Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 209 Latreille himself and authors after his time (except Potts) reached the same general conclusion as we have. If, however, the conclusion reached by Potts could be supported by indisputable bibliographic facts, technical honesty would require adjustment of the nomenclature to fit the facts. Potts has recently requested (1951, Bull', zool. Nomencl. 6 : 49) the International Conamission on Zoological Nomenclature for protection against the necessity of acting according to his published conclusions and the Commission has accepted the case and invited comment from interested parties before a decision is reached. (See Science 114 : 673-674, 1951.) We therefore send this paper to the Conxmission, in the hopes of convincing it that, in this case at least, the commonly accepted rules of nomen-clature should be allowed to operate. ON MR. G. H. E. HOPKINS' PROPOSAL RELATING TO THE STATUS TO BE ACCORDED TO SPELLED-OUT LETTERS OR NUMERALS WHEN USED AS NAMES By JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)371) (Enclosure to letter dated 24th October 1951) While in complete sympathy with Mr. G. H. E. Hopkins' petition (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 52-53), that single letters or numerals should not be available as trivial names, and that when used in conjunction with an available name they are not to be construed as constituting part of that name, I cannot help but feel that the enforcement of the last provision of this application is not very practical. For instance, Dall published in 1919 the name Tritonalia interfossa beta in the Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 32 : 250, a reference which I have been unable to consult personally, but in which he apparently made no statement as to his intention as to whether the name should be understood as designating one term of a series or as describing a characteristic of the form so named. Since no other form was described at the same time with the name of any other letter of the Greek alphabet, the inference is that this form was not to be considered as one term of an infinite series, and that the name would be good under the proposed new ruling. But later, in 1921, in Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 112 : 108, pi. 13 f. 9, he published the name Tritonalia interfossa alpha which would seem to indicate that after all the names were to be interpreted as designations of a term in a series, and therefore not available. Under a strict application of the proposed new ruling the name beta would be the legitimate name for the form to which it was applied from 1919 to 1921 but that after that date it would lose its legitimacy because another name which was illegitimate had been applied to another form. It is my feeling that the only practical point at which a boundaiy can be drawn between conditions under which a name of this sort is legitimate and under which it is not, is whether or not the name has been spelled out phonetically. I would consider as legitimate any instance in which these names have been spelled out phonetically. This seems to me the only practical method of procedure. While not exactly indispensable to the consideration of this question, a comment on the numerals one, two, three and four and the lesser used numerals taai, lua, tolu and fa are not exactly parallel. These last named numerals have not been Latinized, and are spelled phonetically in Latin. In fact, one and /owr are not even phonetic in English. I can see no reason why any word in any language should not be available as the basis of a scientific name, provided that it has been Latinized. The numerals which are last quoted above are vernacular names only, and of course have no standing. But the letters of the Greek alphabet, while they are vernacular names also, are a great deal more. They are Latinized words of Greek
BioStor
