Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 273 
PROPOSAL TO REPEAL THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 47 AND TO 
USE THE PLENARY POWERS TO STABILIZE THE GENERIC NAMES 
CARCHARHINUS BLAINVILLE, 1816, CARCHARODON A SMITH 
1838, AND 0D0NTASPI8 J. L. R. AGASSIZ, 1838, IN THEIR ACCUS- 
TOMED SENSES (CLASS PISCES). Z.N.(S.) 920 
By E. I. White, Denys W. Tucker and N. B. Marshall 
The " Summary " of Opinion 47 (Smithson. Inst. Publ. 2060, February 
1912 : 108-109) states simply that " Carcharias Rafinesque, 1810, is monotypic, 
type Carcharias taurus Rafinesque ". Apart from the date of the generic name' 
the statement is true. The " Statement of Case ", however, contains an 
error of fact, while the impHcation of the ruHng, that Carcharias is to be used 
as the vahd name for the largest genus, taxonomicaUy speaking, of fossil 
sharks, knowTi for over 120 years as Odontaspis J. L. R. Agassiz, 1838, has been 
Ignored. The names of two other genera are also involved, namely, those 
known respectively as Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816 (the largest genus, 
taxonomicaUy speaking, of hving sharks) and as Carcharodon A. Smith, 1838 
(the man-eating shark). 
2. In 1809, Rafinesque {Caratt. ale. n. gen. e n. spec, d'animali e piante 
Mia Sicilia : 10) estabhshed a new genus Carcharias, mth Carcharias taurus 
Rafinesque, 1809 {ibid.) as the type-species, by monotypy. (The date of this 
work is usually given as 1810, but Fitzpatrick, 1911, Rafinesque, Life with 
Bibliography, has shown that pp. 1-69 were pubhshed in 1809, and pp. 71-105 
in 1810.) In 1810 (Indice Ittiol. Sicilia : 44), Rafinesque referred three species 
to the genus, namely, C. taurus, C. lamia and C. glaucus. The specific name 
lamia was proposed to replace carcharias Linnaeus, 1758 (Squalus) {Syst. 
Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 235), apparently to avoid tautonymy, but it is clear that it 
is mvahd as a junior objective synonym, and that Rafinesque should have 
used the binomen Carcharias carcharias (Linnaeus, 1758). In the case of the 
third species, Rafinesque merely transferred Squalus glaucus Linnaeus, 1758 
to Carcharias. 
3. Squalus carcharias Linnaeus, 1758, is a composite species, for it combines 
the characters of the two species now known as Carcharodon carcharias 
(Linnaeus, 1758) and as Carcharhinus longimanus (Poey, 1861) respectively. 
Current usage of these two names is now weU estabhshed, but Rafinesque used 
Carcharias lamia (a junior objective synonym of Linnaeus's name) in the 
ktter sense in his later works, as also did Cuvier (1817, Regne anim. 2 : 125), 
Risso (1826, Hist. nat. Eur. merid. 3 : 119), and MiiUer & Henle ([1839], Syst. 
Plagiost. : 37). Squalus (Carcharias) longimanus Poey, 1861 {Mem. Hist. nat. 
Cuba 2 : 338) was made the type-species, by original designation, of a new 
genus Pterolamia S. Springer, 1950 {Amer. Mus. Nov. 1451 : 7), but this name 
was found to be a junior homon3an of Pterolamia Breuning, 1942, and was 
accordingly replaced by Pterolamiops S. Springer, 1951 {Copeia 1951 (3); 244). 
There is no confusion over the interpretation of this name, but with regard to 
Squalus carcharias Linnaeus, 1758, we propose that the description given by 
BuU. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 4. August 1961. ~ 
274 BMlletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
Bigelow & Schroeder (1948, Fishes of the Western North Atlantic : 134-145, 
figs. 20-21) be selected as the standard of reference for the interpretation of 
the specific name. It is impracticable to designate a mature specimen in a 
collection as neotype of so large an animal. No type-specimen exists in the 
Linnean Collection. 
4. Carcharias taurus Rafinesque, 1809, is also the type-species, by original 
designation, of Triglochis Miiller & Henle, 1837, which is therefore a junior 
objective synonym of Carcharias Rafinesque, 1809 ; and both names are 
subjectively available for the genus long universally kno\wi as Odontaspis 
J. L. R. Agassiz, 1838 (type-species, by monotypy, Carcharias ferox Risso, 
1826 (Hist. nat. Eur. merid. 3 : 122) (not C. taurus as alleged in the " Statement 
of Case " in Opinion 47). It is therefore desirable that both these senior 
synonyms be suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not of the 
Law of Homonymy, so as to validate Odontaspis. 
5. The generic name Odontaspis was first published by Agassiz in the 
" Feuilleton " added as a supplement to his Recherches sur les Poissons fossiles, 
1833-1834. The name appeared on p. 55 of the Feuilleton, which was 
pubUshed in 1835, according to W. H. BrowTi, 1890 {in Woodward & Sherborn, 
Cat. Brit. foss. Vert. : xxv-xxix), as " Odontaspis rhaphiodon Ag. — Lewes — 
Mastricht — " without any other data accompanying either the new generic 
or the new specific name, each of which is therefore a nomen nudum. The 
generic name was first made available in 1838, in Rech. Poiss. foss. 3 : 87, 
where it is mentioned as " Le genre Odontaspis Ag. {Triglochis Miiller & 
Henle, Carcharias ferox Risso) " and accompanied by a brief description of the 
genus. It is in this passage that the type-species is indicated by monotypy, 
for later pages in the same volume (: 293 et seq.), where further species were 
referred to the genus, were not pubUshed until 1843 (Brown, loc. cit.). 
6. Meanwlule, the generic name Triglochis had been estabhshed in a paper 
pubUshed twice in 1837 by Miiller & Henle, namely, in Arch. Naturg. Jahrg. 3, 
1 : 396, and in Ber. Verh. preuss. Akad. Wiss. 1837 : 113. The latter reference 
relates to the Monatsbericht reporting the meetings of July 1837, but there is 
no evidence that either pubUcation appeared before the other, and for the 
purposes of nomenclature, both are to be dated 31 December 1837. The 
following words are identical in both versions : " . . . fiihren die Verf. 2 neue 
Gattungen an, Triglochis und Triaenodon. Der Typus der ersten ist Carcharias 
Taurus Raf. ....". In the same papers, Odontaspis is mentioned (: 397, 
: 114) as foUows : " Die Gattung Lamna Cuv. mit den Untergattimgen Lamna 
(2 Spp.), Odontaspis Agass. (1 Sp.), Oxyrhina Agass. (1 Sp.) besitzt lange, 
spitze Zahne mit oder ohne Nebenzacken . . .", but no independent description, 
definition, or indication is given for Odontaspis, which therefore remains a 
nomen nudum. 
7. Since the respective nominal tj^e-species of Carcharias Rafinesque, 
1809, and Odontaspis J. L. R. Agassiz, 1838, are congeneric, it is the latter 
name wliich is threatened by the former. It has always been held, however, 
that Rafinesque's taxonomic intention in proposing his new name was to 
provide a new genus for Squalus carcharias Linnaeus, and since that species 
has in the past been interpreted in two diflFerent ways, Carcharias has been 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 275 
held to be a senior sjoionym both of Carcharodon A. Smith, 1838, and of 
Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816. This dilemma is confusedly set forth in the 
" Statement of Case " in Opinion 47, and it is now necessary to consider the 
status and circumstances of these two generic names. 
8. Carcharodon was first published, with a brief description, in Miiller & 
Henle, 1838, Mag. nat. Hist, (n.s.) 2 : 37, and was attributed to Andrew Smith. 
The genus was stated to contain one species, but none was mentioned by name. 
The first author to refer any species to the genus was Bonaparte, 1839 {Faun. 
Ital. (24) punt. 126, 126*, pi. 135), who cited Carcharodon lamia, with Squalus 
carcharias Risso (1810, Ichth. Nice : 25) and Carcharias lamia Risso (1826, 
loc. supra cit.) in the synonymy. The nominal species in question must be 
taken to be Carcharias lamia Rafinesque, 1810, which is, as has been seen, 
a junior objective synonym of Squalus carcharias Linnaeus, 1758. This is 
therefore the valid name of the type-species of Carcharodon. In [1839], 
Miiller & Henle {Syst. Beschr. Plagiost. (2) : 70) referred the single species 
Carcharodon Rondeleti to the genus, citing Carcharodon lamia Bonaparte, 
1839, among the synonyms. It follows that their work must be assumed 
to have been pubHshed later than Bonaparte's, and that Carcharodon rondeleti 
is another junior objective synonym of Carcharodon carcharias (Linnaeus, 1758). 
This fact is well known. 
9. Carcharias, as used by several authors subsequent to Rafinesque, 1809, 
seems to have been proposed deliberately as a new (and homonjmious) generic 
name rather than as a citation of Rafinesque's name. Cuvier (1817, R^gne 
anim. 2 : 125) included three species in the genus, one of which was cited as 
" Squalus carcharias " (to be read as of Limiaeus, 1758), and is therefore the 
type-spscies by absolute tautonymy. Carcharias Risso, 1826 (Hist. nat. 
Eur. merid. 3 : 119) included five species, one of which was C. lamia : Squalus 
carcharias is therefore also the type-species of this genus. Carcharias MiiUer 
& Henle, [1839] {Syst. Beschr. Plagiost. : 37) was divided into five subgenera, 
none of which was given the generic name as its own. The subgenus Prionodon, 
however, contains " Carcharias {Prionodon) lamia Risso " of which "Squalus 
carcharias Risso " is cited as a synonym. Under the Rules, therefore, Squalus 
carcharias Linnaeus, 1758, is the type-species of Carcharias Miiller & Henle, 
[1839], and Prionodon of those authors becomes the nominate subgenus. 
Thus there is no difference in the nomenclatorial status of any of these uses of 
the generic name Carcharias subsequent to Rafinesque, 1809. They all apply 
to a genus other than that to which the original monotypical type-species of 
Carcharias Rafinesque belongs, and they all rank as senior objective synonyms 
of Carcharodon A. Smith, 1838. For this reason, Carcharias Rafinesque, 1809 
(which itself threatens Odontaspis J. L. R. Agassiz, 1838), must be suppressed 
only for the purposes of the Law of Priority, while retaining its rights under 
the Law of Homonymy, so as to prevent any of the junior homonyms cited 
above from displacing Carcharodon A. Smith, 1838. 
10. Prionodon MiiUer & Henle, [1839], is automatically invaUdated as a 
junior homonym of Prionodon Horsfield, 1822 (MammaUa) ; and it has in fact 
been expressly replaced by Prionace Cantor, 1850 {J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal 
18(2) : 1381. The type-species of Prionace must, therefore, be that of 
276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
Prionodon, namely, Squalus carchurias Linnaeus, 1758, so that the name falls 
as a junior objective synonym of Carcharodon. The name is, however, in 
well-estabhshed use for a different genus, that which contains the Blue Shark, 
Squalus glaucus Linnaeus, 1758 ; and this species, which is one of those originally 
included in Prionodon Miiller & Henle, was designated as type-species of 
Prionace by Jordan in 1919 {Genera of Fishes (Stanford Univ. Publ., Univ. 
Series) (2) : 242). Stabihty of nomenclature would be seriously damaged 
by the strict application of the Rules in this case, and we therefore ask that the 
plenary powers be used to designate S. glaucus Lumaeus, 1758, as the type- 
species of Prionace. 
11. Carcharhinus was first pubhshed by BlainvUle in August 1816 {Bull, 
sci. Soc. philomath. Paris 1816 : 121), and later in the same year in J. Phys. 
83 : 264. Fourteen species were cited as belonging to the genus, but nine 
of these (including C. commersonii, the first species) are based only on nomina 
nuda. The other five nominal species are : Carcharias lamia Rafinesque, 1810, 
Squalus glaucus Linnaeus, 1758, Squalus cornubicus Gmelin, 1789, Squalus 
monensis Shaw, 1804, and Squalus vulpes Gmehn, 1789. No type-species 
was designated or indicated. 
12. Bosc (1816, Nouv. Diet. Hist. nat. 5 : 277) said of Carcharhinus : 
" Le Squale-Requin ou Lamie. Squalus carcharias lui sert de type ". Since 
this must be taken to mean Squalus carcharias Linnaeus, 1758, which is a 
senior objective synonym of Carcharias lamia Rafinesque, 1810 (which was 
one of the nominal species originally included in Carcharhinus), Bosc's designa- 
tion of the type-species is vahd under Declarations 21 and 25. Carcharhinus 
Blainville, 1816, thus becomes itself a senior objective sjoionym of Carcharodon 
A. Smith, 1838. Bosc's designation has, however, never been adopted. 
Jordan & Gilbert (1883, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 16 : 22) designated C. com- 
mersonii as type-species of Carcharhinus, but this specific name was not 
available at the time when the genus was estabhshed. It was not in fact 
validated until 1825 (Blainville in Vieillot, Faune de France : 90), where it was 
said to be based on Lacepede, 1798, Hist. nat. Poissons 1 : 169, pi. 5, fig. 1. 
The reference is clearly erroneous, for the figure illustrates a skate and not 
a shark. Assuming, on grounds of probability, that pi. 8, fig 1 was meant, 
there is still uncertainty as to the meaning of the specific name, for neither the 
figure (although it certainly represents a species of Carcharhinus as generally 
understood) nor the measurements given with it enable the species to be 
identified. Thus Carcharhinus commersonii Blainville, 1825, even if ehgible, 
would not be a suitable type-species for the genus. 
13. If Carcharhinus is to be stabihzed in accordance with current usage, 
it is clear that Bosc's valid type-designation must be set aside. In looking 
for a suitable substitute t5rpe-species, it is necessary first to ignore the other 
four nominal species originally included in the genus, since these are distributed 
among other genera whose names are in general use. Two of these genera are 
junior to Carcharhinus and one is senior. In any case, the designation of any 
of the four species concerned as the type-species of Carcharhinus would have 
disastrous effects on the stabihty of the generic names involved. In searching 
elsewhere for a suitable species, we consulted Dr. W. C. Schroeder (Woods 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 277 
Hole Oceanographic Institution, Mass., U.S.A.), who is co-author with Dr. H. B. 
Bigelow of the standard work in EngUsh bearing on the present issue (Bigeiow 
& Schroeder, 1948, Fishes of the western North Atlantic, Sears Found. Publ.l). 
Dr. Schroeder rephed : " Dr. Bigelow and I agree with you that stabUization 
of the genus name Carcharhinus is most desirable, not only because its 
nomenclatural history is confused but because it includes a larger number of 
closely related species than does any other genus of modern sharks and many 
of the most familiar of the large sharks of temperate and warm seas. In our 
opinion, Jordan & Gilbert's designation of C. commersonii Blainville, 1816, was 
vaUd on nomenclatural grounds. But the type-specimen of commersonii is 
not m existence. And while Lacepede's Ulustration of it, with the accompanying 
measurements, seems certainly to have been based on a member of the genus 
as subsequently understood, they are not sufficiently detailed to place it in any 
particular species in the Kght of later knowledge. Since no acceptable revision 
of Blainville 's species (many of them only nominal) has appeared, and since 
Garman does not help us at all, we beheve the most promising solution to the 
dilemma is to follow the suggestion in paragraph 3 of your letter, i.e. to propose 
as the type of Carcharhinus some species which is not only clearly congeneric 
with the illustration on which BlainviUe based the genus, but the type-specimen 
of which is available for study in some well-estabHshed museum. In our 
opinion, the most suitable species for this purpose (perhaps the only suitable 
species) is Carcharias [Prionodon) milherti MuUer & Henle, [1839] {Syst. Beschr. 
Plagiost. : 38-39), which was based on a specimen in the Paris Museum, from 
New York, coUected by Milbert, combined with one in Berhn and a' third 
in Leiden. Since the Berlin specimen may not be in existence stUl and since 
the number of teeth in the Leyden specimen was different from that in the 
Berhn and Paris specimens, would it not be in order to designate the Paris 
specimen as the type of the species ? There are specimens of milberti in the 
Museum of Comparative Zoology, in the U.S. National Museum and doubtless 
in the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia." 
14. The above suggestion provides by far the most certain and effective 
solution to the problem of the type-species of Carcharhinus, and we are glad 
to adopt it, with grateful acknowledgments to Dr. Schroeder and Dr. Bigelow. 
We next proceeded to enquire as to the suitability of the Paris specimen of 
Carcharhinus milberti referrred to. Dr. J. Guibe (Museum National d'Histoire 
NatureUe, Paris) kindly provided the particulars of this specimen, which we 
here select as lectotype of the species, given in the Appendix. 
15. Three family-group names are involved in the present case. Miiller 
& Henle (op. cit. [1839] : xvii) proposed a famUy carchariae, based on 
Carcharias, but this name is to be automatically rejected upon the suppression 
under the plenary powers of the name of its type-genus. Its place is taken by 
ODONTASPiDES (an incorrect original speUing of odontaspididae) MuUer & 
Henle, [1839], ibid. The name carcharhinidae Garman, 1913, The Plagio- 
stonut : 106, is based on Carcharhinus BlainviUe, 1816. The two latter names 
should be placed on the Official List. 
16. We therefore propose that the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature should : 
(1) repeal the ruling given in Opinion 47 ; 
278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
(2) use its plenary powers : 
(i) to suppress the generic name Carcharias Rafinesque, 1809, for 
the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the 
Law of Homonymy ; 
(ii) to suppress the generic name Triglochis Miiller & Henle, 1837, 
for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the 
Law of Homonymy ; 
(iii) to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal 
genus Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816, made prior to the ruhng 
now asked for, and to designate Sqnalus (Carcharias) milberti 
Miiller & Henle, [1839], as the type-species of that genus ; 
(iv) to set aside all designations of tj'pe-species for the nominal 
genus Prionace Cantor, 1850, made prior to the ruling now 
asked for, and to designate Squalus glaucus Lumaeus, 1758, 
as the type-species of that genus ; 
(3) to place the follo\\ing generic names on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology : 
(a) Carcharhinus BlainvUle, 1816 (gender : masculine), type-species, 
by designation under the plenary poMers in (2)(ui) above, 
Squalus (Carcharius) milberti Miiller & Henle, [1839] ; 
(b) Carcharodon A. Smith in Miiller & Henle, 1838 (gender : masculine), 
type-species, by subsequent monotypy, through Carcharias 
lamia Rafinesque, 1810, Squalus carcharias Linnaeus, 1758 ; 
(c) Odontaspis J. L. R. Agassiz, 1838, (gender : feminine), type- 
species, by monotypy, Carcharias ferox Risso, 1826 ; 
(d) Prionace Cantor, 1850 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designa- 
tion imder the plenary powers in (2)(iv) above, Squalus glaucus 
Linnaeus, 1758 ; 
(c) Pterolamiops S. Springer, 1951 (gender : mascuUne), tj'pe-species, 
by original designation, through Pterolamia S. Springer, 1950, 
squalus [Carcharias) longimanus Poey, 1861 ; 
(4) place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology : 
(a) milberti Miiller & Henle, [1839], as pubhshed in the binomen 
Carcharias (Prionodon) milberti and as defined by the lectotype 
selected in the present apphcation (type-species of Carcharhinus 
Blainville, 1816) ; 
(b) carcharias Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Squalus 
carcharias, and as interpreted by Bigelow and Schroeder, 1948, 
Fishes of the western North Atlantic : 134-135, figs. 20-21 (type- 
species of Carcharodon A. Smith in Miiller & Henle, 1838) ; 
(c) ferox Risso, 1826, as published in the binomen Carcharias ferox 
(type-species of Odontaspis J. L. R. Agassiz, 1838) ; 
(d) glaucus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Squalus 
glaucus (type-species of Prionace Cantor, 1850) ; 
(e) longimanus Poey, 1861, as pubhshed in the combination Squalus 
BuUetin of Zoological Nomenclature 279 
(Carcharias) longimanus Poey, 1861 (type-species of Ptero- 
lamiops S. Springer, 1951) ; 
(5) place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : 
(a) Carcharias Rafinesque, 1809 (suppressed under the plenary powers 
in (2)(i) above) ; 
(b) Triglochis Miiller & Henle, 1837 (suppressed under the plenary 
powers in (2)(ii) above) ; 
(b) the following junior homonyms of Carcharias Rafinesque, 1809 : 
(i) Carcharias Cuvier, 1817 ; 
(ii) Carcharias Risso, 1826 ; 
(iii) Carcharias Miiller & Henle, [1839] ; 
(c) Prionodon Miiller & Henle, [1839] (a jimi or homonym of Pn'onotforo 
Horsfield, 1822) ; 
(d) Pterolamia S. Springer, 1950 (a jimior homonym of Pterolamia 
Breuning, 1942) ; 
(6) place the following specific name on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Species Names in Zoology : 
lamia Rafinesque, 1810, as published in the binomen Carcharias 
lamia (a junior objective synonjin of carcharias Linnaeus, 1758, 
as published in the binomen Squalus carcharias) ; 
(7) to place the following family-group names on the Official List of Family- 
group Names in Zoology : 
(a) ODONTASPiDiDAE (correction of odontaspides) MiiUer & Henle, 
[1839] (type-genus Odontaspis J. L. R. Agassiz, 1838) ; 
(b) c ARCH A RHTNTD AE Garman, 1913 (type-genus Carcharhinus Blain- 
ville, 1816) ; 
(8) place the following family-group names on the Official Index of Rejected 
and Invalid Family-group Names in Zoology : 
(a) CARCHARiAE Miiller & Henle, [1839] (t3rpe-genus Carcharias 
Rafinesque, 1809 (invalid through the suppression under the 
plenary powers in (2) (i) above of the name of the type-genus) ; 
(b) ODONTASPIDES Miiller & Henle, [1839] (type-genus Odontaspis 
J. L. R. Agassiz, 1838) (an incorrect original spelling of 
ODONTASPIDIDAE) . 
APPENDIX 
The following are the particulars of the lectotype chosen in the present 
application (Paragraph 14) for Carcharias {Prionodon) milberti MiiUer & Henle, 
[1839] suppUed by Dr. J. Guibe : 
" Un specimen o, numero 1142 Coll. Mus. Paris. Provenant de la cote 
de I'Etat de New York ; recolte par ^IHbert ; conserve en alcool ; en bon etat. 
millimetres 
Longueur totale . . . . . . . . . . 605 
Hauteur du tronc , . . . . . . . . . 75 
280 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
Epaisseur du tronc . . . . . . . . .... 65 
Long, de la tete (de I'extremite du museau a la 
premiere fente branchiale) . . . . . . . . 125 
Largeur de la tete . . . . . . . . . . 68 
Diametre oculaire . . . . . . . . . . 16.5 
Espace preorbitaire . . . . . . . . . . 45.5 
Espace interorbitaire . . . . . . . . . . 65.5 
Longueur de la narine . . . . . . . . . . 11.5 
Espace internasal (pris k Tangle interne des narines) . . 36 
Longueur du rostre (a partit de la machoire superieure) 47 
Largeur de la bouche . . . . . . . . . . 49 
Longueur de la caudale (prise a I'aplomb du lobe 
inferieur) . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.5 
Idem (prise a I'aplomb du lobe superieur) . . . . 16.5 
Longueur de la pectorale . . . . . . . . 101 
Longueur museau-premiere dorsale . . . . . . 180 
Longueur museau-deuxieme dorsale . . . . . . 371 
Longueur museau-anale . . . . . . . . 440 
Longueur museau-pectorale . . . . . . . . 150 
Longueur museau -pel vienne . . . . . . . . 294 
Nombre de dents a la machoire superieure : 29 
a la machoire inferieure : 29 
H est difficile de denombrer avec exactitude le nombre des dents, toutefois 
le nombre ci-dessus ne comporte pas une erreur de plus de une ou deux unites." 
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF THE GENERIC NAME PERLA 
GEOFFROY, 1762 
(see this volume, pages 87-89) 
By Otto Winkler (Prague, Czechoslovakia) 
The proposal made by Mr. Kimmins is doubtless very right and useful. The fundamental 
aim of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is to do away with nomen- 
clatorial difficulties ; the rigorous apphcation of the Rules would be harmful in this case, because 
it would produce a lot of new confusion and compUcation in the future. Therefore I agree 
with all items of Mr. Kimmins's proposal.