1532) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Professor Hobart M. Smith in May 1962. Professor Smith's application was sent to the printer on 27 July 1962 and was published on 26 April 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 229. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two herpetological serials. No comment was received. DECISON OF THE COMMISSION On 12 February 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)3 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 229. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 12 May 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — twenty-one (21), received in the following order: China, Lemche, Mayr, Binder, Riley, Vokes, Stoll, Holthuis, Obruchev, Simpson, Alvarado, Tortonese, Uchida, Jaczewski, do Amaral, Forest, Miller, Mertens, Ride, Brinck, Sabrosky. Negative votes — one (1): Kraus. Voting Papers not returned — three (3): Bonnet, Borchsenius, Hubbs. Commissioners Evans, Boschma and Munroe returned late affirmative votes. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes : Dr. Otto Kraus {\Q.\. 65): " There is no note in the original application giving information upon usage and importance of the name chinensis Giinther, 1889." Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (ll.v.65): " I vote for this reluctantly. Dr. Smith has not demonstrated that the name chinensis is of such importance as to merit conservation. ' Universally accepted ' may imply this, but even the name of a rare species could be so referred to." Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22. Part 3. August 1965.
BioStor
