PEFLGST VERT ET LS SPU ALE wide dedrieine ett aerate til pecan Bravenet ao set ef a f Whi se ‘Bulletin FP adosical Nomenclature kee pm ‘od men on =e ical wy) nclature #9 ans THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 2007 is £150 or US$270 or €270, postage included; individual subscribers for personal use are offered a subscription of £75 or US$135 or €135. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 SBD, U.K. (Tel. 020 7942 5653) (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) (http://www.iczn.org) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Officers President Vice-President Executive Secretary Vacant Members Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga (Spain; Coleoptera) Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) Dr N. G. Bogutskaya (Russia; Ichthyology) Prof P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) Prof D. J. Brothers (South Africa; Hymenoptera) Prof D. G. Fautin (U.S.A.; Cnidaria) Dr M. J. Grygier (Japan; Crustacea) Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari) Prof I. M. Kerzhner (Russia; Heteroptera) Dr M. Kottelat (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Dr F.-T. Krell (U.K.; Coleoptera) Dr S. O. Kullander (Sweden; Ichthyology) Prof Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera) Prof S. Lim (Malaysia; Parasitology) Secretariat Prof D. J. Brothers (South Africa) Dr A. Polaszek (U.K.) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Dr V. Mahnert (France; Ichthyology) Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan; Bryozoa) Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda) Dr P. K. L. Ng (Singapore; Crustacea, Ichthyology) Dr T. Pape (Denmark; Diptera) Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera) Prof D. J. Patterson (U.S.A.; Protista) Dr R. Pyle (U.S. A.; Ichthyology) Dr G. Rosenberg (U.S. A.; Mollusca) Prof D. X. Song (China; Hirudinea) Prof P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) Mr J. van Tol (The Netherlands; Odonata) Dr Z.-Q. Zhang (New Zealand; Acari) Dr A. Polaszek (Executive Secretary and Bulletin Editor) Dr S. Coppard (Development Officer) Mrs S. Morris (Zoologist) Dr S. Nikolaeva (Zoologist) Mr J. D. D. Smith (Scientific Administrator) Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman) Dr P. L. Forey (Secretary and Managing Director) © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2007 & yf Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007, BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 64, part | (pp. 1-76) rcs Notices N (1) Applications and correspondence relating to applications to tf®Commission should be sent to the Executive Secretary at the address given on the inside of the front cover and on the Commission website. English is the official language of the Bulletin. Please take careful note of instructions to authors (present in a one or two page form in each volume) as incorrectly formatted applications will be returned to authors for revision. The Commission’s Secretariat will answer general nomencla- tural (as opposed to purely taxonomic) enquiries and assist with the formulation of applications. As far as it can, the Secretariat will check the main nomenclatural references in applications. Correspondence should be by e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ where possible. (2) The Commission votes on applications eight months after they have been published, although this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Comments for publication relating to applications (either in support or against, or offering alternative solutions) should be submitted as soon as possible. Comments may be edited. (3) Requests for help and advice on the Code can be made direct to the Commission and other interested parties via the Internet. Membership of the Commission’s Discussion List is free of charge. You can subscribe and find out more about the list at http://lst.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list. (4) The Commission also welcomes the submission of general-interest articles on nomenclatural themes or nomenclatural notes on particular issues. These may deal with taxonomy, but should be mainly nomenclatural in content. Articles and notes should be sent to the Executive Secretary. New applications to the Commission The following new applications have been received since the last issue of the Bulletin (volume 63, part 4, 20 December 2006) went to press. Under Article 82 of the Code, the existing usage of names in the applications is to be maintained until the Commission’s rulings on the applications (the Opinions) have been published. CASE 3398: AULACOSCELINAE OF AULACOSCELIDINAE Chapuis, 1874 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. J.A. Santiago-Blay. CASE 3399: Dichochrysa X.-k. Yang, 1991 (Insecta, Neuroptera): proposed conservation. J. Oswald. CASE 3400: Hybosorus illigeri Reiche, 1853 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence over Hybosorus roei Westwood, 1845. P.G. Allsopp & T. Branco. CASE 3401: Delognatha Lacordaire, 1859 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. P. Bouchard. re 31 March 2007, a" — to Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 CASE 3402: pHotinini LeConte, 1881 (Insecta, Coleoptera) and PHOTININAE Giglio-Tos, 1919 (Insecta, Mantodea): proposed resolution of homonymy between family-group names. G.J. Svenson & M.A. Branham. CASE 3403: Mecistocephalus Newport, 1843 and Pachymerium Koch, 1847 (Chilopoda): proposed conservation of current usage by designation of Mecisto- cephalus punctifrons Newport, 1843 as the type species of Mecistocephalus Newport, 1843. L. Bonato and A. Minelli. CASE 3404: Atlanta lesueurii Souleyet, 1852 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation. A.W. Janssen & R.R. Seapy. CASE 3405: Trigonostomum Schmidt, 1852 (Platyhelminthes, TRIGONOSTOMIDAE) and Trigonostomus Brenske, 1893 (Insecta, Coleoptera, sSCARABAEIDAE): proposed conservation of the generic names. W.R. Willems & F.-T. Krell. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The aim of the Commission is to bring stability to the use of animal names (zoological nomenclature). The Commission does this by: (a) producing, publishing and periodically revising the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (the Code), which deals with the formulation and use of animal names; (b) considering and ruling on specific cases of nomenclatural uncertainty and dispute about animal names that are not automatically resolved under the provisions of the Code, via applications, published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The International Congress of Zoology founded the Commission in 1895. At present, the Commission consists of 28 zoologists from 19 countries whose interests cover most of the main divisions, including palaeontology, of the animal kingdom. The Commission is under the patronage of the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS). Commission members are elected by the vote of zoologists attending General Assemblies of the IUBS or other appropriate congresses. Nomi- nations for membership may be sent to the Executive Secretary at any time. The Commission’s history is described in Towards Stability in the Names of Animals (1995) (see below under ‘Publications’ for details). Further discussion of the Commission’s activities can be found in BZN 48: 295-299 (December 1991) and BZN 60: supplement, pp. 1-12 (March 2003). Members of the Commission Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, José Gutiérrez Abascal 2, E-28006 Madrid, Spain. Prof W.J. Bock, Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027-7004, U.S.A. Dr N.G. Bogutskaya, Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya emb. 1, 199034 St. Petersburg, Russia. Prof P. Bouchet, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 55 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France (Councillor). Prof D.J. Brothers, School of Biological and Conservation Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X01, Scottsville, 3209 South Africa (President). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 3 Prof D.G. Fautin, KU Natural History Museum, and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, 1200 Sunnyside Drive, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, U.S.A. Dr M.J. Grygier, Lake Biwa Museum, Oroshimo 1091, Kusatsu, Shiga 525-0001, Japan. Dr R.B. Halliday, CSIRO Division of Entomology, G.P.O. Box 1700, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601, Australia. Dr I.M. Kerzhner, Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg 199034, Russia (Councillor). Dr M. Kottelat, Route de la Baroche 12, Case postale 57, CH-2952 Cornol, Switzerland. ae Dr F.-T. Krell, Department of Zoology, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, 2001 Colorado Boulevard, Denver, CO 80205-5798, U.S.A. Dr S.O. Kullander, Department of Vertebrate Zoology, Swedish Museum of Natural History, POB 50007, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden. Prof Dr G. Lamas, Museo de Historia Natural, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Apartado 14-0434, Lima-14, Peru. Prof L.-H.S. Lim, Institute of Biological Sciences, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Dr E. Macpherson, Centro d’Estudios Avangats de Blanes (C.S.I.C.), Cami de Santa Barbara s/n, 17300 Blanes, Girona, Spain. Dr V. Mahnert, Route de Collongette 49, F-74170 Douvaine, France. Prof S.F. Mawatari, Zoological Institute, Faculty of Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060, Japan. Prof A. Minelli, Dipartimento di Biologia, Universita di Padova, Via Trieste 75, 35121 Padova, Italy. Dr P.K.L. Ng, Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge, Singapore 119260. Dr T. Pape, Natural History Museum of Denmark, Universitetsparken 15, DK-—2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. Dr L. Papp, Hungarian Museum of Natural History, Baross utca 13, H-1088 Budapest, Hungary. Prof D.J. Patterson, Bay Paul Center, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA 02543, U.S.A. Dr R. Pyle, Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817 Hawau, U.S.A. Dr G. Rosenberg, Academy of Natural Sciences, 1900 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Philadelphia, PA 19103-1195, U.S.A. Prof D.X. Song, College of Life Sciences, Hebei University, Baoding, Hebei Province, 071002 China. Dr P. Stys, Department of Zoology, Charles University, Viniéna 7, 128 44 Praha 2, Czech Republic. Mr J. van Tol, Naturalis, Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Darwinweg 3, 233 CR Leiden, The Netherlands. Dr Z.-Q. Zhang, Landcare Research, Private Bag 92170, Auckland, New Zealand. Ww 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature (the Trust) was founded in 1947 to manage the Commission’s financial matters. It is a registered charity, based in the U.K. (No. 211944). At present, the Trust consists of 31 members from 14 countries. Discussion of the Trust’s activities can be found in BZN 60: supplement, pp. 1-12 (March 2003). Members of the Trust The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman) (U.K.) Dr P.L. Forey (Secretary and Managing Director) (U.K.) Dr H.M.F.P. André (Belgium) Dr M.N. Arai (Canada) Mr H.S. Barlow (Malaysia) Prof D.J. Brothers (South Africa) Prof J.H. Callomon (U.K.) Prof W.T. Chang (China) Dr J.A. Compton (U.K.) Mr P. Cooke (U.K.) Dr M. Dixon (U.K.) Prof J. Forest (France) Prof R.A. Fortey (U.K.) Prof J.I. dos R. Furtado (Singapore) Dr M.K. Howarth (U.K.) . Dr T. Jones (U.K.) Dr. S. Knapp (U.K.) Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany) Dr Ch. Kropf (Switzerland) Dr M. Luc (France) Mr A. McCullough (U.K.) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain) Prof A. Minelli (Italy) Dr T. Nishikawa (Japan) Dr J.L. Norenburg (U.S.A.) Dr M.J. Oates (U.K.) Mr N.J. Robinson (U.K.) Dr J. Taverne (U.K.) Dr A. Wakeham-Dawson (U.K.) Dr G. Walker (U.K.) Baroness Walmsley (U.K.) The Commission’s website Abstracts of Applications, Comments and Opinions and details of the names included in the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology are posted on the Commission’s website ‘www.iczn.org’. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 5 The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature The aim of the Code is to provide the greatest universality and continuity in the scientific names of animals without restricting the taxonomy or classification of the animals for which the names are used. The current (fourth edition) of the Code was published by the Trust in English and French in 1999, and came into effect on 1 January 2000; this edition supersedes all previous editions. Official texts are available in Catalonian, Chinese, Czech, German, Japanese, Russian, Spanish and Ukrainian. See below under ‘Publications’ for sales details. The Articles of the Code enable the user to decide the valid name for any animal taxon between and including subspecies and superfamily. The provisions of the Code can be waived or modified in particular cases where strict adherence would cause confusion. However, only the Commission, acting on behalf of all zoologists, can do this in response to formal applications that are published in the Bulletin. The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The Bulletin is published four times each year at the end of March, June and September and mid-December. The Bulletin includes Applications relating to animal names, Comments on Applications, and Opinions giving the Commission’s eventual rulings based on the Commissioners’ votes. Each Opinion published in the Bulletin is an official ruling of the Commission and comes into effect on the day of publication of the Bulletin. The Opinions are summarised in the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology. The Bulletin also includes papers on general nomenclatural issues and proposed amendments to the Code. See below under ‘Publications’ for how to subscribe to the Bulletin and for details about the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology. Publications All publications listed below may be ordered from: ITZN, c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). With the exception of the Bulletin (which can only be ordered from ITZN), these publications can also be ordered from the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature (AAZN), Dr E. Hoberg, U.S. National Parasite Collection, ARS/USDA, Bldg. 1180, USDA, Beltsville, MD 20705-2350, U.S.A. (e-mail: ehoberg@anri.barc.usda.gov). Prices listed below include surface postage. Please send payment with orders. Cheques should be made out to ‘ITZN’ (in sterling, USdollars or Euros) or to “AAZN’ (in USdollars only). Visa or MasterCard payments can be made in sterling to ITZN only; AAZN is not able to handle credit card payments. Please give cardholder’s name, address, card number and expiry date when ordering. The Bulletin subscription for 2007 is £150 or US$270 or €270, including postage by accelerated surface post. Individual subscribers for personal use have a 50% discount making the subscription £75 or US$135 or €135. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (4th Edition, 1999; ISBN 0 85301 006 4; English and French in one volume) is available at £40 or US$65 or €65, including surface postage. Individual purchasers buying the Code for personal use 6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 are offered a 50% discount (£20 or US$32 or €32), as are institutions or agents buying five or more copies. Information about the prices and availability of the authorised translations of the Code can be obtained from the following e-mail addresses: Chinese (traditional) — wenhua@oceantaiwan.com Czech — klapagenda@centrum.cz German — books@insecta.de Japanese — tomokuni@kahaku.go.jp Russian — kim@ik3599.spb.edu Spanish — cfuentes@mncn.csic.es The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology gives details of all the names and publications on which the Commission has ruled since it was set up in 1895. The first volume published in 1987 contains 9917 entries, and a Supplement (2001) lists an additional 2385 entries. The cost of the 1987 volume and of the Supplement is £60 or US$110 or €110 each, with reductions for both volumes ordered together and for individual buyers for personal use. Details available on request. Towards Stability in the Names of Animals — a History of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995 was published in 1995 in recognition of the Commission’s Centenary. This book of 104 pages contains 18 full-page illustrations, 14 being of eminent zoologists who played a crucial part in the development of animal nomenclature. The cost 1s £30 or US$50 or €50. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 7 Case 3368. Eatoniella Dall, 1876 and EATONIELLIDAE Ponder, 1965 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation Dietrich Kadolsky 66 Heathhurst Road, Sanderstead, Surrey CR2 OBA, U.K. (e-mail: kadolsky@btsgeo.com) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the names Eatoniella Dall, 1876 and EATONIELLIDAE Ponder, 1965, which are junior subjective synonyms of Paludestrina d@Orbigny, 1840 and PALUDESTRINIDAE Newton, 1891, respectively. To date, Paludestrina d’Orbigny, 1840 and PALUDESTRINI- DAE Newton, 1891 have been regarded as junior objective synonyms of Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 and HypRoBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 based on the designation of Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 as type species of Paludestrina by Bourguignat, 1887. However, the earlier and overlooked type species designation of Paludina nigra d’Orbigny, 1840 by Nevill (1885) as the type species of Paludestrina renders Paludestrina a subjective synonym of Eatoniella. The names Paludestrina and PALUDESTRINIDAE have never been used in the sense of Eatoniella and EATONIELLIDAE, but have been frequently used mistakenly in the sense of Hydrobia and HYDROBIIDAE. To avoid confusion, the suppression of Paludestrina and PALUDESTRINIDAE 1S pro- posed. Paludina nigra d’Orbigny, 1840 is a junior homonym of Paludina nigra Quoy & Gaimard, 1835 and its junior subjective synonym Eatoniella latina Marincovich, 1973 is proposed as a replacement name. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; HYDROBIIDAE; PALUDESTRINIDAE; EATONIELLIDAE; Hydrobia; Paludestrina; Eatoniella; Paludina nigra; Eatoniella kerguelensis; Eatoniella latina; Indian Ocean; Pacific; gastropods. 1. E.A. Smith (1875, p. 70), proposed the new gastropod genus Eatonia with three new species included, E. kerguelensis (pp. 70-71), E. caliginosa (p. 71) and E. subrufescens (p. 71), all from Kerguelen Islands in the Indian Ocean. Dall (1876, p. 42) replaced Eatonia E.A. Smith, 1875 with Eatoniella, because of the existence of the senior homonym Eatonia Hall, 1857 (pp. 90-92). Eatonia kerguelensis E.A. Smith, 1875 was designated as the type species of Eatoniella by Nevill (1885, p. 129). In a revision of Eatoniella and related genus-group taxa, Ponder (1965, pp. 50-51) proposed the family name EATONIELLIDAE. 2. The nominal taxa Eatoniella and EATONIELLIDAE have been treated in several taxonomic studies since 1965 (Castellanos & Fernandez, 1972a, 1972b; Marincovich, 1973; Ponder & Yoo, 1977; Ponder, 1983, 1988: Ponder & Worsfold, 1994) and have been used in other publications based on these papers. Numerous species have been attributed to Eatoniella, usually from marine intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats of the southern hemisphere. 101 species-group names have since 1965 (i.e. since the work of Ponder (1965) who redefined the genus) been treated in at least one paper as 8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 the potentially valid names for species-group taxa in the genus Eatoniella. Excluding objective synonyms, 99 potentially valid species and/or subspecies are represented by these 101 names. The generic name Eatoniella has been consistently used since it was established as a valid name for a genus-group taxon typified by Eatonia kerguelensis, although many species now assigned to Eatoniella were originally assigned to other nominal genera. 3. D’Orbigny (1840, p. 381) introduced Paludestrina as a subgenus of Paludina Férussac, 1813 without fixing a type species. D’Orbigny attributed a large number of South American species to Paludestrina, and also the European Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805. All authors mentioning the type species have accepted Pilsbry’s view (1897, p. 119) that the type species of Paludestrina is Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 (p. 40, pl. 1, fig. 23), by subsequent designation by Bourguignat (1887, pp. 9-10) (see Pilsbry, 1911, p. 552; Hannibal, 1912, p. 185; Cossmann, 1921, p. 98; Pilsbry & Bequaert, 1927, p. 221; Kabat & Hershler. 1993, p. 41). This would render Paludestrina a junior objective synonym of Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 and the family name PALUDESTRINIDAE Newton, 1891 (p. 226) a junior synonym of HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (p. 106). The type species of the genus Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 (1821a, p. 258) is Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805, designated subsequently by Gray (1847, p. 151). Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 is the type genus of the family-group name HyDROBIINAE Troschel, 1857. Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 and HYDROBIINAE Troschel, 1857 have been placed on the respective Official Lists in Opinion 2034 (June, 2003). In the 19th and early part of the 20th century the names Hydrobia Hartmann and HyDROBINAE Troschel were rejected by many workers because of the supposed homonymy of Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 with Hydrobius Leach, 1815 and HypRosBmNAE Troschel, 1857 with the family-group name HYDROBIINA [emended to HYDROBIUSINA — see Opinion 2034] Mulsant, 1844 based on Hydrobius Leach, 1815 (Coleoptera). However, homonymy existed only in the family-group names because of the identical stem of Hydrobia and Hydrobius. This problem and other matters associated with the name Hydrobia were resolved in Opinion 2034. 4. However, the earliest valid type species designation for Paludestrina d’Orbigny, 1840 is by Nevill (1885, p. 46) of Paludina (Paludestrina) nigra d’Orbigny, 1840 (livraison 49, p. 387; figured in livr. 53 (1841), pl. 75, figs. 16-18) from the lower intertidal zone near Arica, Peru. Ponder & Worsfold, 1994 (pp. 14-15, figs. 5f, 7e, 9c. 10a) figured a syntype (fig. 10a) and redescribed the species Paludina (Paludestrina) nigra, which they placed in Eatoniella (Eatoniella). Ponder & Worsfold (1994, p. 15) recognized Eatoniella (Eatoniella) latina Marincovich, 1973 (p. 26, figs. 51, 57, 58) from the lower intertidal zone at Iquique, Chile, as a junior subjective synonym of Paludina (Paludestrina) nigra, but did not notice the primary homonymy between Paludina (Paludestrina) nigra d’Orbigny, 1840 and Paludina nigra Quoy & Gaimard, 1834 (p. 174), figured by Quoy & Gaimard (1833, pl. 58, figs. 9-12 under the vernacular name ‘Paludine noire’), because they incorrectly quoted the original binomen of d’Orbigny’s species as Paludestrina nigra. The species name Eatoniella latina Marincovich, 1973 appears to be the earliest valid name for the type species of Paludestrina d’Orbigny, 1840. Nevill (1885) continued to use the name Paludestrina in the accustomed sense, as equivalent to Hydrobia. He was not aware of the taxonomic relationships of Paludina nigra d’Orbigny, because only the shell was known at that time, which is very similar to the ranges of shell forms known from the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 9 HYDROBIIDAE S. l.; the transfer of Paludina nigra d’Orbigny to Eatoniella was first made by Ponder & Worsfold (1994). ; 5. The substitution, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority, of the names Eatoniella Dall, 1876 and EATONIELLIDAE Ponder, 1965 by their senior subjective synonyms Paludestrina @Orbigny, 1840 and PALUDESTRINIDAE Newton, 1891 would be a major upset of nomenclature for two reasons: (a) the names Eatoniella Dall, 1876 and EATONIELLIDAE Ponder, 1965 have been in use since they were established for a species-rich group of small shallow marine gastropods of the southern hemisphere. Except for the name Paludina (Paludestrina) nigra d’Orbigny, 1840 and two other nominal species, none of the taxa here included was ever associated with the names Paludestrina d’Orbigny, 1840, or with PALUDESTRINIDAE, or with their presumed synonyms Hydrobia and HyDROBIDAE (s. 1.); (b) the names Paludestrina d’Orbigny, 1840 and PALUDESTRINIDAE Newton, 1891 have after 1879 without exception been considered as synonyms of Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 and HyDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 respectively and have been treated either as the valid names for the respective taxa, or as their objective synonyms. The HyDROBIIDAE (s. |.), as understood in the 19th and in the major part of the 20th century, occur mainly in Europe, northern Asia, North and South America and Australia and live in fresh and brackish water habitats. The name Paludestrina alludes to these habitats, meaning ‘Paludina aestuarina’ (= estuarine Paludina; Paludina is a genus of freshwater gastropods). By contrast, all known taxa of the EATONIELLIDAE live in shallow marine to intertidal habitats of the southern hemisphere. 6. In support of this application, three listings of literature references are held by the Commission Secretariat: (1) uses of Eatoniella and EATONIELLIDAE as valid names since 1965; (2) species currently included in Eatoniella; (3) uses of Paludestrina and PALUDESTRINIDAE as valid names or synonyms and the taxonomic concepts associated with them. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to suppress the following names for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (a) Paludestrina d’Orbigny, 1840; (b) PALUDESTRINIDAE Newton, 1891; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Eatoniella Dall, 1876 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Nevill (1885) Eatonia kerguelensis E.A. Smith, 1875; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) kerguelensis E.A. Smith, 1875, as published in the binomen Eatonia kerguelensis (specific name of the type species of Eatoniella Dall, 1876); (b) latina Marincovich, 1973, as published in the binomen Eatoniella latina, replacement name for Paludina nigra d’Orbigny, 1840; to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name EATONIELLIDAE Ponder, 1965, type genus Eatoniella Dall, 1876; to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Paludestrina d’Orbigny, 1840, as suppressed in (1)(a) above; S (5 am 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the name PALUDESTRINIDAE Newton, 1891, as suppressed in (1)(b) above. References Bourguignat, J.R. 1887. Etude sur les génériques des petites Paludinidées a opercule spirescent suivie de la description du nouveau genre Horatia. 56 pp., | pl. Tremblay, Paris. Castellanos, Z.J.A. d. & Fernandez, D. 1972a. Una nueva especie de Eatoniella (Mollusca, Rissoacea). Neotropica, 18(55): 6-8. Castellanos, Z.J.A. d. & Fernandez, D. 1972b. Resultados de la campana exploratoria S.A.O.1.- 1971. Nuevos moluscos para Golfo San Matias. Anales de la Sociedad cientifica Argentina, 193(V-VI): 225-235. Cossmann, M. 1921. Essais de paléoconchologie comparée, vol. 12. 345, [2] pp., pls. A-D, pls. 1-6. M. Cossmann, Paris. Dall, W.H. 1876. Mollusks. Jn Kidder, J.H., Contribution to the natural history of Kerguelen Island, made in connection with the United States Transit-of-Venus Expedition, 1874-75. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 3: 42-48. Draparnaud, J.P.R. 1805. Histoire naturelle des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France. 8, 165 pp., 13 pls. Paris. Gray, J.E. 1847. A list of the genera of recent mollusca, their synonyms and their types. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 15(179): 129-219. Hall, J. 1857. Descriptions of Palaeozoic fossils, chiefly from those constituting the third volume of the Palaeontology of New-York; with others from the fourth volume, ete. etc. Annual Report of the regents of the University of the State of New York, on the condition of the State Cabinet of Natural History, and the historical and antiquarian collection connected therewith, 10: 39-186 [Tenth Annnual Report .... ‘made to the Senate. March 11, 18577]. g Hannibal, H. 1912. A synopsis of the recent and Tertiary freshwater Mollusca of the Californian province, based upon an ontogenetic classification. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 10(3): 167-211. Hartmann, J.D.W. 182la. System der Erd- und FluBschnecken der Schweiz. Mit ver- gleichender Aufzahlung aller, auch in den benachbarten Landern Deutschland, Frank- reich und Italien sich vorfindenden Arten. Neue Alpina. Eine Schrift der Schweizerischen Naturgeschichte, Alpen- und Landwirtschaft gewidmet, 1: 194-268. Hartmann, J.D.W. 1821b. System der Erd- und StiBwasser Gasteropoden Europa’s. In besonderer Hinsicht auf diejenigen Gattungen, welche in Deutschland und in der Schweiz angetroffen werden. Jn Sturm, J., Deutschlands Fauna in Abbildungen nach der Natur mit Beschreibungen, Abtheilung 6. Die Wirmer (5. Heft): 60 pp., 3 pls. Jacob Sturm, Nurnberg. Kabat, A.R. & Hershler, R. 1993. The prosobranch snail family Hydrobiidae (Gastropoda: Rissooidea): review of classification and supraspecific taxa. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 547: 1-94. Marincovich, L. 1973. Intertidal mollusks of Iquique, Chile. Natural History Museum Los Angeles County Science Bulletin, 16: \-49. Nevill, G. 1885. Hand list of mollusca in the Indian Museum, Calcutta. Part II. Gastropoda. Prosobranchia-Neurobranchia (contd.). x, 306 pp. Trustees [of the Indian Museum, Calcutta], Calcutta. Newton, R.B. 1891. Systematic list of the Frederick E. Edwards collection of British Oligocene and Eocene mollusca in the British Museum (Natural History), with references to the type-specimens from similar horizons contained in other collections belonging to the geological department of the museum. xvii, 365 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. Orbigny, A.d’. 1834-1846. Voyage dans I’ Amérique méridionale [... ] exécuté pendant les années 1826, 1827, 1828, 1829, 1830, 1831, 1832 et 1833. 5(3): Mollusques. 758 pp., 85 pls. P. Bertrand & V. Levrault, Paris & Strasbourg. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 11 Pilsbry, H.A. 1897. Note on the genera of S. American Amnicolidae. Nautilus, 10(10): 1-119. Pilsbry, H.A. 1911. Non-marine mollusks of Patagonia. Reports of Princeton University Expeditions to Patagonia, 1896-1899, 3(5): 513-633, pls. 38-47. Pilsbry, H.A. & Bequaert, J. 1927. The aquatic mollusks of the Belgian Congo, with a geographical and ecological account of Congo malacology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 53(2): 69-602. Ponder, W.F. 1965. The family Eatoniellidae in New Zealand. Record of the Auckland Institute and Museum, 6(2): 47-99, pls. 4-11. Ponder, W.F. 1983. Rissoiform Gastropods from the Antarctic and Subantarctic. Scientific Reports, British Antarctic Survey, 108: 1-96. Ponder, W.F. 1988. The truncatelloidean (= rissoacean) radiation - a preliminary phylogeny. Malacological Review, Supplement, 4: 129-164. Ponder, W.F. & Worsfold, T.M. 1994. A review of the rissoiform gastropods of southwestern South America (Mollusca, Gastropoda). Contributions in Science, 445: 1-63. Ponder, W.F. & Yoo, E.K. 1977. A Revision of the Eatoniellidae of Australia (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Littorinacea). Records of the Australian Museum, 31(15): 606-658. Quoy, R.C. & Gaimard, P. 1833-1835. Animaux mollusques In: Voyage de découvertes de l Astrolabe exécuté par ordre du Roi, pendant les années 1826—1827—-1828-1829, sous le commandement de M.J. Dumont d’ Urville. Zoologie. 1833: Atlas, 93 pls.; 1834: 3.1: 1-544; 1835: 3.2: 545-954. J. Tastu, Paris. Smith, E.A. 1875. Description of some new shells from Kerguelen’s Island. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (4)16(91): 67-73. Troschel, F.H. 1857. Das Gebiss der Schnecken zur Begriindung einer nattirlichen Classification untersucht, vol. 1, part 2. Pp. 73-112, pls. 5-8. Nicolai, Berlin. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 63: 1. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 Case 3341 Cardium egmontianum Shuttleworth, 1856 (currently Trachycardium egmontianum; Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposed conservation of usage Harry G. Lee 4132 Ortega Forest Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32210, U.S.A. (e-mail: shells@hglee.com) Richard E. Petit 806 St. Charles Road, North Myrtle Beach, SC 29582, U.S.A. (e-mail: r.e.petit@att.net) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 74.1 of the Code, is to conserve the current usage of the name of the common and widespread western Atlantic bivalve mollusk Trachycardium egmontianum (Shuttleworth, 1856). The type series of Cardium mindanense Reeve, 1844 contains a specimen of Trachycardium egmontianum, which was figured by Reeve, as well as specimens of the Indo-Pacific species on which the name is based. In 1992 Voskuil & Onverwagt designated the western Atlantic specimen as ‘holotype’ of Cardium mindanense, thus making it a senior synonym of C. egmontianum and at the same time removing the name C. mindanense from usage for the Indo-Pacific species. It is proposed that that designation be declared invalid and that a later type designation by Vidal (1998) making one of the Indo-Pacific specimens the lectotype be declared the valid lectotype designation. This action would conserve prevailing usage of C. egmon- tianum and also make the name C. mindanense available for a Pacific species. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mollusca; Bivalvia; CARDIIDAE; Trachycardium; Cardium mindanense; Cardium egmontianum; Cardium rubicundum. 1. Reeve (1844, pl. 4, fig. 19) described and figured Cardium mindanense, stated to be from Mindanao, Philippines. The type material, which is at the Natural History Museum, London, consists of three syntypes. One of them, the specimen figured by Reeve, is identifiable as Cardium egmontianum Shuttleworth, 1856. The other two specimens are the Philippine species illustrated as Cardium mindanense Reeve by Springsteen & Leobrera (1986, p. 306, pl. 87, fig. 2) and by Vidal (1998, figs. 18-20). 2. Voskuil & Onverwagt (1992) described as new an Indo-Pacific species, Acro- sterigma kengaluorum. As a synonym of this new species they listed: *7rachycardium (Vasticardium) mindanense (Reeve, 1844)—Springsteen & Leobrera, 1986, p. 306, pl. 87, fig. 2. [not Cardium mindanense Reeve, 1844]. Voskuil & Onverwagt placed Cardium mindanense as used by Springsteen & Leobrera in square brackets as they changed the concept of the species in their paper. In the discussion of their new species Voskuil & Onverwagt (1992, p. 38) state that the only identifiable illustration of the species can be found in Springsteen & Leobrera. They further state that the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 13 illustrated ‘holotype’, with holotype within quotation marks, of C. mindanense is a specimen of the Caribbean species that was previously known only as Cardium egmontianum Shuttleworth (1856, pp. 172-173) and that C. mindanense has priority over the latter. The only other mention of ‘type’ in any form in connection with the nomina under discussion appears in the caption for fig. 3 in Voskuil & Onverwagt which is: Trachycardium mindanense (Reeve, 1844), right valve of illustrated holo- type. Voskuil & Onverwagt make no mention of any syntypes, but they were probably aware of them as they gave the correct BM(NH) collection number and state in their acknowledgements that the ‘collections of the BM(NH) were studied’. The wording of Article 74.5 makes the validity of Voskuil & Onverwagt’s type designation questionable, but this application is based on its being valid in order to remove any question. 3. Vidal (1998) placed both Cardium mindanense Reeve, 1844 and Acrosterigma kengaluorum Voskuil & Onverwagt, 1992 in the synonymy of Vasticardium rubicun- dum (Reeve, 1844). Although not directly bearing on this application, it must be mentioned that Cardium mindanense (October, 1844) has priority over C. rubicundum (December, 1844). Vidal’s statements about the type material for C. mindanense are repeated here in part: “— one box with the specimen figured by Reeve, subsequently erroneously labelled [sic] ‘holotype’ [quotes in original]. Reg. No. 1978-124 ... This shell is Trachycardium egmontianum Shuttleworth, 1850, from the Atlantic Coast of North America. This shell was probably placed with the others by Cuming in error, because of a certain superficial resemblance between them. Further, it was probably chosen by Reeve for the figure because it was the largest’. ‘— a second box with two specimens of V. rubicundum ... These last two shells are very probably those which came from Mindanao and from which the name mindanense [sic; not in italics] originates. In order to avoid possible confusion and to preserve the legitimate Indo-Pacific origin of this taxon, I have selected as lectotype of Cardium mindanense the largest of these ... ; the remaining syntype becomes the paralectotype’. Vidal considered the holotype designation by Voskuil & Onverwagt to be invalid. The designation made by Vidal, who figured the lectotype he designated (1998, p. 115 figs. 18 & 19) as well as the paralectotype, complies with Article 74.5. 4. The action of Voskuil & Onverwagt (1992) was not in accord with the Principle of Priority or Recommendation 74A as their action displaced two names in current usage in order to make it possible to introduce a new name. Had they taken the same action as that of Vidal, no existing usage would have been disturbed. 5. Trachycardium egmontianum (Shuttleworth, 1992) is a common and well-known component of the bivalve fauna of the southeastern United States and the Caribbean. Its usage 1s so widespread that a considerable body of literature would be affected unless it is conserved. A search of the print literature has been made for usages of both names involved, with the following result: 78 references (69 in the past 50 years) citing Trachycardium egmontianum (Shuttleworth, 1856) as a western Atlantic taxon; 9 references (3 in the past 50 years) citing Cardiwm mindanense Reeve, 1844 (in various genera) as an Indo-West Pacific taxon; 1 reference (Voskuil & Onverwagt, 1992) treating Trachycardium mindanense as a western Atlantic taxon. This complete list of 88 references is held by the Commission Secretariat. 14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: ; (1) to use its plenary power to set aside all lectotype designations for Cardium mindanense Reeve, 1844 prior to that by Vidal (1998): (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) mindanense Reeve, 1844, as published in the binomen Cardium mindanense ‘and as defined by the lectotype designated by Vidal (1998); (b) egmontianum Shuttleworth, 1856, as published in the binomen Cardium egmontianum. Acknowledgements We thank Mr Jacques Vidal (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris) for communicating with us on an early draft concerning this subject. We also thank Dr Rudiger Bieler (Field Museum, Chicago) and Dr Gary Rosenberg (Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia) for discussions on this subject. References Reeve, L. 1844-1845. Monograph of the genus Cardium. Conchologia Iconica, 2: [unpaginated text], pls. 1-22 (pl. 4, October, 1844; pl. 9, December, 1844). Shuttleworth, R.J. 1856. Description de nouvelles espéces. Premiére decade; espéces nouvelles pour la faune des Antilles. Journal de Conchyliologie, 5: 168-175. Springsteen, F.J. & Leobrera, F.M. 1986. Shells of the Philippines. 377 pp. Carfel Seashell Museum, Manila. 5 Vidal, J. 1998. Taxonomic revision of the Indo-Pacific Vasticardium assimile species group (Mollusca, Cardiidae). Apex, 13: 111-125. Voskuil, R.P.A. & Onverwagt, W.J.H. 1992. Studies on Cardiidae. 6. Two new species from the central Indo-Pacific and southeast Greenland and new names for two primary homonyms (Mollusca, Bivalvia). Gloria Maris, 31: 33-44. Acknowledgement of receipt of this publication was published in BZN 62: 57. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 15 Case 3371. ARANEIDAE Clerck, 1758, Araneus Clerck, 1758 and Tegenaria Latreille, 1804 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed conservation Nikita J. Kluge Department of Entomology, St. Petersburg State University, 195213 St. Petersburg, Russia (e-mail: kluge@FK13889.spb.edu) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.1 and 81.1 of the Code, is (1) to confirm the status of the family-group name ARANEIDAE (originally Aranei) with the authorship Clerck (1758) for a family of spiders; (2) to designate Araneus angulatus Clerck, 1758 as the type species of the generic name Araneus Clerck, 1758; (3) to conserve the generic name Tegenaria Latreille, 1804 by suppression of its senior objective synonym Aranea Linnaeus, 1758. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; ARANEIDAE; Araneus; Tegenaria; Araneus angulatus; spiders. The family-group name ARANEIDAE 1. In accordance with a decision of the 13th International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (BZN 5: 33-35, 98-100) and Direction 104 (December, 1959), the name Araneus published by Clerck (1757) has been ruled to be available as a generic name, and to have priority as though it had been published in 1758, but prior to the publication of the 10th edition of Systema Naturae (Linnaeus, 1758). This decision was made in accordance with a suggestion by Bonnet (1944, 1947). Although the genus Araneus was not described by Clerck, the name ‘Araneus’ was used by Clerck in combination with some specific names (as ‘Araneus Angulatus’, “‘Araneus Diadematus’, “Aran. Quadratus’, “Aran. Castaneus’ and ‘Aran. Domesticus’), which makes it available as a generic name, according to Article 12.2.5 of the Code (Names published before 1931—Indications). 2. Since the generic name Araneus became available, the authorship and priority of the family-group name ARANEIDAE becomes unclear. It is often accepted that the oldest family-group name among spider taxa is ARANEIDAE Latreille, 1806 (originally aS ARANEIDES, both in Latin and French). Actually the family-group name ARANEIDES Latreille, 1806 was derived not from Araneus Clerck, 1758, but from Aranea Linnaeus, 1758. While Latreille (1806) included in his ARANEIDES all spiders (i.e. Maripalpi Cook, 1899), he used the generic name Aranea in a restricted sense—for a group corresponding to the previously described genera Agelena Walckenaer, 1805 and Tegenaria Latreille, 1804. In this sense the genus Aranea included only Aranea labyrinthica Linnaeus, 1758 (= Araneus labyrinthicus Clerck, 1758, currently Age/ena labyrinthica (Clerck, 1758)) and Aranea domestica Linnaeus, 1758 (= Araneus domesticus Clerck, 1758, currently Tegenaria domestica (Clerck, 1758)). In his next publication, Latreille (1810) designated one of these species (Aranea domestica Linnaeus, 1758) as the type species of Aranea. This restriction of the genus and type 16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 designation is at variance with modern usage of the name ARANEIDAE (see para. 4 below). The oldest family-group name derived from Araneus Clerck,.1758 is ARANEAE Simon, 1895 (p. 798). This means that in modern classification the family name ARANEIDAE Simon, 1895 is a junior synonym of EPEIRIDAE Sundeyall, 1833 and ARGIOPIDAE Simon, 1890; the superfamily name ARANEOIDEA Simon, 1895 is a junior synonym of EPEIROIDEA Sundevall, 1833, THERIDIOIDEA Sundevall, 1833, LINYPHIOIDEA Blackwall, 1859, TETRAGNATHOIDEA Menge, 1866, THERIDIOSOMATOIDEA Simon, 1881 and ARGIOPOIDEA Simon, 1890. This contradicts accepted usage, according to which ARANEIDAE and ARANEOIDEA are regarded as the oldest names among all Maripalpi. 3. Currently many authors ascribe the authorship “Clerck, 1758’ (or “Clerck, 1757) to the names ARANEI and ARANEAE, regarding “ARANEAE as an emendation of the original “ARANEV. In 1996 the Arachnology Nomenclature Committee of CIDA (Centre International de Documentation Arachnologique) recommended use of the name ARANEAE, referring to the paper by Savory (1972), where this name is cited as “ARANEAE Clerck, 1757’. Emendation of the publication date means that the name ARANEI Clerck, 1758 is recognized now as an available typified taxon name. By its original circumscription, Clerck’s group ARANEI corresponds to the genus Aranea sensu Linnaeus, 1758 and to the family ARANEIDEs sensu Latreille, 1806. If the Commission confirms the availability of the family-group name ARANEI Clerck, 1758, this would restore the priority of the family-group names ARANEINAE, ARANEIDAE and ARANEOIDEA and increase the stability of family-group names of spiders. The type species of Araneus Clerck, 1758 4. It is presently not clear which species is the type of Araneus Clerck, 1758. Simon (1895, pp. 799, 829) referred to Araneus angulatus Clerck, 1758 as the type species of Araneus. He stated that this type designation was proposed by Clerck, probably on the basis that Araneus angulatus had page priority over other species described by Clerck. In fact, Clerck applied the name Araneus to spiders of all genera and did not designate a type species for Araneus. Petrunkevitch (1911) gave two different type species for the genus Araneus: Araneus angulatus, as the type species of the “cohors Araneus. (Clerck, 1757). Simon, 1895’ and Araneus diadematus Clerck, 1758, as the type species of the ‘genus Araneus Clerck, 1757’. Later Petrunkevitch (1928) named only Araneus diadematus as the type species of Araneus. Bonnet (1955) also referred to Araneus diadematus as the type species of Araneus. The generic name Araneus was often confused with the generic name Aranea, to which some authors ascribed the type species Aranea diadema Linnaeus, 1758 (= Araneus diadematus Clerck, 1758), but actually Aranea has a different type species (see para. 5). It is proposed that the Commission designate Araneus angulatus Clerck, 1758, as proposed by Simon (1895), as the type species of Araneus. 5. The generic name Aranea used by Linnaeus (1758) cannot be regarded as a justified emendation of the generic name Araneus Clerck, 1758, thus it has its own status and authorship of Linnaeus (1758) (Article 33.2.3 of the Code—Unjustified emendation). The generic names Araneus Clerck, 1758 and Aranea Linnaeus, 1758 are not objective synonyms. Originally, both genera (Araneus sensu Direction 104 and Aranea sensu Linnaeus, 1758) referred to all spiders. The type species of Araneus Clerck, 1758 is Araneus angulatus, as proposed by Simon (1895). whereas the type species of Aranea is Araneus domesticus Clerck, 1758 (= Aranea domestica Linnaeus, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 17 1758), according to subsequent designation by Latreille (1810). Validity of type designations by Latreille (1810) is in accordance with Article 69 of the Code (Type species not fixed in the original publication) and was confirmed by the Commission: Opinions 11 (July, 1910) and 136 (August, 1939) and Direction 4 (October, 1954). Earlier Latreille (1804) divided the genus Aranea into subgenera, among which the nominative subgenus Aranea included species named *Aranea clavipes Fab.’, “Aranea diadema Fab.’ and *“Aranea spinosa Fab.’, but did not include Aranea domestica; such elimination does not in itself constitute type fixation (Article 69.4 of the Code). Recently the placement of Araneus domesticus in the genus Tegenaria Latreille, 1804 and the family AGELENIDAE Koch, 1837 has been generally accepted. In order to conserve the generic name Tegenaria, the older name Aranea Linnaeus, 1758 would need to be suppressed. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power: (a) to confirm the status of a family-group name for ARANEIDAE Clerck, 1758 (original spelling ARANEI), with the type genus Araneus Clerck, 1758; (b) to set aside all fixations of type species for Araneus Clerck, 1758 before that by Simon (1895) and designate Araneus angulatus Clerck, 1758 as the type species of the generic name Araneus Clerck, 1758, as proposed by Simon (1895); (c) to suppress the name Aranea Linnaeus, 1758 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Araneus Clerck, 1758 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Simon (1895) Araneus angulatus Clerck, 1758, as ruled in (1)(b) above; (3) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name ARANEIDAE Clerck, 1758, type genus Araneus Clerck, 1758; (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Aranea Linnaeus, 1758, as suppressed in (1)(c) above. References Bonnet, P. 1944. Regle de nomenclature en araneologie. Bulletin de la Société d'Histoire Naturelle de Toulouse, 79: 81-159. Bonnet, P. 1947. Pétition adressée a la Commission de Nomenclature zoologique en favour la priorité des noms d’ Araignées de Clerck. 30 pp. Douladoure, Toulouse. Bonnet, P. 1955. Bibliographia araneorum. Analyse méthodique de toute la litérature aranéologique jusqu'en 1939, vol. 2, pt. 1. 918 pp. Douladoure, Toulouse. Clerck, C. 1758. Sénska spindlar... Aranei Svecici, descriptionibus et figuris ... illustrate. vii, 154 pp., 6 pls. Literis Laur. Salvi, Stockholmiae. Latreille, P.A. 1804. VIII. Insecta. In: Nouveau Dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle, vol. 24. Pp. 128-200. Paris, Déterville. Latreille, P.A. 1806-1809. Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum secundum ordinem naturalem in familias disposita, iconibus exemplurisque plurimis explicata. T.1 (1806): 302 pp., 16 pls.; T.2 (1807): 280 pp.; T.3 (1807): 258 pp.; T.4 (1809): 399 pp. Amand Koenig, Paris et Argentorati. Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considérations générales sur l’ordre naturel des animaux composant les classes des Crustacés, des Arachnides, et des Insectes. Avec un tableau méthodique de leurs genres, disposés en familles. 444 pp. F. Schoell, Paris. 18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Petrunkevitch, A. 1911. A synonymic index-catalogue of spiders of North, Central and South America with all adjacent islands, Greenland, West Indies, Terra del Fuega, Galapagos, etc. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 29: 1-809. Petrunkevitch, A. 1928. Systema Aranearum. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Art and Sciences, 29: 1-270. Savory, T.H. 1972. On the names of the orders of Arachnida. Systematic Zoology, 21(1): 122-125. Simon, E. 1892-1903. Histoire naturelle des aragnées. Ed. 2. Vol. I (1892-1895): 1084 pp.; vol. II (1897-1903): 1080 pp. Encyclopedie Roret, L. Mulo, Paris. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 63: 2. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 19 Case 3394 - Etisus H. Milne Edwards, 1834 and Chlorodiella Rathbun, 1897 (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura): proposed conservation of the generic names by suppression of the generic name Clorodius A.G. Desmarest, 1823 Peter K.L. Ng Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge, Singapore 119260, Republic of Singapore (e-mail: peterng@nus.edu.sg) L.B. Holthuis National Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3 and 68.2 of the Code, is to conserve the widely used generic names Etisus H. Milne Edwards, 1834 and Chlorodiella Rathbun, 1897 in their accustomed usage by suppression of their senior synonym Clorodius A.G. Desmarest, 1823, which was incorrectly used shortly after it was established. The currently used family-group name, CLORODIINAE Dana, 1851, needs to be replaced; here we propose the substitute name CHLORODIELLINAE subfam. nov. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; CLORODIINAE; CHLORODIELLINAE; ETISINAE; Atelecyclus; Chlorodiella; Chlorodius; Clorodius; Etisus; Fucicola; Chlorodiella niger. Generic name Clorodius A.G. Desmarest, 1823 1. A.G. Desmarest (1823, p. 228), in a footnote to his text dealing with the genus Cancer, mentioned some new genera of crabs proposed in manuscript by W.E. Leach which was unpublished at that time. One of these footnotes commented: “Du Cancer dentatus, Fabr., dont les doigts sont dentés et en cuiller, il [1.e. Leach] a formé aussi un genre sous le nom de Clorodius’. No other information was given. Two years later, A.G. Desmarest (1825, p. 104), when dealing again with the genus Cancer, provided essentially the same footnote verbatim with one exception — the name ‘Cancer dentatus, Fabr.’ had been changed to ‘Cancer 11-dentatus, Fabr.’. Fabricius, how- ever, was not the author of either Cancer dentatus or Cancer 11-dentatus. Both these species had been described earlier by Herbst: Cancer dentatus by Herbst (1785, p. 186) and Cancer undecimdentatus by Herbst (1783, p. 181). Of these two species, Fabricius (1798) only mentioned Cancer 1 1-dentatus, which he correctly attributed to Herbst; he did not treat Cancer dentatus at all. 2. Cancer dentatus Herbst, 1785 is currently placed in the genus Etisus H. Milne Edwards, 1834 (family xANTHIDAE MacLeay, 1838), of which it is the type species, by subsequent designation by Glaessner (1929, p. 168). Cancer undecimdentatus Herbst, 1783 is currently placed in the genus Atelecyclus Leach, 1814 (p. 430) (family 20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 ATELECYCLIDAE Ortmann, 1893) of which the type species by monotypy is Cancer septemdentatus Montagu, 1813 (currently regarded as a junior synonym of Cancer rotundatus Olivi, 1792). In the original description of the genus Afe/ecyclus, Leach (1814, p. 430) mentioned that “Cancer undecemdentatus of Herbst, tab. 10. fig. 60. seems to belong to this genus’. But as Leach did not positively assign it to Atelecyclus, it cannot be designated the type species of that genus. The name Afe/ecyclus Leach, 1814 was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, and the name Cancer rotundatus Olivi, 1792 on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology in Opinion 712 (November, 1964). 3. In the following years, authors interpreted the status of the genus Clorodius A.G. Desmarest, 1823 in different ways. Some either overlooked Desmarest’s (1823) publication or pointed out that Desmarest’s (1823) usage of the name Cancer dentatus must have been a mistake and that he meant Cancer /]1-dentatus instead, noting that the same author in 1825 apparently corrected this ‘mistake’. In their opinion, Clorodius A.G. Desmarest, 1823 had Cancer undecimdentatus Herbst, 1783 as the type species and thus was a junior synonym of the generic name Afelecyclus Leach, 1814. De Haan (1835, p. 14) was the first author to do so but, not realising that Clorodius A.G. Desmarest, 1823 would then be a junior synonym of Ate/lecyclus, he used Clorodius as a subgenus of Corystes Bosc, 1802 (family CORYSTIDAE Samouelle, 1819). Much later, Rathbun (1897, p. 156) accepted Cancer undecimden- tatus as belonging to Atelecyclus and considered Clorodius as a junior synonym of that genus. Most other authors, however, saw Clorodius as different from Atelecyclus. In Atelecyclus the fingers ofthe large chelipeds are pointed, while in the original description of Clorodius they were described as spoon-shaped, as they actually are in Etisus. In volume 1 of his fundamental monograph of the Crustacea, “Histoire naturelle des Crustacés,, H. Milne Edwards (1834, p. 399) used the generic name “Chlorodius, Leach’ for a genus with spoon-shaped tips of the cheliped fingers, but did not include either Cancer dentatus or C. undecimdentatus; his reference to Leach shows that his Chlorodius is an incorrect spelling for Clorodius (the change by H. Milne Edwards in 1834 was probably intentional). Some authors considered Chlorodius to be the name of a new genus, e.g. E. Desmarest (1858, p. 17) who selected Chlorodius ungulatus H. Milne Edwards, 1834 as its type species. 4. The original description of Clorodius by A.G. Desmarest, 1823, short as it is, nevertheless makes it clear that Cancer dentatus Herbst, 1785, was actually intended by Leach to be included; as Leach himself described the tips of the fingers of the chelae of Cancer dentatus as rounded and spoon-shaped (“en cuiller”’), as they are in Etisus, while in Atelecyclus they are pointed. A.G. Desmarest’s (1825) change of the name dentatus to 11-dentatus is obviously a mistake and does not change the fact that Cancer dentatus is the type species of Clorodius by monotypy. There is no definite indication that A.G. Desmarest in 1823 misread Cancer dentatus for Cancer 11-dentatus, or that he wanted to correct a mistake in 1825. In our opinion, the generic name Clorodius Desmarest, 1823, is an objective senior synonym of Etisus H. Milne Edwards, 1834, both having the same type species, viz. Cancer dentatus Herbst, 1785. The name Clorodius has never been used since 1823, and their synonymy has not been noticed until now. The use of Clorodius as a senior name for Etisus is inadvisable. The genus Efisus is in its own subfamily, ETISINAE Ortmann, 1893, and contains 35 nominal taxa of which 24 species are currently recognised (see Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 21 Seréne, 1984, .p. 218); and considering the large size of the family XANTHIDAE (with over 600 described species), we believe such an action would create unnecessary confusion. Therefore, the Commission is now asked to suppress Clorodius Desmarest, 1823. Chlorodius is a misspelling of Clorodius 5. Henri Milne Edwards (1834, p. 399) used the spelling Chlorodius for Clorodius referring to it in a footnote as ‘Chlorodius Leach’. H. Milne Edwards (1834) also referred to Ruippell (1830, p. 20), who used the correct spelling Clorodius for the genus. Most subsequent authors used the spelling Chlorodius and treated the genus as if proposed as new by H. Milne Edwards, 1834, E. Desmarest (1858, p. 17) selected one of the species that H. Milne Edwards placed in that genus, viz. Chlorodius unguiculatus H. Milne Edwards, 1834, as the type species for “Ch/orodius Edw.’. Dana (1851, p. 125) proposed a new subfamily of the CANCRIDAE, which he named CHLORODINAE [recte CHLORODIINAE], the type genus of which was ‘Chlorodius Leach’. This subfamily is now regarded as included in the family XANTHIDAE MacLeay, 1838 (see Seréne, 1984). Generic name Chlorodiella Rathbun, 1897 6. Rathbun (1897), in her important discussion of the nomenclature of the Brachyura, considered Cancer undecimdentata as the type species of the genus Clorodius A.G. Desmarest, 1823, which she therefore synonymized with Atelecyclus Leach, 1814. She then continued ‘In 1834, Milne Edwards recharacterized the genus, making C. niger [Forskal, 1775] the type’. Nevertheless, she rejected Chlorodius and proposed Chlorodiella as a new substitute generic name in its place. She made two mistakes here. In the first place, H. Milne Edwards did not designate a type species for Chlorodius, and secondly Chlorodius is not an available name as it is only an incorrect spelling of Clorodius A.G. Desmarest, 1823. This would make Rathbun’s new generic name Chlorodiella a subjective junior synonym of Clorodius. However, she was followed by most carcinologists in using the generic name Chlorodiella for the genus containing Cancer niger Forskal, 1775 (p. 89). The suppression of Clorodius (see para. 4 above) would make Chlorodiella Rathbun, 1897 a valid name. The Commission is now asked to rule that the type species of Chlorodiella Rathbun, 1897 is Cancer niger Forskal, 1775. 7. Rathbun (1897) was not the first to propose a new name for Chlorodius. Gistel (1848, p. vii) proposed the new name Fucicola for ‘Chlorodius (Mac Leay Annul, Ill., Haan Crust.)’. The name Fucicola Gistel, 1848 has priority over Chlorodiella Rathbun, 1897, but is a junior homonym of Fucicola Menke, 1844 (p. 42) for a genus of Mollusca and thus, correctly, was never used. Family group names CLORODIINAE, CHLORODIINAE, CHLORODIELLINAE, ETISINAE 8. Rathbun’s authority, however, was so great that she was followed by most authors in the use of the generic name Chlorodiella Rathbun, 1897, with Cancer niger Forskal, 1775 as its type species. Notwithstanding this, most authors continued to use the incorrect subfamily name CHLORODIINAE Dana, 1851 for the subfamily containing Chlorodiella. The correct spelling of the subfamily name should be CLoRODIINAE, 22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 following the actual spelling of the type genus Clorodius Desmarest, 1823. As the generic name Clorodius is here proposed for suppression, CLORODIINAE would become invalid, and the current subfamily group name CHLORODIINAE [recte CLORODIINAE| would also become invalid. So far as is known to us, no other name has been used for this subfamily of eight genera and 47 species (see Serene, 1984; Ng & Clark, 2000), and we therefore now propose for it a new replacement subfamily name, CHLORO- DIELLINAE subfam. noy., with the type genus Chlorodiella Rathbun, 1897 and type species Cancer niger Forskal, 1775. With regard to the subfamily name ETISINAE Ortmann, 1893, since the identity of the type species of the type genus Evisws H. Milne Edwards, 1834, is now clarified, it would also aid stability if the name was placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to suppress the generic name Clorodius A.G. Desmarest, 1823 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to rule that the type species of the genus Chlorodiella Rathbun, 1897 is Cancer niger Forskal, 1775; (3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Chlorodiella Rathbun, 1897, type species as ruled in (2) above Cancer niger Forskal, 1775; (b) Etisus H. Milne Edwards, 1834, type species by subsequent designation by Glaessner (1929) Cancer dentatus Herbst, 1785: to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) dentatus Herbst, 1785, as published in the binomen Cancer dentatus, specific name of the type species of the genus Etisus H. Milne Edwards, 1834: (b) niger Forskal, 1775, as published in the binomen Cancer niger, specific name of the type species of the genus Chlorodiella Rathbun, 1897, as ruled in (2) above; to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following subfamily names: (a) CHLORODIELLINAE subfam. nov. (type genus Chlorodiella Rathbun, 1897): (b) ETISINAE Ortmann, 1893 (type genus Etisws H. Milne Edwards, 1834): (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Chlorodius H. Milne Edwards, 1834, a misspelling of Clorodius A.G. Desmarest, 1823; (b) Clorodius A.G. Desmarest, 1823, as suppressed in (1) above: (c) Fucicola Gistel, 1848, a junior homonym of Fucicola Menke, 1844; to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the following subfamily names: (a) CLORODIINAE Dana, 1851, a family-group name based on the generic name Clorodius A.G. Desmarest, 1823, suppressed in (1) above: (b) CHLORODIINAE Dana, 1851, a family-group name based on the generic name Chlorodius, a misspelling for Clorodius A.G. Desmarest, 1823. (4 ~— — Nn — 7 — Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 in) Ww References Bosc, L.A.G. 1830. Manuel de I’ Histoire Naturelle Des Crustacées, contenant leur description et leurs moeurs; avec figures dessinées d’apreés nature, vol. 1. 328 pp. Paris. Dana, J.D. 1851. 1. On the Classification of the Cancroidea; HI. Zoology. Scientific Intelligence. American Journal of Science and Arts, (2)12(34): 121-131. Desmarest, A.G. 1823. Malacostracés. Dictionnaire des sciences naturelles, 28: 138-425. Desmarest, A.G. 1825. Considérations générales sur la classe des Crustacés, et description des espéces de ces animaux, qui vivent dans la mer, sur les cétes, ou dans les eaux douces de la France. xix, 446 pp., 56 pls., 5 tabls. F.G. Levrault, Paris. Desmarest, E. 1858. Crustacés-Mollusques-Zoophytes. Jn Chenu, J.C., Encyclopédie d’ Histoire naturelle ou traité complet de cette science d’aprés les travaux des naturalistes les plus éminents de tous les pays et de toutes les époques Buffon, Daubenton, Lacépéde, G. Cuvier, F. Cwier, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, Latreille, De Jussieu, Brongniart, etc., etc. Ouvrage résumant les observations des auteurs anciens et comprenant toutes les découvertes modernes jusqu’a nos jours. 312 pp., 320 text-figs., 40 pls. Paris. Fabricius, J.C. 1798. Supplementum Entomologiae Systematicae. Pp. 1-572. Proft et Storch, Hafniae. Forskal, P. 1775. Descriptiones Animalium Avium, Amphibiorum, Piscium, Insectorum, Ver- mium; quae in Itinere orientali observavit. Petrus Forskal. Post Mortem Auctoris editit Carsten Niebuhr. Adjuncta est materia Medica Kahirina. 9, xxxiv, 164 pp., 1 map. Hafniae. Gistel, H. 1848. Naturgeschichte de Thierreiches. Ftir héhere Schulen. xvi, 220 pp., 32 pls. Hoffmannsche, Stuttgart. Glaessner, M.F. 1929. Crustacea Decapoda. Fossilium Catalogus, pars 41. 464 pp. W. Junk, Berlin. Haan, H.M. de. 1833-1849. Crustacea. In Siebold, P.F. von, Fauna Japonica, sive Descriptio animalium, quae in itinere per Japoniam, jussu et auspiciis superiorum, qui summum in India Batava imperium tenent, suscepto, annis 1823-1830 collegit, notis, observationibus et adumbrationibus illustravit, fasc. Pp. 1-8, 1-xx1, vil-xvil, 1x-xvi, 1-243, pls. 1-55, A-Q, circ., pl. 2. Lugduni Batavorum. Herbst, J.F.W. 1782-1804. Versuch einer Naturgeschichte der Krabben und Krebse, nebst einer systematischen Beschreibung ihrer verschiedenen Arten, volumes 1-3. 515 pp., 62 pls. G.A. Lange, Berlin & Stralsund. Leach, W.E. 1814. Crustaceology. In Brewster, D., The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, 7: 383-437, ok 2A, MacLeay, W.S. 1838. On the Brachyurous Decapod Crustacea. Brought from the Cape by Dr. Smith. Jn Smith, A., I/lustrations of the Zoology of South Africa; consisting chiefly of figures and descriptions of the objects of natural history collected during an expedition into the interior of South Africa, in the years 1834, 1835, and 1836, fitted out by ‘The Cape of Good Hope Association for Exploring Central Africa’: together with a summary of African Zoology, and an inquiry into the geographical ranges of species in that quarter of the globe, published under the Authority of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, Invertebratae. TV [1849]. Pp. 53-71, pls. 2, 3. Smith, Elder & Co., London. Menke, K.T. 1844. [Review of:] Voyage de découvertes de /’ Astrolabe exécuté par ordre du Roi, pendant les années 1826-1829, sous le commandement de M.J. Dumont d’Urville. Zoologie par M. M. Quoy et Gaimard. Zeitschrift fiir Malakozoologie, 1844: 38-48. Milne Edwards, H. 1834. Histoire naturelle des Crustacés, comprenant l'anatomie, la physiologie et la classification de ces animaux, 1: i-xxxv, 1-468. Ng, P.K.L. & Clark, P.F. 2000. The Indo-Pacific Pilumnidae XII. On the familial placement of Chlorodiella bidentata (Nobili, 1901) and Tanaocheles stenochilus Kropp, 1984 using adult and larval characters with the establishment of a new subfamily, Tanaochelinae (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura). Journal of Natural History, 34: 207-245. Ortmann, A. 1893. Die Decapoden-Krebse des Strassburger Museums, mit besonderer Berticksichtigung der van Heern Dr. Déderlein bei Japan und bei den Liu-Kiu-Inseln gesammelten und zur Zeit im Strassburger Museum aufbewahrten Formen. Zoologisches Jahrbuch (Systematik), 7: 411-495. 24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 Rathbun, M.J. 1897. A revision of the nomenclature of the Brachyura. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 11: 153-167. Rippell, E. 1830. Beschreibung und Abbildung von 24 Arten kurzschwdnzigen Krabben, als Beitrag zur Naturgeschichte des rothen Meeres. 28 pp., 9 pls. Heinrich Ludwig Bronner, Frankfurt a. M. Seréne, R. 1984. Crustacés Décapodes Brachyoures de l’Océan Indien occidental et de la Mer Rouge, Xanthoidea: Xanthidae et Trapeziidae. Avec un addendum par Crosnier (A): Carpiliidae et Menippidae. Faune Tropicale, 24: 1-349. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 63: 154. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). i) n Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 Case 3378 .- Phyllomorpha Laporte, 1833 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed conservation of spelling and existing usage I.M. Kerzhner Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg 199034, Russia (e-mail: hemipt@zin.ru) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 33.3.1 and 70.2 of the Code, is to conserve the commonly used but incorrect spelling of the generic name Phyllomorpha Laporte, 1833 and the current usage of the name. Phyllomorphus was selected by the first reviser as the correct original spelling, but has been used only in the 19th century. The type species of Phyllomorpha is Cimex paradoxus Sparrman, 1777. The designation of Cimex paradoxus as the type species by Westwood (1840) has never been adopted, and Cimex paradoxus currently belongs to a different genus. In current usage Coreus hystrix Latreille, 1817, a junior subjective synonym of Phyllomorpha laciniata (Villers, 1789), has universally been accepted as the type species of Phyllomorpha. It is proposed that the spelling Phyllomorpha is conserved and Coreus hystrix Latreille, 1817 is designated as the type species of Phyllomorpha. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Insecta; Heteroptera; CoREIDAE; Phyllomorpha; Phyllomorpha laciniata; Coreus hystrix. 1. Laporte (1833) described a new genus of COREIDAE named Phyllomorphus on p. 41 and Phyllomorpha on p. 47. The spelling Phyllomorphus was selected by the first reviser (Burmeister, 1835, p. 310), but was used by a few 19th century authors only. The spelling Phyllomorpha is in universal current usage, but as an incorrect original spelling under first reviser action it cannot be maintained under Article 33.3.1 of the Code and is proposed for conservation under the plenary power. 2. Laporte cited “Syromastes histrix Latr.’ (i.e. Coreus hystrix Latreille, 1817 (p. 55), a junior synonym of Cimex laciniatus Villers, 1789 (p. 493)) as an example of the genus Phyllomorpha and stated in a note that this species is congeneric but not conspecific with Cimex paradoxus Sparrman, 1777. Hence, the genus Phyllomorpha was established with two originally included nominal species. 3. Amyot & Serville (1843, p. 325) described the genus Pephricus with two species included, Cimex paradoxus Sparrman, 1777 and Phyllomorpha capicola Westwood, 1841. Both are still included in this genus, and the first was designated as its type species by Dolling (2006, p. 98). 4. Starting with Amyot & Serville (1843, pp. 235-237), Phyllomorpha has always been used as the name of the genus including Phyllomorpha laciniata (senior synonym of Coreus hystrix Latreille, 1817); Coreus hystrix Latreille, 1817 was designated as the type species of Phyllomorpha by Reuter (1888, p. 411). Recently, W.R. Dolling (in litt.) has discovered that Westwood (1840, p. 484) validly designated Cimex paradoxus Sparrman, 1777 as the type species of the genus Phyllomorpha. This 26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 designation was overlooked by all authors. If Westwood’s designation is followed, the name Phyllomorpha would replace Pephricus and the genus currently named Phyllomorpha would take the name Phyllophya Stal, 1873, which is the next available name, a junior subjective synonym. 5. Phyllomorpha includes two species distributed in Southern Europe, North Africa and the western part of Asia to Pakistan. Pephricus includes about five species from tropical and southern Africa and Yemen. Both generic names have been used for more than 150 years in many publications (regional monographs, biological obser- vations, faunal lists, catalogues) (Putshkov, 1962, pp. 84-86; Kerzhner & Jaczewsk1, 1964, p. 814; Kiritshenko, 1964, p. 113; Josifov, 1986, p. 87; Hoberlandt, 1989, p. 89: Faraci & Rizzotti Vlach, 1995, p. 33; Moulet, 1995, p. 110; Carapezza, 1997, p. 246; Reguera & Gomendio, 1999; Foéldessy, 2000; Kis, 2001, p. 23; Panizzi & Santos, 2001, p. 471; Tallamy, 2001, p. 145; Garcia-Gonzalez et al., 2003; Kaitala et al., 2003; Dolling, 2006, pp. 98-99). Owing to their bizarre appearance, species of these genera are often illustrated, including in the popular literature (e.g. Vasarhelyi & Csiby, 1989, p. 22; Wachmann, 1989, pp. 142-143). 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power: (a) to set aside the first reviser action by Burmeister (1835) to select Phyllo- morphus Laporte, 1833 as the correct original spelling and to rule that Phyllomorpha Laporte, 1833 is the correct original spelling; (b) to set aside all designations of type species for the nominal genus Phyllomorpha Laporte, 1833 prior to that by Reuter (1888) of Coreus hystrix Latreille, 1817; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Phyllomorpha Laporte, 1833 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Reuter (1888) Coreus hystrix Latreille, 1817, as ruled in (1)(b) above; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name /aciniatus Villers, 1789, as published in the binomen Cimex /aciniatus (senior subjective synonym of Coreus hystrix Latreille, 1817, the specific name of the type species of the genus Phyllomorpha Laporte, 1833); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Phyllomorphus Laporte, 1833 (set aside as the correct original spelling in (1)(a) above). References Amyot, C.J.B. & Serville, J.G.A. 1843. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Hémiptéres. \xxvi, 675, 6 pp. Roret, Paris. Burmeister, H. 1835. Handbuch der Entomologie. Band 2, Schnabelkerfe, Rhynchota, Abt. 1. Hemiptera. xii, 400 pp. Enslin, Berlin. Carapezza, A. 1997. Heteroptera of Tunisia. Naturalista Siciliano, (4)21, suppl. A: 1-550. Dolling, W.R. 2006. Family Coreidae Leach, 1815. Pp. 43-101 in Aukema, B. & Rieger, Chr. (Eds.), Catalogue of the Heteroptera of the Palaearctic Region, vol. 5. Netherlands Entomological Society, Amsterdam. Faraci, F. & Rizzotti Viach, M. 1995. Heteroptera. Jn Minelli, A. et al. (Eds.), Checklist delle specie della Fauna Italiana, vol. 41. 56 pp. Calderini, Bologna. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 27 Féldessy, M. 2000. A Phyllomorpha laciniata (Villers, 1789) (Heteroptera: Coreidae) elter- jedésének ujabb adatai. Folia Historico Naturalia Musei Matraensis, 24: 145-148. Garcia-Gonzalez, P., Nunez, Y., Ponz, F., Roldan, E.R. & Gomendio, M. 2003. Sperm competition mechanisms, confidence of paternity, and the evolution of paternal care in the golden egg bug (Phyllomorpha laciniata). Evolution, 57: 1078-1089. Hoberlandt, L. 1989. Results of the Czechoslovak-Iranian entomological expeditions to Iran 1970, 1973 and 1977. Heteroptera: Coreidae. Acta Musei Nationalis Pragae, 45B(2): 73-89. Josifov, M. 1986. Verzeichnis der von der Balkanhalbinsel bekannten Heteropterenarten (Insecta, Heteroptera). Faunistische Abhandlungen Staatliches Museum fiir Tierkunde Dresden, 14: 61-93. Kaitala, A., Gamberale-Stille, G. & Swartling, S. 2003. Egg carrying attracts enemies in a cryptic bug (Phyllomorpha laciniata). Journal of Insect Behaviour, 16: 319-328. Kerzhner, ILM. & Jaczewski, T.L. 1964. Order Hemiptera (Heteroptera). Jn: Bei-Bienko, G.Ya. (Ed.), Opredelitel’ nasekomykh evropeiskoi chasti SSSR [Keys to the insects of the European USSR], 1: 655-845. Nauka, Moskva & Leningrad [in Russian; English translation: Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 1967: 851-1118}. Kiritshenko, A.N. 1964. Poluzhestkokrylye (Hemiptera-Heteroptera) Tadzhikistana [Bugs (Hemiptera-Heteroptera) of Tajikistan]. 258 pp. Institute of Zoology and Parasitology, Dushanbe. Kis, B. 2001. Heteroptera: Suprafamilule Coreoidea si Pyrrhocoroidea. Fauna Romaniei. Insecta, vol. 8(9). 96 pp. Editura Academiei Romane, Bucuresti. Laporte, F.L. de. 1832-1833. Essai d'une classification systematique de l’ordre des Hémipteres. Magasin de Zoologie, 2, suppl.: 1-88 [1832: 1-16; 1833: 17-88; for dating, see Direction 63(1957)]. Latreille, P.A. 1817. Coré. In: Nouveau Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle, appliquée aux Arts, a l’Economie rurale et domestique, a la Medicine, etc. (2me éd.) (Deterville, Ed.), vol. 8: 53-56, pl. B21. Deterville, Paris. Moulet, P. 1995. Hémipteres Coreoidea (Coreidae, Rhopalidae, Alydidae), Pyrrhocoridae, Stenocephalidae euro-méditerranéens. Faune de France, 81. 336 pp. Fédération Frangaise des Sociétés des Sciences Naturelles, Paris. Panizzi, A.R. & Santos, C.H. 2001. Unusual oviposition on the body of conspecifics by phytophagous Heteropterans. Neotropical Entomology, 30: 471-472. Putshkoy, V.G. 1962. Coreoidea. Fauna Ukrainy, 21(2). 162 pp. Naukova Dumka, Kyiv. Reguera, P. & Gomendio, M. 1999. Predation costs associated with parental care in the golden egg bug Phyllomorpha laciniata (Heteroptera: Coreidae). Behavioral Ecology, 10: 541-544. Reuter, O.M. 1888. Revisio synonymica Heteropterorum Palaearcticorum quae descripserunt auctores vetustiores (Linnaeus 1758—Latreille 1806). 458 pp. [I: 1-73; I: 74-485]. Finnische Literatur-Gesellschaft, Helsingfors [also published in: Acta Societatis Scien- tiarum Fennicae, 15(1888): 241-315 (1), 443-812 (ID). Sparrman, A. 1777. Beskrifning pa Cimex paradoxus, en ny insect ifran Caput bonae spei. Vetenskaps Academiens Handlingar, 38: 234-238. Stal, C. 1873. Enumeratio Hemipterorum. Bidrag till en forteckning 6fver alla hittils kanda Hemiptera, jemte systematiska meddelanden. 3. Kongl. Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar (N. F.), 11(2): 1-163. Tallamy, D.W. 2001. Evolution of exclusive paternal care in Arthropods. Annual Review of Entomology, 46: 139-165. Vasarhelyi, T. & Csiby, M. 1989. Egzotikus rovarok. 64 pp., 29 pls. Budapest. Villers, C.J. de. 1789. Caroli Linnaei entomologia, faunae Sueciae descriptionibus aucta, DD. Scopoli, Geoffroy, de Geer, Fabricii, Schrank etc. speciebus vel in systemate non enumeratis, vel nuperrime detectis, vel speciebus Galliae Australis locupleta, generum specierumque rariorum iconibus ornate, 1. xiv, 765 pp. Piestre & Delamolliere, Lugduni [=Lyon]. Wachmann, E. 1989. Wanzen—beobachten-kennenlernen. 274 pp. Neumann—Neudamm, Melsungen. 28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 Westwood, J.O. 1839-1840. An introduction to the modern classification of insects; founded on the natural habits and corresponding organisation of the different families, 2. xi, 587 pp. [part 16, pp. 401-587, 1840]. Longman, London. Westwood, J.O. 1841. Arcana Entomologica, 1(1-4): 1-64, pls. 1-16. W. Smith, London. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 63: 86. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 29 Case 3369 - Bothynus Hope, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera, SCARABAEIDAE): proposed conservation of usage by designation of Scarabaeus ascanius Kirby, 1819 as the type species Brett C. Ratcliffe Systematics Research Collections, W436 Nebraska Hall, University of Nebraska State Museum, Lincoln, NE 68588-0514, U.S.A. (e-mail: bratcliffel @unl.edu) Andrew B.T. Smith Research Division, Canadian Museum of Nature, P.O. Box 3443, Station D. Ottawa, ON, KIP 6P4, Canada (e-mail: asmith@unlserve.unl.edu) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 70.3.2 of the Code, is to conserve the current usage of the generic name Bothynus Hope, 1837 for well-known scarab beetles of the family scARABAEIDAE (subfamily DyNASTINAE) by designation of Scarabaeus ascanius Kirby, 1819 as the type species. The type species of Bothynus is at present Geotrupes cuniculus Fabricius, 1801, based on a misidentification. It has long been recognized that the species involved in Hope’s misidentification of G. cuniculus 1s indeterminable. It is proposed that Scarabaeus ascanius Kirby, 1819 is designated as the type species. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; SCARABAEIDAE; Bothynus; Scara- baeus ascanius; DYNASTINAE; PENTODONTINI. 1. Hope (1837, p. 95) established the genus Bothynus and included two species, Geotrupes cuniculus Fabricius 1801 (p. 20) and Scarabaeus ascanius Kirby, 1819 (p. 399). He explicitly designated G. cuniculus Fabricius, 1801 as the type species of the genus Bothynus. However, Hope’s description of the genus Bothynus is incon- sistent with the true G. cuniculus, and it is obvious that Hope used this name based on a misidentification (see Burmeister, 1847, p. 117; Lacordaire, 1856, p. 413; Prell, 1936, p. 185; Endrédi, 1969, p. 108). The true G. cuniculus is a well-known species from Cuba, Hispaniola, Puerto Rico, Trinidad, and northeastern South America and is currently classified in the genus Tomarus Erichson, 1847. Additionally, it has long been recognized that the species involved in Hope’s misidentification of G. cuniculus is undeterminable because of Hope’s vague description (Lacordaire, 1856; Endrédi, 1969) and the lack of any voucher specimens in the Hope collection at Oxford University (Endrédi, 1969; D. Mann, personal communication to BCR). 2. Lacordaire (1856, p. 413) recognized that the type species of Bothynus (Hope’s concept of G. cuniculus) was indeterminable and proposed S. ascanius as the type species instead. Although this action is not valid under the Code, it has been adopted by practically all taxonomists who have dealt with Bothynus since 1856 (e.g. Bates, 1888, p. 319; Arrow, 1937, p. 40; Blackwelder, 1944, p. 255; Endrédi, 1969, p. 107; 30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 Dechambre, 1981, p. 126; Martinez, 1983, p. 297; Lachaume, 1992, p. 34; Moron et al., 1996, p. 69; Ratcliffe, 2003, p. 253). Only Cartwright (1959) advocated usage of G. cuniculus sensu Fabricius to define the genus. 3. The prevailing usage of Bothynus is not consistent with the true G. cuniculus as the type species but is consistent with S. ascanius as the type species. To apply the rules of the Code and begin using the true G. cuniculus as the type species is undesirable because this was not the intent of Hope when he erected the genus, and it would upset the current usage of both the dynastine genera Bothynus and Tomarus along with the more than 50 species within both genera. Although this is a case of a misidentified type species, the problem cannot be remedied using Article 70.3.2 because the taxonomic species actually involved in the misidentification (Hope’s concept of G. cuniculus) cannot ever be reliably determined, and the Commission’s ruling is needed. 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to set aside all fixations of type species for the nominal genus Bothynus Hope, 1837 before that by Lacordaire (1856); (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Bothynus Hope, 1837 (gender: masculine), type species Scarabaeus ascanius Kirby, 1819, as ruled in (1) above; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name ascanius Kirby, 1819, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus ascanius (specific name of the type species of Bothynus Hope, 1837, as ruled in (1) above). References Arrow, G.J. 1937. Coleopterorum Catalogus, pars 156. Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae. 124 pp. W. Junk, Berlin. Bates, H.W. 1888. Pectinicornia and Lamellicornia, Family Dynastidae. Pp. 296-342 in Godman, F.D. & Salvin, O. (Eds.), Biologia Centrali-Americana. Insecta, Coleoptera, vol. 2, pt. 2. Blackwelder, R.E. 1944. Checklist of the coleopterous insects of Mexico, Central America, the West Indies, and South America, part 2. Bulletin of the U.S. National Museum, 185: 189-341. Burmeister, H. 1847. Handbuch der Entomologie, vol. 5. 584 pp. T.C.F. Enslin, Berlin. Cartwright, O.L. 1959. Scarab beetles of the genus Bothynus in the United States. Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum, 108: 515-541. Dechambre, R.-P. 1981. Nouvelles especes de Dynastidae de la région Néotropicale (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea). Revue Fran¢ais d’Entomologie (N.S.), 3: 123-128. Endrédi, S. 1969. Monographie der Dynastinae 4. Tribus: Pentodontini (Coleoptera, Lamellicornia). Entomologische Abhandlungen, 87: 1-145. Fabricius, J.C. 1801. Systema Eleutheratorum, vol. 1. 506 pp. Kiel. Hope, F.W. 1837. The Coleopterists’ Manual, Containing the Lamellicorn Insects of Linneus and Fabricius. 121 pp. London. Kirby, W. 1819. A century of insects, including several new genera described from his cabinet. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 12: 375-453. Lachaume, G. 1992. Dynastidae Américains. Cyclocephalini — Agaocephalini — Pentodontini — Oryctini — Phileurini. Les Coléoptéres du Monde, vol. 14. Pp. 1-56, 83-89, pls. 1-11. Sciences Nat. Venette, France. Lacordaire, J.T. 1856. Histoire Naturelle des Insectes. Genera de Coléoptéres ou Exposé Methodique et Critique de Tous les Genres proposes jusqwici dans cet Ordre d’Insectes, vol. 3. 594 pp. Libraire Encyclopedique de Roret, Paris. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 31 Martinez, A. 1983. Nueva especie de Bothynus de Brasil (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae, Dynasti- nae, Pentodontini). Revista Brasileira de Entomologia, 27: 297-300. Moron, M.A., Ratcliffe, B.C. & Deloya, C. 1996. Atlas de los Escarabajos de México (Coleoptera: Lamellicornia). Vol. 1. Familia Melolonthidae. 280 pp. Comision Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO) and Sociedad Mexicana de Entomologia, Xalapa, Mexico. Prell, H. 1936. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Dynastinen. Ueber die Homonymieverhiltnisse der Namen von Gattungen und Untergattungen. Entomologisches Blatter, 32: 145-152. Ratcliffe, B.C. 2003. The dynastine scarab beetles of Costa Rica and Panama (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae). Bulletin of the University of Nebraska State Museum, 16: 1-506. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 63: 2. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 Case 3374 Onthophagus sycophanta Fairmaire, 1887 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name Frank-Thorsten Krell Department of Zoology, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, 2001 Colorado Boulevard, Denver, CO 80205-5798, U.S.A. (e-mail: Frank.Krell@dmns.org) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name of the dung beetle Onthophagus sycophanta Fairmaire, 1887 from China and Vietnam. This name is a junior primary homonym of the forgotten name Onthophagus sycophanta Mulsant, 1842 from Europe (Coleoptera, SCARABAEIDAE). O. sycophanta Fairmaire, 1887 has been in regular use since its description whereas O. sycophanta Mulsant, 1842 has never been used after its description. It is proposed to conserve the name O. sycophanta Fairmaire, 1887 by suppression of the name O. sycophanta Mulsant, 1842. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; SCARABAEIDAE; Onthophagus; Onthophagus sycophanta; dung beetles; China; Vietnam. 1. In 1842 Mulsant (p. 106) described the dung beetle Onthophagus sycophanta as a variety of Onthophagus tages (Olivier, 1789). These names are currently regarded as junior subjective synonyms of Euonthophagus gibbosus (Scriba, 1790) and Euonthophagus amyntas (Olivier, 1789), respectively (L6bI et al., 2006). Onthophagus sycophanta Mulsant, 1842 has never been used as a valid name since, not even by the author himself in his second monograph on French Lamellicornia (Mulsant & Rey, 1871). The name was rediscovered during the preparation of the Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera (Krell, 2006; L6ébl et al., 2006, p. 162), but not used as a valid name. 2. Fairmaire (1887, p. 100) named a new dung beetle species from Yunnan Onthophagus sycophanta. Since then the name has been in regular use (see Boucomont & Gillet, 1921, p. 47, 1927, p. 148; Boucomont, 1929, p. 768; Balthasar, 1935, p. 325, 1963, p. 545; Wu, 1937, p. 981; Paulian, 1945, p. 98; Kabakoy, 1979, p. 76; Kabakov & Yanushey, 1983, p. 158; Zhang, 1993, p. 269: Kabakov & Napolov, 1999, p. 76; Zhang & Luo, 2002, p. 433; Kabakov, 2006, p. 312; Lébl et al., 2006, p- 172). However, the references are too few to meet the conditions for a nomen protectum (Article 23.9.1.2 of the Code — Reversed Precedence). A junior synonym of this species name does not exist. Balthasar (1963) considered the species to be common. It is the type species of the subgenus Phanaeomorphus Balthasar, 1963, and is distributed throughout China and Vietnam. 3. Onthophagus sycophanta Fairmaire, 1887 has been in regular use since its description while the senior homonym O. sycophanta Mulsant, 1842 has never been used as valid since its description. Introducing a new name for the junior homonym Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 33 O. sycophanta Fairmaire would cause confusion, whereas suppressing the forgotten name would stabilize nomenclature. 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to suppress the specific name sycophanta Mulsant, 1842, as published in the binomen Onthophagus sycophanta, and all uses of the name before Fairmaire (1887), for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name sycophanta Fairmaire, 1887, as published in the binomen Onthophagus sycophanta; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name sycophanta Mulsant, 1842, as published in the binomen Onthophagus sycophanta and as suppressed in (1) above. References Balthasar, V. 1935. Onthophagus-Arten Chinas, Japans und der angrenzenden Lander. Folia Zoologica et Hydrobiologica, 8: 303-353. Balthasar, V. 1963. Monographie der Scarabaeidae und Aphodiidae der palaearktischen und orientalischen Region. 2: Coprinae (Onitini, Oniticellinik, Onthophagini). 628 pp., 15 pls. Verlag der Tschechoslowakischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Prag. Boucomont, A. 1929. A list of coprophagous Coleoptera of China. Lignan Science Journal, 7: 759-794. Boucomont, A. & Gillet, G. 1921. Fam. Scarabaeidae Laparosticti (Coléoptéres). Faune Entomologique de l' Indochine Frangaise, 4: 1-76. Boucomont, A. & Gillet, J.J.E. 1927. Fam. Scarabaeidae. Subfam Coprinae. Coleopterorum Catalogus, 19(90): 103-263. Fairmaire, L. 1887. Coléopteres de l’intérieur de la Chine. Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique, 31: 87-136. Kabakoy, O.N. 1979. Obzor plastinchatousykh zhukov podsemeistva Coprinae (Scarabaeidae, Coleoptera) dal’nego vostoka CCCP 1 sopredel’nykh territorii. Pp. 58-98 in: Zhuki Dal’nego vostoka i vostochnoi Sibiri. Akademia Nauk SSSR, Vladivostok. Kabakoy, O.N. 2006. Plastinchatousye Zhuki Podsemeistva Scarabaeinae (Insecta: Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) Fauny Rossii i Sopredel’nykh Stran. 374 pp. Tovarishchestvo Nauchnykh Izdanii KMK, Moskva. Kabakov, O.N. & Napolov, A. 1999. Fauna and ecology of Lamellicornia of subfamily Scarabaeinae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae) of Vietnam and some parts of adjacent countries: South China, Laos and Thailand. Latvijas Entomologs, 37: 58-96. Kabakoy, O.N. & Yanushey, V.V. 1983. Materialy po faunistike 1 ekologii zhukov roda Onthophagus (Scarabaeidae) iz yugo-vostochnoi Azii. Pp. 156-165 in Medvedev, L.I. (Ed.), Fauna i Ekologiya Zhivotnych V’etnama. Nauka, Moskva. Krell, F.-T. 2006. New nomenclatorial and taxonomic acts, and comments. Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae. P. 32 in Lobl, I. & Smetana, A. (Eds.), Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera. Vol. 3. Apollo Books, Stenstrup. Lobl, I., Krell, F.-T., Ziani, S. & Kral, D. 2006. Onthophagini. Pp. 159-176 in Lobl, I. & Smetana, A. (Eds.), Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera. Vol. 3. Apollo Books, Stenstrup. Mulsant, E. 1842. Histoire Naturelle des Coléoptéres de France. Lamellicornes. viii, 623 pp., 3 pls. Maison, Paris. Mulsant, E. & Rey, C. 1871. Histoire Naturelle des Coléoptéres de France. Lamellicornes—Pectinicornes. 729, 43 pp., 3 pls. Deyrolle, Paris. Paulian, R. 1945. Faune de l’Empire Francais III. Coléoptéres Scarabéides de I’ Indochine. 228 pp., 1 map. Librairie Larose, Paris. Wu, C.F. 1937. Catalogus Insectorum Sinensium, vol. 3. x, 1312 pp. Fan Memorial Institute of Biology, Peiping. 34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 Zhang, Y. 1993. Coleoptera: Geotrupidae, Ochodaeidae, Hybosoridae, Scarabaeidae, Dynastinae and Melolonthidae. Pp. 268-275 in Huang, F. (Ed.), Insects of Wuling Mountains area, Southwestern China. x, 777 pp. Science Press, Beijing. Zhang, Y.-w. & Luo, X.-n. 2002. Scarabaeidae. Pp. 428-436 in: Fauna of Insects in Fujian Province of China, vol. 6. Fujian Science & Technical Publishing House, Fuzhou. Acknowledgement of receipt of this publication was published in BZN 63: 85. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 S5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 35 Case 3375 - Fidia Baly, 1863 and Lypesthes Baly, 1863 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of usage M.S. Strother and V.M. Bayless Louisiana State Arthropod Museum, Department of Entomology, 402 Life Sciences Building, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, U.S.A. (e-mail: msean68@msn.com and vmosele@lsu.edu) C.L. Staines Department of Entomology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, U.S.A. (e-mail: stainesc@si.edu) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3, 67.11 and 81.2.1 of the Code, is to conserve the usage of the generic names Fidia Baly, 1863 and Lypesthes Baly, 1863 for leaf beetle genera by suppressing the name Fidia Motschulsky, 1860 (senior homonym of Fidia Baly, 1863 and senior synonym of Lypesthes Baly, 1863). Conservation would confer the greatest stability in the naming of these chrysomelid taxa. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; CHRYSOMELIDAE; EUMOLPINAE; Fidia; Lypesthes; Lypesthes atra; Fidia lurida; leaf beetles. 1. The name Fidia was first used by Dejean (1836, p. 412) in fascicle five of the second edition of his catalogue and not on p. 436 of fascicle five of the third edition published in 1837 as indicated by several authors (Chapuis, 1874; Johnson & Hammar, 1910; Schultz, 1970). Dejean listed two species, F. Jurida Dejean, 1836 (p. 412) and F. murina Dejean 1836 (p. 412), under Fidia but provided no description, definition, or indication for either of these new species names, and they are nomina nuda. Because the two species names included by Dejean were not available, Fidia Dejean, 1836 (p. 412) does not meet the criteria of availability for a genus-group name (Article 12 of the Code — Names published before 1931) and is a nomen nudum. 2. Sturm (1843, p. 295) treated Colaspis flavescens, a name he had proposed in his previous catalogue (1826, p. 123), as a subjective synonym of Fidia lurida. Colaspis flavescens Sturm, 1826 is a nomen nudum because Sturm listed the name without providing a description, definition or indication for the species. Its inclusion in Fidia as a synonym of Fidia lurida Dejean, 1836 (p. 412) did not alter the nomenclatural status of F. lurida or C. flavescens and they remained nomina nuda. 3. Motschulsky (1860, p. 22) described a new species of beetle from Japan under the name Fidia atra. Motschulsky’s species description, in combination with the generic name Fidia, constitutes an indication for the latter, thereby making the name available. 36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 4. Baly (1863, p. 157) established the genus Lypesthes with Fidia atra Motschulsky, 1860 as the type species by monotypy. 5. Baly (1863, p. 153) also provided a generic description of what he believed to be Dejean’s (1836, p. 412) genus Fidia and designated Fidia lurida Dejean, 1836 as its type species. This description made the name Fidia Baly, 1863 available for this genus-group taxon and served as an indication for the new species Fidia lurida Baly, 1863 (p. 153) (Article 12.2.6 of the Code — Combined description). Both names (Fidia and Fidia lurida) take authorship and date from Baly (1863), even though Baly (1863) attributed them to Dejean (1836). Several recent authors (Wilcox, 1975; Seeno & Wilcox, 1982; Arnett, 1985; LeSage, 1991) followed Schultz (1970) who incorrectly attributed authorship of Fidia sensu Baly (1863) to Walsh (1867, p. 88). 6. Since Baly’s publication in 1863, the name Lypesthes has been exclusively and consistently applied as the valid name for the Oriental and Palearctic genus-group taxon established on the type species Fidia atra Motschulsky, 1860, and this usage is firmly established in the world literature (Chapuis, 1874; Gemminger & Harold, 1874; Jacoby, 1908; Clavareau, 1914; Chuayjo, 1956; Gressitt & Kimoto, 1961; Kimoto, 1964, 1971: Kimoto & Gressitt, 1966, 1982: Seeno & Wilcox, 1982, and others). Likewise, Fidia Baly, 1863 (type species Fidia lurida Baly, 1863), which is a junior homonym of Fidia Motschulsky, 1860 (type species Fidia atra Motschulsky, 1860), has been exclusively and consistently applied to the Nearctic and Neotropical genus-group taxon established on the type species F. lurida Baly, 1863. Although F. lurida Baly is the valid name of this taxon according to the Principle of Priority (Article 23.1 of the Code), no subsequent author has recognized it as such. Fidia viticida Walsh, 1867 (p. 87) has been used by all subsequent authors (Chapuis, 1874: Gemminger & Harold, 1874; Clavareau, 1914; Seeno & Wilcox, 1982; Arnett, 1985 and others). The use of Fidia Motschulsky, 1860 instead of Fidia Baly, 1863 and Lypesthes Baly, 1863 would seriously disturb stability and cause confusion. It is proposed that the name Fidia Motschulsky, 1860 (a senior homonym of Fidia Baly, 1863 and senior synonym of Lypesthes Baly, 1863) is suppressed to maintain stability. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to suppress the following names: (a) Fidia Motschulsky, 1860 and all uses of the name before that by Baly (1863) for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (b) lurida Baly, 1863, as published in the binomen Fidia lurida, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Fidia Baly, 1863 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Fidia lurida Baly, 1863; (b) Lypesthes Baly, 1863 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Fidia atra Motschulsky, 1860; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) viticida Walsh, 1867, as published in the binomen Fidia viticida, valid name of the specific name of the type species of Fidia Baly, 1863, following the suppression of its senior synonym Fidia lurida Baly, 1863 in (1)(b) above; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 37 (b) atrg Motschulsky, 1860, as published in the binomen Fidia atra (specific name of the type species of Lypesthes Baly, 1863); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Fidia Motschulsky, 1860, as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name /urida Baly, 1863, as published in the binomen Fidia lurida and as suppressed in (1)(b) above. References Arnett, R.H. 1985. American insects, a handbook of the insects of America north of Mexico. 850 pp. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., NY. Baly, J.S. 1863. An attempt at a classification of the Eumolpidae. Journal of Entomology, 2: 143-163. Chapuis, M.F. 1874. Volume 10, Famille des Phytophages in Lacordaire, J.T. (Ed.), Histoire Naturelle des insectes. Genera des Coléoptéres. 455 pp. Paris. Chajo, M. 1956. A taxonomic study of the Chrysomelidae (Insecta: Coleoptera) from Formosa. Part 8. Subfamily Eumolpinae. Philippine Journal of Science, 85(1): 1-180. Clavareau, H. 1914. Chrysomelidae: 11. Eumolpinae in Junk, W. & Schenkling, S. (Eds.), Coleopterorum Catalogus, pars 59. 215 pp. W. Junk. Berlin. Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1836. Catalogue des Coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean. 2nd Ed. 486 pp. Paris. Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1837. Catalogue des Coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean. 3rd Ed. Pp. 361-443. Paris. Gemminger, M. & Harold, B. von. 1876. Catalogus Coleopterum hucusque descriptorum, synonymicus et systematicus, vol. 12. Pp. 3479-3822. Williams & Norgate, London. Gressitt, J.L. & Kimoto, S. 1961. The Chrysomelidae (Coleopt.) of China and Korea. Part 2. Pacific Insects Monograph, 1A: 1-299. Jacoby, M. 1908. The fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Coleoptera. Chrysomelidae, vol. 1. 534 pp. Taylor & Francis, London. Johnson, F. & Hammar, A.G. 1910. The grape root-worm with especial reference to investigations in the Erie grape belt from 1907 to 1909. United States Department of Agriculture Bureau of Entomology Bulletin, 89: 1-100. Kimoto, S. 1964. The Chrysomelidae of Japan and the Rykuyu Islands IV. Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University, 13: 235-262. Kimoto, S. 1971. A list of the chrysomelid species preserved in the Osaka Museum of Natural History, III (Insecta: Coleoptera). Bulletin of the Osaka Museum of Natural History, 25: 1-26. Kimoto, S. & Gressitt, J.L. 1966. The Chrysomelidae of the Ryukyu Archipelago. Pacific Insects, 8: 467-577. Kimoto, S. & Gressitt, J.L. 1982. Chrysomelidae (Coleoptera) of Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. III. Eumolpinae. Esakia, 18: 1-141. LeSage, L. 1991. Family Chrysomelidae, leaf beetles, in Bousquet, Y. (Ed.), Checklist of beetles of Canada and Alaska. 430 pp. Agriculture Canada Publication 1861E. Motschulsky, V. von. 1860. Insectes du Japon. Etudes Entomologiques, 9: 4-39. Schultz, W.T. 1970. The Eumolpinae of America north of Mexico with revisions of selected genera (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Ohio State University. Seeno, T.N. & Wilcox, J.A. 1982. Leaf beetle genera (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Entomography, 1: 1-221. Sturm, J. 1826. Catalog miner Insecten-Sammlung von Jacob Sturm. Erster Theil. Kafer. 207 pp. Nurnberg. Sturm, J. 1843. Catalog der Kaefer-Sammlung von Jacob Sturm. 386 pp. Nirnberg. Walsh, B.D. 1867. The grape-vine Fidia (Fidia viticida, new species). Practical Entomologist, 2: 87-88. 38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 Wilcox, J.A. 1975: Checklist of the beetles of Canada, United States, Mexico, Central America, and the West Indies. Vol. I, part 7, the leaf beetles (red version). 166 pp. Biological Research Institute of America, Latham, NY. d Acknowledgement of receipt of this publication was published in BZN 63: 85. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 39 Case 3377 . Ataenius Harold, 1867 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence over Aphodinus Motschulsky, 1862 Henry F. Howden Canadian Museum of Nature, P.O. Box 3443, Station ‘D’, Ottawa, ON KIP 6P4, Canada (e-mail: hhowden@mus-nature.ca) Ales Smetana Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Biosystematics, 960 Carling Ave., C.E.F., K.W. Neatby Bldg., Ottawa, ON KIA 0C6, Canada (e-mail: smetanaa@agr.gc.ca) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3 and 81.2.3 of the Code, is to conserve the generic name Ataenius Harold, 1867 for a world-wide and well-known genus of scarab beetles (family sCARABAEIDAE) by giving it precedence over the older name Aphodinus Motschulsky, 1862. Prior to 2001, the name Aphodinus was largely ignored, although it was used by Schmidt in three of his publications (1913, 1914, 1922) for a subgenus of Aphodius Iliger, 1798. In 2001, Dellacasa, Bordat & Dellacasa placed Ataenius in synonymy with Aphodinus. Ataenius is a genus with a nearly world-wide distribution and approximately 300 described species. Replacement of the name Ataenius by Aphodinus would seriously affect the stability of the group. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; SCARABAEIDAE; Ataenius; Aphodi- nus; Ataenius scutellaris; Aphodinus castanicolor; scarab beetles; world-wide. 1. Motschulsky (1862, p. 55) established the genus Aphodinus by listing under that name three previously described species: Aphodius castanicolor Motschulsky, 1858, Aphodius cancelliventris Motschulsky, 1858 and Aphodius compacticollis Motschulsky, 1858. Aphodinus was listed again by Motschulsky in 1869 (p. 63), with the same three species included. 2. Aphodinus was not mentioned subsequently until Schmidt (1913, 1914, 1922) used it for a subgenus of Aphodius and included in it the three species originally listed by Motschulsky. 3. Kozhantschikov (1916, p. 192) studied the types of both Aphodius castanicolor and Aphodius cancelliventris and put both names as junior synonyms of Aphodius australasiae Boheman, 1858 (p. 50), the type species of Pseudammoecius Schmidt, 1913 (p. 160). This synonymy was confirmed by Stebnicka & Howden (1997, p. 761) 4. Apart from being listed by Neave (1939, p. 248) in his “Nomenclator’, Aphodinus was not mentioned until Dellacasa (1988, p. 231) reintroduced the name and considered it a possible senior synonym of Pseudammoecius Schmidt, 1913. Thus the status of Aphodinus has remained uncertain, partly because of the absence of a 40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 designated type species and partly because it has been overlooked or been considered unavailable. 5. Stebnicka (1990, p. 898) transferred Aphodius australasiae Boheman, 1858 to the genus Ataenius Harold, 1867 and by doing so synonymized Pseudammoecius Schmidt, 1913 with Ataenius. 6. The type species of Ataenius by subsequent designation by Cartwright (1974, p. 1) is Ataenius scutellaris Harold, 1867. 7. Dellacasa, Bordat & Dellacasa (2001, p. 36) designated Aphodius castanicolor as the types species of Aphodinus and consequently effectively listed Ataenius as its junior synonym. 8. The statement of synonymy by Dellacasa, Bordat & Dellacasa (2001) has apparently been overlooked, as at least nine papers have been published subsequently using the name Afaenius, with no mention of Aphodinus. Although Aphodinus is an older name and has priority over Ataenius, the latter, with around 300 described species, has a long history of use in over a hundred references (see Nakane, 1960; Balthasar, 1964; Cartwright, 1964, 1974; Petrovitz, 1964; Arnett, 1968; Woodruff, 1973; Cartwright & Chalumeau, 1978; Watt, 1984; Baraud, 1985; Dellacasa, 1988: Stebnicka, 1990; Downie & Arnett, 1996; Stebnicka & Howden, 1997; Skelley & Gordon, 2002). Aphodinus, on the other hand, was used only sporadically and inconsistently. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to give the name Ataenius Harold, 1867 precedence over the name Aphodinus Motschulsky, 1862, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Ataenius Harold, 1867 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Cartwright (1974) Ataenius scutellaris Harold, 1867, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name Aphodinus Motschulsky, 1862 whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (b) Aphodinus Motschulsky, 1862 (gender: masculine), type species by subse- quent designation by Dellacasa, Bordat & Dellacasa (2001) Aphodius castanicolor Motschulsky, 1858, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name Ataenius Harold, 1867 whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) scutellaris Harold, 1867, as published in the binomen Ataenius scutellaris (specific name of the type species of Ataenius Harold, 1867); (b) castanicolor Motschulsky, 1858, as published in the binomen Aphodius castanicolor (specific name of the type species of Aphodinus Motschulsky, 1862). i) — 1S) — Acknowledgements We thank Yves Bousquet (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Biosystematics, Ottawa, Canada) and Andrew B.T. Smith (Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa, Canada) for reviewing an earlier draft of this paper. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 4) References Arnett, R.H., Jr. 1968. The beetles of the United States (a manual for identification). 1112 pp. American Entomological Institute, Ann Arbor. Balthasar, V. 1964. Monographie der Scarabaeidae und Aphodiidae der palaearktischen und orientalischen Region. Coleoptera: Lamellicornia. Band 3. Aphodiidae. 652 pp., 2 pls. Verlag der Tschechoslowakischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Prag. Baraud, J. 1985. Coléoptéres Scarabaeoidea. Faune du Nord de l'Afrique du Maroc au Sinai. Encyclopédie Entomologique, vol. 46. 651, 1 pp. Lechevalier, Paris. Cartwright, O.L. 1964. Lectotype designations and new synonymy in the genus Ataenius (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Coleopterist’s Bulletin, 18: 101-104. Cartwright, O.L. 1974. Ataenius, Aphotaenius, and Pseudoataenius of the United States and Canada (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Aphodiinae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 154: 1-106. Cartwright, O.L. & Chalumeau, F.E. 1978. Bredin-Archbold-Smithsonian Biological Survey of Dominica: The superfamily Scarabaeoidea. (Coleoptera). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 279: 1-39. Dellacasa, M. 1988. Contribution to a world catalogue of Aegialiidae, Aphodiidae, Aulonoc- nemidae, Termitotrogidae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea). Memorie della Societa Entomo- logica Italiana, 66: 1-455. Dellacasa, G.P., Bordat, P. & Dellacasa, M. 2001. A revisional essay of world genus-group taxa of Aphodiidae. Memorie della Societa Entomologica Italiana, 79: \-482. Dellacasa, M. & Dellacasa, G. 2006. Tribe Aphodiini Leach, 1815. Pp. 105-143 in Lobl, I. & Smetana, A. (Eds.), Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera, vol. 3. 690 pp. Apollo Books, Stenstrup. Downie, N.M. & Arnett, R.H., Jr. 1996. The beetles of northeastern North America, vol. 1. 880 pp. Sandhill Crane Press, Gainesville. Harold, E. 1867. Diagnosen neuer Coprophagen. Coleopterologische Hefte, 1: 76-84. Illiger, J.C.W. 1798. Verzeichniss der Kafer Preussens. Entworfen von Johann Gottlieb Kugelann, Apotheker in Osterode. Mit einer Vorrede des Professors und Pagenhofmeisters Hellwig im Braunschweig, und dem angehdngen Versuche einer natiirlischen Ordnungs- und Gattungs-Folge der Insecten. xl, 510, [1] pp. J.J. Gebauer, Halle. Kozhantschikoy, V. 1916. Septiéme contribution a l’étude des Aphodiini (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Russkoe Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie, 16: 192-208. Motschulsky, V. de. 1858. Entomologie spéciale. Insectes des Indes orientales. Pp. 20-122 in: Etudes Entomologiques, vol. 7. Helsingfors. Motschulsky, V. de. 1862. Synonymie. 55 pp. in: Etudes Entomologiques, vol. 11. Helsingfors. Motschulsky, V. de. 1869. Genres et espéces dinsectes publiés dans différents ouvrages par Victor Motschoulsky. Horae Societatis Entomologicae Rossicae supplément, 6[1869—1870]: 1-118. (Pp. 1-47 in 1869; Pp. 48-118 in 1870). Nakane, T. 1960. Descriptions of new forms of Lamellicornia from Japan. Entomological Review of Japan, 12: 1-6. Neave, S.A. 1939. Nomenclator zoologicus. A list of the names of genera and subgenera in zoology from the tenth edition of Linnaeus 1758 to the end of 1935, vol. 1, A-C. xiv, 957 pp. Zoological Society of London, London. Petrovitz, R. 1964. Neue Ataenius Arten (Scarab., Col.). Entomologische Arbeiten aus dem Museum Georg Frey, 15: 279-285. Schmidt, A. 1913. Erster Versuch einer Einteilung der exotischen Aphodien in Subgenera und als Anhang einige Neubeschreibungen. Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte (A), 79: 117-178. Schmidt, A. 1914. Register zu erster Versuch einer Einteilung der exotischen Aphodien in Subgenera und als Anhang einige Neubeschreibungen. Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte (A), 79: 203-212. Schmidt, A. 1922. Coleoptera, Aphodiinae. Das Tierreich, vol. 45. 614 pp. Swalter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin & Leipzig. Skelley, P.E. & Gordon, R.D. 2002. I. Aphodiinae Leach 1815. Pp. 42-48 in Arnett, R.H., Thomas, M.C., Skelley, P.-E. & Frank, J.H. (Eds.), American Beetles, vol. 2. 861 pp. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 Stebnicka, Z.T. 1990. New synonymies and notes on some Aphodiinae (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 97: 895-899. Stebnicka, Z.T. & Howden, H.F. 1997. Revision of the Australian species of Ataenius Harold (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea: Aphodiinae: Euparini). Invertebrate Taxonomy, 11: 735-921. Watt, J.C. 1984. A review of some New Zealand Scarabaeidae (Coleoptera). New Zealand Entomologist, 8: 4-24. Woodruff, R.E. 1973. The scarab beetles of Florida (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Part I. The Laparosticti (subfamilies Scarabaeinae, Aphodiinae, Hybosorinae, Ochodaeinae, Geotrupinae, Acanthocerinae). Arthropods of Florida and Neighboring Land Areas, 11: 1-225. Acknowledgement of receipt of this publication was published in BZN 63: 85. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 43 Case 3393 . Dactylozodes Chevrolat, 1838 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of usage C.L. Bellamy Plant Pest Diagnostics Branch, California Department of Food & Agriculture, 3294 Meadowview Road, Sacramento, California 95832, U.S.A. (e-mail: cbellamy@cdfa.ca.gov) T. Moore Rodriguez EI Vergel 2245, Depto. 28-D, Santiago, Chile (e-mail: tmoore@terra.cl) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the prevailing usage of the widely used generic name Dactylozodes Chevrolat, 1838 for a buprestid (jewel beetle) by suppression of its little-used senior subjective synonym Lasionota Mannerheim, 1837. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; BUPRESTIDAE; Dactylozodes; Lasionota; Dactylozodes alternans; South America; jewel beetles. 1. An earlier application for the conservation of the generic name Dactylozodes by the same authors was received by the Commission in 2005 (Case 3308) but the case was closed in March 2006 (BZN 63(1): 82) as issues presented in the case were under revision. 2. The generic name Lasionota first appeared in the catalogues of Dejean (1833, p. 83; 1836, p. 94), although without description or definition or combination with any available specific name. Therefore, Lasionota Dejean is unavailable according to Article 12 of the Code. 3. Unbeknown to most subsequent workers, Lasionota quadrifasciata was described by Mannerheim (1837, p. 102) with Lasionota available from that act. Subsequently, Lasionota Dejean, 1833 was considered as a separate genus from Dactylozodes (e.g. Gemminger & Harold, 1869, p. 1394). Lacordaire (1857, p. 55) considered Lasionota Mannerheim, 1837 as a senior synonym of Dactylozodes Chevrolat, 1838 (e.g. Lacordaire, 1857, p. 55). 4. Chevrolat (1838, p. 79) established the generic name Dactylozodes for two new nominal species of buprestid beetles (family BUPRESTIDAE): D. alternans Chevrolat, 1838 (p. 80) and D. tetrazonus Chevrolat, 1838 (pp. 80-81). Neither was designated as the type species. Dactylozodes now includes 43 species and 11 subspecies found in subtropical and temperate regions of southern South America. 5. Gardner (1989, pp. 347-349) summarized the classification of Dactylozodes and designated D. alternans Chevrolat, 1838 as the type species (p. 347). 6. Moore (1997) revised Dactylozodes without reference to Lasionota. 7. Lasionota Mannerheim, 1837 has not been used as a valid name since Lacordaire (1857, p. 55). Bellamy (1998, pp. 377-378) argued that Dactylozodes should be retained in its prevailing use over Lasionota Mannerheim, 1837. 44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 8. Dactylozodes Chevrolat, 1838 has been used continually since 1857, e.g Lacordaire (1857, p. 56), Gemminger & Harold (1869, p. 1394), Kerremans (1893, p. 115; 1903, p. 214), Obenberger (1934, p. 769) and Bellamy (2003, p. 58; 2006, p. 150). 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to suppress the generic name Lasionota Mannerheim, 1837 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Dactylozodes Chevrolat, 1838 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Gardner (1989) Dactylozodes alternans Chevrolat, 1838; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name alternans Chevrolat, 1838, as published in the binomen Dactylozodes alternans (specific name of the type species of Dactylozodes Chevrolat, 1838); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Lasionota Mannerheim, 1837, as suppressed in (1) above. References Bellamy, C.L. 1998. A clarification of authorship of buprestid genera originally defined in the catalogues of P.F.M.A. Dejean (Coleoptera, Buprestidae). Fragmenta Entomologica, 29(2): 365-382. Bellamy, C.L. 2003. An illustrated summary of the higher classification of the superfamily Buprestoidea (Coleoptera). Folia Heyrovskyana Supplementum, 10: 1-197. Bellamy, C.L. 2006. Nomenclatural notes and corrections in Buprestidae (Coleoptera). The Pan-Pacific Entomologist, 81(3/4): 145-158. Chevrolat, L.A.A. 1838. Centurie de Buprestides. Revue Entomologique, 5: 41-110. Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1833. Catalogue des Coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean, livraison 1. Pp. 1-96. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris. Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1836. Catalogue des Coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean. Troisieme édition, revue, corrigée, et augmentee, livraisons 1-4. Pp. 1-384. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris. Gardner, J.A. 1989. Revision of the genera of the tribe Stigmoderini (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) with a discussion of phylogenetic relationships. Invertebrate Taxonomy, 3: 291-361. Gemminger, M. & Harold, B. de. 1869. Catalogus coleopterorum hucusque descriptorum synonymicus et systematicus, vol. 5. (Buprestidae, Trixagidae, Monommidae, Eucnemidae, Elateridae, Cebrionidae). Pp. 1347-1608. E.H. Gummi, Monachii. Kerremans, C. 1893. Essai de groupement des Buprestides. Annales de la Société entomologique de Belgique, 37: 94-122. Kerremans, C. 1903. Coleoptera Serricornia, Fam. Buprestidae. Pp. 49-338 in Wytsman, P. (Ed.), Genera Insectorum, Fasc. 12b; 12c; 12d. Verteneuil & Desmet, Bruxelles. Lacordaire, J.T. 1857. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Genera des Coléoptéres ou exposé méthodique de critique de tous les genres proposés jusqu’ici dans cet ordre d’insectes, vol. 4. 554 pp. Roret, Paris. Mannerheim, C.G. yon. 1837. Enumeration des Buprestides, et description de quelques nouvelles espéces de cette tribu de la famille des Sternoxes, de la collection de M. Le Comte Mannerheim. Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 8: 1-126. Moore, T. 1997. Revision del genero Dactylozodes Chevrolat 1837 (Coleoptera, Buprestidae). Gayana Zoologia, 61(1): 57-86. Obenberger, J. 1934. Buprestidae 3. Pp. 569-781 in Junk, W. & Schenkling, S. (Eds.), Coleopterorum Catalogus, vol. 12, Pars 132. W. Junk, Berlin, Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 63: 154. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 45 Case 3355 - ORTHOCLADIINAE Kieffer, 1911 and Orthocladius van der Wulp, 1874 (Insecta, Diptera, CHIRONOMIDAE): proposed conservation of subfamilial name and fixation of type species Martin Spies clo Zoologische Staatssammlung Miinchen, Miinchhausenstr. 21, 81247 Mtinchen, Germany (e-mail: spies@zi.biologie.uni-muenchen.de) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3 and 81.1 of the Code, respectively, is to conserve the usage of the name ORTHOCLADIINAE Kieffer, 1911 for a well known group of non-biting midges, and to conserve the usage of the name Orthocladius van der Wulp, 1874 by fixation of Chironomus oblidens Walker, 1856 as the type species. The universally accepted name ORTHOCLADIINAE Kieffer, 1911 is threatened by its senior synonyms ERETMOPTERIDAE Kellogg, 1900 and CLUNIONINAE Kieffer, 1906. The type species of Orthocladius van der Wulp, 1874 requires fixation by the Commission, because neither the designated nominal species, Chironomus sordidellus Zetterstedt, 1838 (currently Psectrocladius sordidellus), nor the species so misidentified by Kieffer (1906) in the type-species designation, nor any of the species originally included in the genus is presently assigned to Orthocladius. In accordance with long-standing, unanimous interpretation in the literature on CHIRONOMIDAE, it is proposed that Chironomus oblidens Walker, 1856 be fixed as the type species of Orthocladius. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; CHIRONOMIDAE; ORTHOCLADIINAE; ERETMOPTERI- DAE; CLUNIONINAE; Orthocladius; Eretmoptera; Clunio; Psectrocladius sordidellus; Orthocladius oblidens; non-biting midges. 1. The name ORTHOCLADIINAE has been in long-standing, universal use for one of the two most widely distributed and taxon-rich subfamilies of the highly diverse and ecologically important CHIRONOMIDAE (e.g. Sublette & Sublette, 1973; Freeman & Cranston, 1980; Cranston & Martin, 1989; Cranston & Martin in Evenhuis, 1989; Ashe & Cranston, 1990; Oliver et al., 1990; Spies & Reiss, 1996). The genus Orthocladius van der Wulp, 1874, currently comprising six subgenera (Sether, 2005) and about 150 validly named species, and occurring in all major zoogeographic regions except Antarctica, ranks among the most important genera in its subfamily. Conservation of the name ORTHOCLADIINAE 2. Kellogg (1900, p. 82) described ‘an extraordinary new maritime fly’, the new genus and species Eretmoptera browni, from tide pools on the rocky coast of central California, and proposed ‘to establish for it a new family, which may be called the ERETMOPTERIDAE (op. cit., p. 81). When the full metamorphosis of that species had become known, Aldrich (1905, p. 119) placed &. browni in cHIRONOMIDAE Newman, 1834 (see Spies, 2005). 46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 3. Kieffer (1906a, p. 3; see also Kieffer, 1906b, pp. 314-316) placed Eretmoptera Kellogg, 1900 (p. 82) in the subfamily CLUNIONINAE Kieffer, 1906a (p. 3) (type genus Clunio Haliday, 1855, p. 62), presumably following the practice, not un- common at the time, of naming family groups after the earliest-established genus included. 4. Kieffer (1911b, p. 345) proposed a “groupe Orthocladiariae’ in the subfamily CHIRONOMINAE (then “TENDIPEDINAE, a name suppressed in Opinion 678, October, 1963). Orthocladius van der Wulp, 1874 is not among the genera of ‘Orthocladiariae’ to which species were assigned in Kieffer (1911b, pp. 345-348), but is used as valid on page 349 of that work. The name ORTHOCLADIARIAE is available because it certainly, from inference from the stem, was formed from Orthocladius (third example following Article 11.7.1.1 of the Code); thus, oRTHOCLADIINI and coordinate names are available from Kieffer (1911b). This recognition is in accordance with previous interpretations (Ashe, 1983, p. 4; Sabrosky, 1998, p. 227). 5. For several decades after Kieffer (1911b), either CLUNIONINAE was used as valid for a subfamily separate from ORTHOCLADIINAE (e.g. Edwards, 1929; Wirth, 1949; Goetghebuer & Lenz, 1950), or CLUNIONINI was used for a tribe within ORTHOCLADIINAE (e.g. Johannsen, 1937; Brundin, 1956). If the scope of a particular work included Eretmoptera Kellogg, this genus was invariably placed within a family-group taxon based on Clunio Haliday, 1855. 6. Strenzke (1960) considered Clunio and related genera, including Eretmoptera, to form a monophyletic “Clunio group’ which he ranked ‘within the tribe METRIOCNEMINI of the subfamily ORTHOCLADIINAE (op. cit., p. 29). Sether’s (1977) analysis confirmed the composition and general phylogenetic relations of Strenzke’s “Clunio group’. but did not recognize any valid tribes or subtribes in ORTHOCLADIINAE, concluding that ‘it is better at present to keep the subfamily undivided’ (1977, p. 85). The latter opinion has been followed by the vast majority of recent authors, with very few exceptions (e.g. Coffman, 1978; Coffman & Ferrington, 1996 placing Eretmoptera in CLUNIONINI). 7. ERETMOPTERIDAE Kellogg, 1900 has not been used as valid since its original publication. Aldrich (1905), Townes (1945), and Sabrosky (1998) merely referred to the name. Spies (2005) noted that the Principle of Priority currently renders any Junior synonym of ERETMOPTERINAE and ERETMOPTERINI invalid. CLUNIONINAE Kieffer, 1906 and/or CLUNIONINI have been used as valid, but not frequently recently, and never as senior synonyms of ORTHOCLADIINAE Kieffer, 1911 or ORTHOCLADIINI, respectively. Without any exception known to the present applicant, whenever Eretmoptera and/or Clunio have been placed in the same family-group taxon as Orthocladius, the name used as valid for that taxon has been ORTHOCLADIINAE or a coordinate name. Although the usage of the name ORTHOCLADIINAE was modified several times in the past (see e.g. Cranston, 1995, p. 49), this name has been used as valid continuously, abundantly, and nearly universally for about 50 years. The use of ERETMOPTERINAE Kellogg, 1900 or CLUNIONINAE Kieffer, 1906 instead of ORTHOCLADIINAE Kieffer, 1911 would threaten stability and universality and would cause confusion. It is proposed that the name ORTHOCLADIINAE Kieffer, 1911 be given precedence Over ERETMOPTERINAE Kellogg, 1900 and/or CLUNIONINAE Kieffer, 1906 whenever their respective type genera are placed within the same family-group taxon. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 47 Conservation of usage of the name Orthocladius 8. The genus name Orthocladius and five other names still being used as valid for chironomid genera (Camptocladius, Cricotopus, Eurycnemus, Metriocnemus, Tanytarsus) were each mentioned first in two works by van der Wulp (1874a, 1874b) that must be considered as published simultaneously (Barendrecht & Kruseman, 1957; Spies, 1999). Van der Wulp (1877) himself referred all six genus names to both those works, respectively, without indicating any publication priority. The criteria for availability of all six genus names were met in both 1874 works. No type species of Orthocladius was fixed in either 1874 paper, but ten available species names were included in the genus by van der Wulp (1874b); see para. 17. 9. According to Code Article 24.2.2, precedence between van der Wulp’s (1874a, 1874b) simultaneously published name pairs may be decided by the First Reviser. However, no author known to the present applicant has acted as First Reviser in this case by citing any pair of those genus names of van der Wulp’s, or his two 1874 works, together and selecting from them. Of the two works, van der Wulp (1874b) contains much more elaborate taxon descriptions, includes names of species included for more of the six genera, and has been referred to almost exclusively during the past 130 years. Consequently, the genus names Camptocladius, Cricotopus, Eurycnemus, Metriocnemus, Orthocladius, and Tanytarsus as published by van der Wulp (1874b) are here selected as taking precedence over the respective corresponding, identical names (for respectively identical taxon concepts) as published by van der Wulp (1874a). 10. Kieffer (1906a) divided Orthocladius into four subgenera, and (p. 26) desig- nated Chironomus sordidellus Zetterstedt, 1838 (p. 814) as the type species of the nominotypical subgenus. He did not provide a taxonomic definition of his interpreta- tion of Chironomus sordidellus Zetterstedt, but a description can be found in Kieffer (1906b, pp. 333-334). There, specimens that he identified as ‘O. sordidellus’ were considered so similar to O. muscicola Kieffer, 1906(b) (currently Bryophaenocladius muscicola), that ‘the description given by Zetterstedt could apply just as well’ to both these species (1906b, p. 333). Several morphological characters that Kieffer gave for ‘O. sordidellus’, or for it and O. muscicola combined, are incompatible with the widely accepted usage of Orthocladius of recent decades (e.g. Brundin, 1956; Soponis, 1977; Cranston et al., 1989; Sether, 2004, 2005). Kieffer (1906b) described the adult female antenna as comprising six flagellomeres in both ‘O. sordidellus’ and O. muscicola, and as carrying trifid (O. muscicola) or bifid (‘O. sordidellus’) sensilla chaetica. In contrast, Soponis (1977, p. 8) and Seether (2004) record five flagellomeres for all female Orthocladius, and do not mention or figure any antennal sensilla that would be branched rather than simple (e.g. Soponis, 1977, figs. 82a—m). Later publications by Kieffer (191 1a, p. 521; 1923, pp. 139-140) confirm that he consistently considered the species that he misidentified as O. sordidellus (Zetterstedt) to belong to a distinct group of ‘species of the genus Orthocladius, in which the females have the sensilla bifid or trifid on the flagellomeres’ (Kieffer, 1923). 11. Coquillett (1910) proposed numerous type-species designations in a routine fashion for all genera in which he thought this had not been done. He acknowledged Kieffer’s (1906a) designations concerning other chironomid genera (Psilotanypus and Trichotanypus; Coquillett, 1910, pp. 597 and 616, respectively), but for Orthocladius he proposed Tipula stercoraria De Geer (see para. 18) as the type species (op. cit., 48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 p. 581). Neither this nor any other work by Coquillett contains a taxonomic definition or discussion of T. stercoraria, which at that time in the Nearctic region had been reported from Greenland only (records summarized in Malloch, 1915). Therefore, the taxonomic species Coquillett (1910) meant to designate was the one listed as Orthocladius stercorarius by van der Wulp (1874b). 12. Edwards (1929, p. 335) examined what he considered ‘the type’ of Chironomus sordidellus Zetterstedt (in the J.W. Zetterstedt collection, Museum of Zoology, Lund University, Sweden), and found that in Kieffer’s (1906a) classification the species would have belonged to Orthocladius (Psectrocladius) rather than to O. (Orthocladius). This has been the basis of the long-standing, widespread and frequent usage of the species name, presently as Psectrocladius ( Psectrocladius) sordidellus (Zetterstedt). Edwards (1929, p. 335) held that ‘it is difficult to say precisely what Kieffer understood by sordidellus, but judging from the manner in which he restricted Orthocladius he may have had a species allied to’ Chironomus oblidens Walker, 1856 (p. 180). Regarding Coquillett’s (1910) type-species proposal. Edwards (1929) wrote: “Again, it is impossible to be certain what species . . . van der Wulp understood by this name, but assuming it was one with white wings and dark halteres, it probably belonged to the group of O. oblidens, Walk. All things considered, therefore, it seems best to regard O. oblidens as the genotype, although it was not mentioned by name at the time of the erection of the genus. In his classification, Edwards (1929) placed O. oblidens in Spaniotoma ( Orthocladius ) ‘Group C (Orthocladius s. str.)’. At the same time, however, he noted for S. (O.) ‘Group B’ that in ‘most of the known females the sense-bristles of the antennae are forked, a peculiar character not found in any other species of this subfamily’ (1929, pp. 338, 340). Edwards’s observation of a very limited distribution of split female antennal sensilla in the relevant genera still holds true today (present applicant’s unpublished literature review; O.A. Seether, X-H. Wang, pers. comms.). Unfortu- nately, the fact that Edwards (1929) thereby refuted his own interpretation of the type species of Orthocladius has never been noticed until the present application. 13. Goetghebuer (1940-1950) recognized the relevance of female antennal struc- ture to the identification of Kieffer’s “Orthocladius sordidellus’, and established the name O. kiefferulus Goetghebuer, 1942 (p. 64) for Kieffer’s misidentification. Orthocladius kiefferiellus Goetghebuer, 1943 in Goetghebuer (1940-1950, p. 68) is a variant spelling in the original work, that is here considered as incorrect (Article 23.1 of the Code—Principle of Priority). Goetghebuer (1942 in 1940-1950, pp. 63-64) placed O. kiefferulus in the subgenus Orthocladius (Eudactylocladius) Thienemann, 1935, with Bryophaenocladius Thienemann, 1934 inexplicably listed as a junior synonym. In recent decades, the name Bryophaenocladius Thienemann has been used as valid for a separate genus (e.g. Brundin, 1956), but the latter has not received the necessary taxonomic revision. Bryephaenocladius kiefferulus (Goetghebuer), the available name for the species misidentified as ‘Orthocladius sordidellus by Kieffer (1906a), has been considered a nomen dubium (Ashe & Cranston, 1990). 14. While Goetghebuer (1940-1950) assigned the species that Kieffer misidentified as Orthocladius sordidellus to the correct genus-group taxon, he failed to realize the consequences to nomenclature of the genus Orthocladius. Ignoring the earlier designations by Kieffer (1906a) and Coquillett (1910), as well as the proposal by Edwards (1929), Goetghebuer (1942 in 1940-1950, p. 31) designated O. brevicornis Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 49 Kieffer, 1906 as the type species of Orthocladius, although O. brevicornis was not originally included in Orthocladius by van der Wulp (1874a, 1874b). Orthocladius brevicornis is currently considered a nomen dubium due to insufficient descriptions and missing type material. Moreover, Goetghebuer himself (1943 in 1940-1950, pp. 65-66) placed O. brevicornis im a subgenus of Orthocladius other than the nominotypical one. 15. Hardy (1960, p. 129) wrote: ‘The designations of Coquillett and Goetghebuer are, of course, not valid and... it would seem that O. sordidellus Zetterstedt should be the type species of Orthocladius, unless the case is presented to the International Commission and a decision made to the contrary. Strict adherence to the Rules would in this case lead to still more confusion. ... It appears that the only logical course is to follow Edwards in accepting oblidens as the type species, and it is hoped that one of the specialists in the group will present this case to the Commission and obtain their legal sanction for this action’. 16. In spite of Hardy's complete and correct analysis, subsequent authors informally accepted O. oblidens (Walker) as the type species of Orthocladius. This usage of Orthocladius has been effectively stable at least since Brundin (1956), although some authors (e.g. Ashe, 1983; Cranston & Martin, 1989; Oliver et al., 1990) referred to Coquillett’s (1910) rather than Kieffer’s (1906a) designation. On the other hand, no author has realized the nomenclatural consequences of Kieffer’s misidentification of Chironomus sordidellus Zetterstedt, 1838 having been named and placed as Bryophaenocladius kiefferulus (Goetghebuer, 1942). No ruling by the Commission has previously been sought (Sabrosky, 1998; Spies, 2005). 17. None of the nominal species originally included in Orthocladius 1s still placed in the genus today. This has been verified for the present application, both from published sources (e.g. Ashe & Cranston, 1990; Szther et al., 2000; Spies & Szther, 2004) and from all material of the five relevant van der Wulp species that was recorded in any of his publications and still is preserved (at Zoological Museum, University of Amsterdam (ZMAN), The Netherlands, courtesy of Ben Brugge; no material was found at Naturalis National Museum of Natural History, Leiden, NL). In the order given by van der Wulp (1874b), the ten species originally included in Orthocladius [with respective current placement/status in square brackets] are: Tipula stercoraria De Geer, 1776 [= Camptocladius stercorarius]; Chironomus dilatatus van der Wulp, 1859 [syn. Acricotopus lucens (Zetterstedt, 1850)]; Chironomus nigriventris van der Wulp, 1859 [nomen dubium in Cricotopus]; Chironomus pygmaeus Meigen, 1818 [nomen dubium in CHIRONOMINAE]; Chironomus sordidellus Zetterstedt, 1838 [= Psectrocladius sordidellus|; Chironomus thoracicus Wiedemann in Meigen, 1818 [nomen dubium in CHIRONOMIDAE]; Chironomus ictericus Meigen, 1830 [= Bryophaenocladius ictericus]; Orthocladius diversus van der Wulp, 1874(b) [nomen dubium in ORTHOCLADIINAE]; Orthocladius nanulus van der Wulp, 1874(b) [nomen dubium in ORTHOCLADIINAE]; Orthocladius albinervis van der Wulp, 1874(b) [nomen dubium in Psectrocladius (Psectrocladius)]. 18. In order to evaluate whether a satisfactory solution could be achieved by setting aside the type-species designation by Kieffer (1906a) and recognizing the one by Coquillett (1910; see para. 11), the present applicant has also examined four specimens (at ZMAN, ex coll. J. Kinker) that were very likely referred to by van der Wulp (1877, p. 279), as part of the basis for the only morphological description he 50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 ever published for ‘Orthocladius stercorarius’. Although not all of these specimens are preserved sufficiently for species identification, it is certain that none of them belongs to Orthocladius as understood since Edwards (1929) or Brundin (1956). Nor are they conspecific with the nominal species in Coquillett’s (1910) attempted designation, Tipula stercoraria De Geer. The latter has been accepted unanimously (since Edwards, 1929) as a senior synonym of Tipula byssina Schrank, 1803, which Coquillett (1910) has fixed as the type species of Camptocladius van der Wulp, 1874. 19. Although taxonomic circumscription of the genus Orthocladius has undergone some modifications (Seether, 2004), Chironomus oblidens Walker has been universally accepted as the type species. In the last 50 years, despite the shortcomings of Edwards’s (1929) informal argument, and in spite of various subsequent misunder- standings, Edwards’s proposal of Chironomus oblidens Walker as the type species has been followed whenever the name Orthocladius was used as valid at any rank. This holds true for all applicable catalogues of CHIRONOMIDAE taxa (see references listed in para. 1; Ashe, 1983), for standard keys (e.g. Wiederholm, 1983, 1986, 1989; Langton, 1991; Seether et al., 2000; Epler, 2001), taxonomic or phylogenetic reviews (e.g. Soponis, 1977; Rossaro et al., 2003; Seether, 2005), as well as throughout countless pure and applied studies appearing worldwide year after year (for overviews see, e.g. Armitage et al., 1995, or Zoological Record). 20. Without a ruling by the Commission, a type species fixation for the genus Orthocladius van der Wulp under Article 70.3 either of Chironomus sordidellus Zetterstedt, 1838 (currently Psectrocladius (Psectrocladius) sordidellus) or of Orthocladius kiefferulus Goetghebuer, 1942 (currently Bryophaenocladius kiefferulus) would result in significant destabilization and confusion, because the name Orthocla- dius van der Wulp, 1874 would become the senior synonym of either Psectrocladius Kieffer, 1906 or Bryophaenocladius Thienemann, 1934, and an unused name would have to be introduced for the genus presently known as Orthocladius. Fixation of any of the originally included nominal species as the type species of Orthocladius would significantly upset nomenclature as well. Consequently, it is proposed that Chironomus oblidens Walker, 1856 be fixed as the type species of Orthocladius van der Wulp, 1874, to conserve the long and widely accepted usage of this genus name. 21. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power: (a) to rule that the family-group name ORTHOCLADIINAE Kieffer, 1911 and other family-group names based on Orthocladius van der Wulp, 1874 are to be given precedence over ERETMOPTERINAE Kellogg, 1900 and other family- group names based on Eretmoptera Kellogg, 1900, as well as precedence Over CLUNIONINAE Kieffer, 1906 and other family-group names based on Clunio Haliday, 1856 whenever the respective type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon; (b) to set aside all previous fixations of the type species for the nominal genus Orthocladius van der Wulp, 1874, and to designate Chironomus oblidens Walker, 1856 as the type species of Orthocladius van der Wulp, 1874; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Orthocladius van der Wulp, 1874(b) (gender: masculine), type species Chironomus oblidens Walker, 1856, as ruled in (1)(b) above; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 51 (b) Eretmoptera Kellogg, 1900 (gender: feminine), type species Eretmoptera browni Kellogg, 1900, by original designation and monotypy; (c) Clunio Haliday, 1855 (gender: masculine), type species Clunio marinus Haliday, 1855, by monotypy; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name oblidens Walker, 1856, as published in the binomen Chironomus oblidens (specific name of the type species of Orthocladius van der Wulp, 1874); (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following names: (a) ORTHOCLADIINAE Kieffer, 1911 (type genus Orthocladius van der Wulp, 1874), with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Orthocladius are to be given precedence over ERETMOPTERINAE Kellogg, 1900 and other family-group names based on Eretmoptera Kellogg, 1900, and over CLUNIONINAE Kieffer, 1906 and other family-group names based on Clunio Haliday, 1855 whenever the respective type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon; (b) ERETMOPTERINAE Kellogg, 1900 (type genus Eretmoptera Kellogg, 1900), with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Eretmoptera are not to be given priority over ORTHOCLADIINAE Kieffer, 1911 and other family-group names based on Orthocladius van der Wulp, 1874 whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon; (Cc) CLUNIONINAE Kieffer, 1906 (type genus Clunio Haliday, 1855), with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Clunio are not to be given priority over ORTHOCLADIINAE Kieffer, 1911 and other family- group names based on Orthocladius van der Wulp, 1874 whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon. References Aldrich, J.M. 1905. A catalogue of North American Diptera. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 46: 1-680. Armitage, P.D., Cranston, P.S. & Pinder, L.C.V. (Eds.). 1995. The Chironomidae. The biology and ecology of non-biting midges. xii, 572 pp. Chapman & Hall, London. Ashe, P. 1983. A catalogue of chironomid genera and subgenera of the world including synonyms (Diptera: Chironomidae). Entomologica scandinavica Supplement, 17: \—68. Ashe, P. & Cranston, P.S. 1990. Family Chironomidae. Pp. 113-355 in Sods, A. & Papp, L. (Eds.), Catalogue of Palaearctic Diptera, vol. 2. 499 pp. Akadémiai Kiado, Budapest. Barendrecht, G. & Kruseman, G., Jr. 1957. A propos du centenaire du Tijdschrift voor Entomologie. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 100: 1-4. Brundin, L. 1956. Zur Systematik der Orthocladiinae (Dipt., Chironomidae). Reports from the Institute of Freshwater Research, Drottningholm, 37: 5-185. Coffman, W.P. 1978. Chironomidae. Pp. 345-376 in Merritt, R.W. & Cummins, K.W. (Eds.), An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. 441 pp. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque. Coffman, W.P. & Ferrington, L.C., Jr. 1996. Chironomidae. Pp. 635-754 in Merritt, R.W. & Cummins, K.W. (Eds.), An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. Third edition. 4, 862 pp. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque. Coquillett, D.W. 1910. The type-species of the North American genera of Diptera. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 37: 499-647. Cranston, P.S. 1995. Systematics. Pp. 31-61 in Armitage, P.D., Cranston, P.S. & Pinder, L.C.V. (Eds.), The Chironomidae. The biology and ecology of non-biting midges. xi, 572 pp. Chapman & Hall, London. 52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 Cranston, P.S. & Martin, J. 1989. Family Chironomidae. Pp. 252—274 in Evenhuis, N.L. (Ed.), Catalog of the Diptera of the Australasian and Oceanic Regions. Bishop Museum Special Publication, 86. 1155 pp. Honolulu. ; Cranston, P.S., Oliver, D.R. & Sether, O.A. 1989. The adult males of Orthocladiinae (Diptera: Chironomidae) of the Holarctic region—Keys and diagnoses. Entomologica scandinavica Supplement, 34: 165-352. Edwards, F.W. 1929. British non-biting midges (Diptera, Chironomidae). Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London, 77: 279-430. Epler, J.H. 2001. Identification Manual for the larval Chironomidae (Diptera) of North and South Carolina. A guide to the taxonomy of the midges of the southeastern United States, including Florida. Special Publication SJ2001—SP13. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC, and St. Johns River Water Manage- ment District, Palatka, FL. Evenhuis, N.L. (Ed.). 1989. Appendix I. Diptera of Antarctica and subantarctic islands. Pp. 797-804 in Evenhuis, N.L. (Ed.), Catalog of the Diptera of the Australasian and Oceanic Regions. Bishop Museum Special Publication, 86. 1155 pp. Honolulu. Freeman, P. & Cranston, P.S. 1980. Family Chironomidae. Pp. 175-202 in Crosskey, R.W. (Ed.), Catalogue of the Diptera of the Afrotropical Region. 1437 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. Goetghebuer, M. 1940-1950. Tendipedidae (Chironomidae). f) Subfamilie Orthocladinae. A. Die Imagines. Jn Lindner, E. (Ed.), Die Fliegen der palaearktischen Region, vol. 3, family 13g. 208 pp., 24 pls. E. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart. Goetghebuer, M. & Lenz, F. 1950. Tendipedidae (Chironomidae). h) Subfamilie Clunioninae. In Lindner, E. (Ed.), Die Fliegen der palaearktischen Region, vol. 3, family 13h. 23, | pp. E. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart. Hardy, D.E. 1960. Diptera: Nematocera—Brachycera (except Dolichopodidae). Pp. 128-137 in Zimmerman, E.C. (Ed.), Insects of Hawaii, vol. 10. 368 pp. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. S Johannsen, O.A. 1937. Aquatic Diptera. Part III. Chironomidae: subfamilies Tanypodinae, Diamesinae, and Orthocladiinae. Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station Memoir, 205: 1-84. Kellogg, V.L. 1900. An extraordinary new maritime fly. Biological Bulletin, 1: 81-87. Kieffer, J.J. 1906a. Diptera. Fam. Chironomidae. Jn Wytsman, P. (Ed.), Genera Insectorum, 42: 1-78. Kieffer, J.J. 1906b. Description de nouveaux Dipteres Nématocéres d'Europe. Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles, 2e partie (Mémoires), 30: 311-348. Kieffer, J.J. 1911a. Bemerkungen zur Arbeit des Herrn Dr. Speiser tber die Dipteren-Gruppe der sogenannten Heleinae. Zoologische Jahrbticher, Abteilung ftir Systematik, Geographie und Biologie der Tiere, 30: 509-525. Kieffer, J.J. 1911b. Les chironomides (Tendipedidae) de |’ Himalaya et d’Assam. Records of the Indian Museum, 6: 319-349. Kieffer, J.J. 1923. Chironomides nouveaux ou peu connus de la région paléarctique (suite et fin). Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles, 2e partie (Mémoires), 42: 138-180. Langton, P.H. 1991. A key to pupal exuviae of West Palaearctic Chironomidae. 386 pp. P.H. Langton, Huntingdon, U.K. Malloch, J.R. 1915. The Chironomidae, or midges, of Illinois, with particular reference to the species occurring in the Illinois River. Bulletin of the Illinois State Laboratory of Natural History, 10: 275-543. Oliver, D.R., Dillon, M.E. & Cranston, P.S. 1990. 4 catalog of Nearctic Chironomidae. 89 pp. Publication 1857/B, Agriculture Canada Research Branch. Rossaro, B., Lencioni, V. & Casalegno, C. 2003. Revision of West Palaearctic species of Orthocladius s. str. van der Wulp, 1874 (Diptera: Chironomidae: Orthocladiinae), with a new key to species. Studi Trentini di Scienze Naturali—Acta Biologica, 79: 213-241. Sabrosky, C.W. 1998. Family-group names in Diptera. PDF file on CD-ROM, Diptera Data Dissemination Disk, 1. [11], 576 pp. North American Dipterists’ Society, Washington, D.C. [Print version 1999: Myia, 10: 1-576.] Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 53 Sexther, O.A. 1977. Female genitalia in Chironomidae and other Nematocera: morphology, phylogenies, keys. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 197. viii, 209 pp. Seether, O.A. 2004. A review of Orthocladius subgen. Symposiocladius Cranston (Diptera: Chironomidae). Aquatic Insects, 25: 281-317. Sether, O.A. 2005. A new subgenus and new species of Orthocladius van der Wulp, with a phylogenetic evaluation of the validity of the subgenera of the genus (Diptera: Chironomidae). Zootaxa, 974: 1—56. Sether, O.A., Ashe, P. & Murray, D.A. 2000. Family Chironomidae. Pp. 113-334 in Papp, L. & Darvas, B. (Eds.), Contributions to a manual of Palaearctic Diptera (with special reference to the flies of economic importance), Appendix vol. 604 pp. Science Herald, Budapest. Soponis, A.R. 1977. A revision of the Nearctic species of Orthocladius ( Orthocladius) van der Wulp (Diptera: Chironomidae). Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada, 102: 1-4, 1-187. Spies, M. 1999. Overlooked historic descriptions. Chironomus Newsletter of Chironomid Research, 12: 24. Spies, M. 2005. On selected family-group names in Chironomidae (Insecta, Diptera), and related nomenclature. Zootaxa, 894: 1-12. Spies, M. & Reiss, F. 1996. Catalog and bibliography of Neotropical and Mexican Chironomidae (Insecta, Diptera). Spixiana Supplement, 22: 61-119. Spies, M. & Sxther, O.A. 2004. Notes and recommendations on taxonomy and nomenclature of Chironomidae (Diptera). Zootaxa, 752: 1-90. Strenzke, K. 1960. Metamorphose und Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen der Gattung Clunio Hal. (Dipt.). Annales Zoologici Societatis Zoologicae-Botanicae Fennicae ‘Vanamo’, 22(4). 30 pp. Sublette, J.E. & Sublette, M.S. 1973. Family Chironomidae. Pp. 389-422 in Delfinado, M. & Hardy, D.E. (Eds.), A catalog of the Diptera of the Oriental region, vol. I, Suborder Nematocera. [10], 618 pp. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Townes, H.K., Jr. 1945. The Nearctic species of Tendipedini [Diptera, Tendipedidae (= Chironomidae)]. The American Midland Naturalist, 34: 1-206. Walker, F. 1856. Insecta britannica. Diptera. Vol. Ill. xiv, 352 pp., pls. 21-30. Lovell Reeve, London. Wiederholm, T. (Ed.). 1983. Chironomidae of the Holarctic region. Keys and diagnoses. Part 1. Larvae. Entomologica scandinavica Supplement, 19: 1-457. Wiederholm, T. (Ed.). 1986. Chironomidae of the Holarctic region. Keys and diagnoses. Part 2. Pupae. Entomologica scandinavica Supplement, 28: 1-482. Wiederholm, T. (Ed.). 1989. Chironomidae of the Holarctic region. Keys and diagnoses. Part 3. Adult males. Entomologica scandinavica Supplement, 34: 1-532. Wirth, W.W. 1949. A revision of the clunionine midges with descriptions of a new genus and four new species (Diptera: Tendipedidae). University of California Publications in Entomology, 8: 151-182. Wulp, F.M. van der. 1874a. [... over het geslacht Chironomus Meig. ...] Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 16: 1xix—1xxi. Wulp, F.M. van der. 1874b. Dipterologische aanteekeningen. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 17: 109-148. Wulp, F.M. van der. 1877. Diptera Neerlandica. De tweevleugelige insecten van Nederland, vol. 1. xvii, 497 pp. Martinus Nijhoff, ’s-Gravenhage. Zetterstedt, J.W. 1838. Sectio tertia. Diptera. Insecta lapponica, 3: 477-868. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 62: 126. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 Case 3372 Brachyplatystoma Bleeker, 1862 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): proposed precedence over Piratinga Bleeker, 1858 and Piramutana Bleeker, 1858 Alberto Akama Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Avenida Nazaré, Caixa Postal 42594, Sado Paulo-SP 04299-970, Brazil (e-mail: aakama@gmail.com) John G. Lundberg Department of Ichthyology, Academy of Natural Sciences, 1900 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Philadelphia, PA 19103, U.S.A. (e-mail: lundberg@acnatsci.org) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the usage of the name Brachyplatystoma Bleeker, 1862 for a genus of South American freshwater catfishes (family PIMELODIDAE) highly valued as a food resource and often referred to as “Goliath Catfishes’. The name Brachyplatystoma has been continually used for over 110 years but is threatened by two senior subjective synonyms, Piratinga Bleeker, 1858 and Piramutana Bleeker, 1858, which have been little used. It is proposed that the name Brachyplatystoma Bleeker, 1862 be given precedence over the names Piratinga Bleeker, 1858 and Piramutana Bleeker, 1858 whenever these names are considered to be synonyms. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Siluriformes; PIMELODIDAE; Brachyplatystoma; Piramutana; Piratinga; Brachyplatystoma vaillantii; catfish; South America. 1. The genus Piratinga was established by Bleeker (1858, p. 357) for two South American catfish species, Bagrus reticulatus Kner, 1858 (p. 376) and Bagrus goliath Kner, 1858. Bleeker (1862, p. 11) designated Bagrus reticulatus Kner, 1858 as the type species of Piratinga (see Eschmeyer, 1990). Bagrus reticulatus is considered as a junior subjective synonym of Platystoma vaillantii Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840 (Lundberg & Littman, 2003). 2. Bleeker (1858, pp. 355, 357) also introduced Piramutana for the South American catfish Bagrus piramuta Kner, 1858 (p. 382), which is the type species of the genus by monotypy. Bagrus piramuta is considered to be a junior subjective synonym of Platystoma vaillantii Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840 (Lundberg & Littman, 2003). 3. Bleeker (1862, p. 10) briefly described the genus Brachyplatystoma and designated its only included species, Platystoma vaillantii Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840 (p. 21), as the type (also by monotypy). Bleeker (1862, p. 11) also listed and redescribed Piramutana and Piratinga. Bleeker’s (1858) work was Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 55 overlooked by many subsequent authors who attributed Piramutana and Piratinga to Bleeker (1862). Jordan (1919) correctly cited Bleeker’s (1858) work for both genera. Nevertheless, no one has treated Brachyplatystoma as a junior synonym of either Piramutana or Piratinga. 4. Giinther (1864, p. 106) considered Brachyplatystoma as a junior synonym of Platystoma Agassiz in Spix & Agassiz, 1829 (p. 23) (generic name preoccupied in Diptera). Also, Giinther (1864, pp. 110-112) treated both Piramutana and Piratinga as valid but incorrectly referenced them as Bleeker (1862). 5. Eigenmann & Eigenmann (1888, 1890) used both Piramutana and Brachyplaty- stoma but considered Piratinga as a junior synonym of Brachyplatystoma. These authors treated Piramutana as monotypic, and expanded Brachyplatystoma to include four species: Platystoma vaillantii Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840; Pimelodus filamentosus Lichtenstein, 1819; Bagrus reticulatus Kner, 1858; and Bagrus rousseauxii Castelnau, 1855. 6. Goeldi (1868) used Piratinga for Bagrus rousseauxii Castelnau, 1855 (with Bagrus goliath Kner, 1858 as a junior synonym) and a new species Piratinga pira-aiba, without mention of the type species Bagrus reticulatus Kner, 1858. In 1900 the same author placed Piratinga pird-aiba in synonymy with Pimelodus filamentosus Lichtenstein, 1819 and recognized two other species in the genus: Bagrus goliath Kner, 1858 and Bagrus reticulatus Kner, 1858. 7. Piramutana was listed by several authors during the 20" century: Eigenmann (1910), Jordan (1919), Fowler (1939, 1941, 1945, 1951), Eigenmann & Allen (1942), Gosline (1945), Burgess (1989), Eschmeyer (1990, 1998) and Lundberg et al. (1991). Among these, Fowler (1941, fig. 18, p. 380) misidentified Platystoma mucosa Vaillant, 1880 as Piramutana piramuta (Kner, 1858). Burgess (1989) reprinted Fowler’s figure of Platysilurus along with a short description of Piramutana piramuta apparently based on Eigenmann & Eigenmann (1890). 8. In a review of ‘goliath’ catfishes, Miranda Ribeiro (1918) treated as congeneric Brachyplatystoma, Piramutana and Piratinga but gave seniority to Brachyplaty- stoma perhaps because of its page precedence in Bleeker (1862), the only Bleeker publication cited. 9. The genus Brachyplatystoma is well established in zoology, including especially fisheries biology and ecology, having been used by the following authors in the last 50 years: Lowe McConnell (1962), Mees (1974, 1986), Taylor (1977), Petrere (1978), Britski (1981), Goulding (1981), Barthem (1984), Mendes dos Santos et al. (1984), Castro (1986), Barriga (1991), Robins et al. (1991), Lundberg et al. (1991), Cervigon et al. (1992), Ferreira et al. (1996), Boujard et al. (1997), Barthem & Goulding (1997), Ferreira et al. (1998), Agudelo Cordoba et al. (2000), Le Bail et al. (2000), Ponton & Mérigoux (2001), Lundberg & Parisi (2002), Lundberg & Littman (2003), Chaves et al. (2003), Shibatta (2003), Lasso et al. (2004), Riede (2004) and Lundberg & Akama (2005). In the interest of stability we propose that the name Brachyplaty- stoma Bleeker, 1862 be given precedence over both Piratinga Bleeker, 1858 and Piramutana Bleeker, 1858, whenever these names are considered to be synonyms. Therefore, the case is referred to the Commission under Articles 23.9.3 and 81.2.3 of the Code. 10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: Nn fon) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 (1) to use its plenary power to give the generic name Brachyplatystoma Bleeker, 1862 precedence over Piratinga Bleeker, 1858 and Piramutana Bleeker, 1858 whenever it and either of the two are considered to be synonyms; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Brachyplatystoma Bleeker, 1862 (gender: neuter), type species by original designation Platystoma vaillantii Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840, with the endorsement that it is to be given priority over the names Piratinga Bleeker, 1858 and Piramutana Bleeker, 1858 whenever it and either of these names are considered to be synonyms; (b) Piratinga Bleeker, 1858 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Bleeker (1862) Bagrus reticulatus Kner, 1858, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name Brachyplaty- stoma Bleeker, 1862, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (c) Piramutana Bleeker, 1858 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Bagrus piramuta Kner, 1858, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name Brachyplatystoma Bleeker, 1862, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) vaillantii Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840, as published in the binomen Platystoma vaillantii (specific name of the type species of Brachy- platystoma Bleeker, 1862); (b) reticulatus Kner, 1858, as published in the binomen Bagrus reticulatus (specific name of the type species of Piratinga Bleeker, 1858); (c) piramuta Kner, 1858, as published in the binomen Bagrus piramuta (specific name of the type species of Piramutana Bleeker, 1858). Acknowledgements We thank Michael S. Engel and C. Richard Robins for helpful comments on a previous draft of this application. The research leading to this application was supported by NSF DEB-0089612 to J.G. Lundberg. Publication of this paper was supported by the All Catfish Species Inventory (NSF DEB-0315963). References Agudelo Cordoba, E., Salinas, Y., Sanches, C.L., Mumoz, D.L., Alonso, J.C., Arteaga, M.E., Rodriguez, O.J., Anzola, N.R., Acosta, L.E., Nunez, M. & Valdés, H. 2000. Bagres de la Amazonia colombiana: un recurso sin fronteras. 253 pp. Instituto Amazonico de Investigaciones Cientificas (SINCHI)-Ministerio del ambiente, Bogota, Colombia. Barriga, R. 1991. Peces de agua dulce del Ecuador. Revista de Informacion tecnico-cientifica, Quito, Ecuador, Politecnica, 16(3): 7-88. Barthem, R.B. 1984. Pesca experimental e seletividade de redes de espera para espécies de peixes amazonicos. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi (Zoologia), 1(1): 57-S8. Barthem, R. & Goulding, M. 1997. The Catfish Connection: Ecology, Migration and Conservation of Amazon Predators. 144 pp. Columbia University Press, New York. Bleeker, P. 1858. De visschen van den Indischen Archipel. Beschreven en toegelicht. Siluri. Acta Societatia Scientiarum Indo-Neérlandicae, 4: 1-xii, 1-370. Bleeker, P. 1862. Atlas ichthyologique des Indes Orientales Néérlandaises, publié sous les auspices du Gouvernement colonial néérlandais. Tome II. Siluroides, Chacoides et Hétérobranchoides. 112 pp., pls. 49-101. Amsterdam. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 57 Boujard, T., Pascal, M., Meunier, J.F. & Le Bail, P.Y. 1997. Poissons de Guyane. Guide écologique de l Approuague et de la réserve des Nouragues. 219 pp. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Paris. Britski, H.A. 1981. Sobre um novo género e espécie de Sorubiminae da Amazonia (Pisces, Siluriformes). Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia (Sao Paulo), 34(7): 109-114. Burgess, W.E. 1989. An atlas of freshwater and marine catfishes. A preliminary survey of the Siluriformes. 784 pp. T.F.H. Publications, Neptune City, New Jersey. Castelnau, F.L. 1855. Poissons. in: Animaux nouveaux or rares recueillis pendant l’expédition dans les parties centrales de ! Amérique du Sud, de Rio de Janeiro a Lima, et de Lima au Para; exécutée par ordre du gouvernement Frangais pendant les années 1843 a 1847. xii, 112 pp. P. Bertrand, Paris. Castro, D.M. 1986. Los bagres de la subfamilia Sorubiminae de la Orinoquia e Amazonia Colombiana (Siluriformes—Pimelodidae). Boletin Ecotropica, 13: 1-40. Cervigon, F., Cipriani, R., Fischer, W., Garibaldi, L., Hendrickx, M., Lemus, A.J., Marquez, R., Poutiers, J.M., Robaina, G. & Rodriguez, B. 1992. Fichas FAO de identificacion de especies para los fines de la pesca. Guia de campo de las especies comerciales marinas y de aquas salobres de la costa septentrional de Sur América. FAO, Rome. 513 pp. Preparado con el financiamento de la Comision de Comunidades Europeas y de NORAD. Chaves, R.A., de Araujo Silva, K.C., Cintra, C.H.A. & da Silva Aviz, J. 2003. Sobre a pesca da piramutaba, Brachyplatystoma vaillantii (Valenciennes, 1840) em pescarias da frota industrial no Estado do Para. Boletim Técnico Cientifico CEPNOR, 3(1): 163-177. Cuvier, G. & Valenciennes, A. 1840. Histoire naturelle des poissons. Tome quinziéme. Suite du livre dix-septiéme. Siluroides. xxxi, 540 pp., pls. 421-455. Ch. Pitois & V°. Levrault, Paris & Strasbourg. Eigenmann, C.H. 1910. Catalogue of the fresh-water fishes of tropical and south temperate America. Reports of the Princeton University expeditions to Patagonia 1896-1899, Zoology, 3(2): 375-511. Eigenmann, C.H. & Allen, W.R. 1942. Fishes of western South America. I. The intercordilleran and Amazonian lowlands of Peru. II.- The high pampas of Peru, Bolivia, and northern Chile. With a revision of the Peruvian Gymnotidae, and of the genus Orestias. xv, 494 pp., 22 pls. University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. Eigenmann, C.H. & Eigenmann, R.S. 1888. Preliminary notes on South American Nematognathi, I. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, (2)1(2): 119-172. Eigenmann, C.H. & Eigenmann, R.S. 1890. A revision of the South American Nematognathi or cat-fishes. Occasional Papers of the California Academy of Sciences, 1: 1-509. Eschmeyer, W.N. (Ed.). 1990. Catalog of the Genera of Recent Fishes. 697 pp. California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco. Eschmeyer, W.N. (Ed.). 1998. Catalog of fishes. 3 vols. 2905 pp. California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco. Ferreira, E.J.G., Zuanon, J.A.S. & dos Santos. G.M. 1996. A list of commercial fish species from Santarém, State of Para, Brazil. Naga, The Iclarm Quarterly, 19(3): 41-44. Ferreira, E.J.G., Zuanon, J.A.S. & dos Santos, G.M. 1998. Peixes comerciais do médio Amazonas. Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renovaveis, Brasilia. Fowler, H.W. 1939. A collection of fishes obtained by Mr. William C. Morrow in the Ucayali River Basin, Peru. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 91: 219-289. Fowler, H.W. 1941. Los peces del Peru. Catalogo systematico de los peces que habitan en aquas peruanas (Continuacion). Boletin del Museo de Historia Natural Javier Prado, 5(18): 363-391. Fowler, H.W. 1945. Los peces del Peru. Catalogo systematico de los peces que habitan en aquas peruanas. 298 pp. Museo de Historia Natural Javier Prado, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Fowler, H.W. 1951. Os peixes de agua doce do Brasil, 3a. entrega. Arquivos do Museu de Zoologia (Sao Paulo), 6: 1-625. 58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 Goeldi, E.A. 1898. Primeira contribuigdao para o conhecimento dos peixes do valle do Amazonas e das Guyanas. Estudos ichthyologicos dos annos 1894-1898. Boletim do Museu Paraense de Historia Natural e Ethnographia ( Para), 2(4): 443-488. Goeldi, E.A. 1900. A Piraiba, giagantesco siluroideo do Amazonas. Boletim do Museu Paraense de Historia Natural e Ethnographia (Para), 3: 181-194. Gosline, W.A. 1945. Catalogo dos nematognatos de agua-doce da America do Sul e Central. Boletim do Museu Nacional, Zoologia, 33: 1-138. Goulding; M. 1981. Man and fisheries on an Amazon frontier. Jn Dumont, H.J. (Ed.), Developments in Hydrobiology, vol. 4. 137 pp. W. Tunk Publishers, The Hague. Giinther, A. 1864. Catalogue of the fishes in the British Museum, vol. 5. Catalogue of the Physostomi, containing the families Siluridae, Characinidae, Haplochitonidae, Sterno- ptychidae, Scopelidae, Stomiatidae in the collection of the British Museum. xxii, 455 pp. Trustees of the British Museum, London. Jordan, D.S. 1919. The genera of Fishes, part III, from Guenther to Gill, 1859-1880, twenty two years, with the accepted type of each. A contribution to stability of scientific nomenclature. Leland Stanford Jr. University Publications, University Series, (39): 285-410, i-xv pp. Stanford University, Stanford, California. Kner, R. 1858. Ichthyologische Beitrage. I]. Abtheilung. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Classe, Wien, 26: 373-448. Lasso, C.A., Lasso-Alcala, O.M., Pombo, A. & Smith, M. 2004. Distribution of fish species among localities during the AquaRAP survey of the Gulf of Paria and Orinoco delta, Venezuela. Pp. 315-319 in: Rapid assessment of the biodiversity and social aspects of the aquatic ecosystems of the Orinoco delta and the Gulf of Paria, Venezuela. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment 37. 360 pp. Conservation International, Washington D.C., U.S.A. Le Bail, P.-Y., Keith, P. & Planquette, P. 2000. Atlas des poissons d’eau douce de Guyane, vol. 2, fase. II. 307 pp. Publications scientifiques du M.N.H.N, Paris. Lichtenstein, M.H.C. 1819. Uebér einige neue Arten con Fischen aus der Gattung Silurus. Zoologisches Magazin, Wiedemann, 1(3): 57-63. Lowe-McConnell, R.H. 1962. Notes on the fishes found in Georgetown fish markets and their seasonal fluctuations. British Guiana Fisheries Division Bulletin, 4: 1-37. Lundberg, J.G. & Akama, A. 2005. Brachyplatystoma capapretum: A new species of Goliath Catfish from Amazon basin, with a reclassification of allied catfishes (Siluriformes: Pimelodidae). Copeia, 2005(3): 492-516. Lundberg, J.G. & Littmann, M. 2003. Pimelodidae. Pp. 432-446 in Reis, R.E., Kullander, S.O. & Ferraris, Jr., C.J. (Eds.), Check list of the freshwater fishes of South and Central America. Edipucrs, Porto Alegre, Brazil. Lundberg, J.G., Mago-Leccia, F. & Nass, P. 1991. Exallodontus aguanai, a new genus and species of Pimelodidae (Pisces: Siluriformes) from deep river channels of South America, and delimitation of the subfamily Pimelodinae. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 104: 840-869. Lundberg, J.G. & Parisi, B.M. 2002. Propimelodus, new genus, and a description of Pimelodus eigenmanni van der Stigchel, 1946, a long recognized yet poorly-known South American catfish (Pimelodidae: Siluriformes). Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 152: 75-88. Mees, G.F. 1974. The Auchenipteridae and Pimelodidae of Suriname (Pisces, Nematognathi). Zoologische Verhandelingen, 132: 1-256. Mees, G.F. 1986. Records of Auchenipteridae and Pimelodidae from French Guiana (Pisces, Nematognathi). Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (Series C), 89(3): 311-325. Mendes dos Santos, G., Jegu, M. & de Merona, B. 1984. Catalogo de peixes comerciais do baixo rio Tocantins. 83 pp. Eletronorte, Manaus. Miranda Ribeiro, A. 1918. Consideragdes sobre o genero Brachyplaystoma e Platystomatich- thys de Bleeker. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Ciéncias, 2: 246-293. Petrere Jr., M. 1978. Pesca e esforco de pesca no Estado do Amazonas. I. Esforco e captura por unidade de esforco. Acta Amazonica, 8(3): 439-454. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 59 Ponton, D. & Mérigoux, S. 2001. Description and ecology of some early life stages of fishes in the River Sinnamary (French Guiana, South America). Folia Zoologica, 50: 1-116. Riede, K. 2004. Global register of migratory species —from global to regional scales. Final Report of the R&D-Projekt 808 05 081. 329 pp. Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Bonn, Germany. Robins, C.R., Bailey, R.M., Bond, C.E., Brooker, J.R., Lachner, E.A., Lea, R.N. & Scott, W.B. 1991. World fishes important to North Americans. Exclusive of species from the continental waters of the United States and Canada. American Fisheries Society Special Publication, 21: 243. Shibatta, O.A. 2003. Phylogeny and classification of ‘Pimelodidae’. Pp. 385-399 in Arratia, G., Kapoor, B.G., Chardon, M. & Diogo, R. (Eds.), Catfishes. Science Publishers Inc., Enfield, New Hampshire. Spix, J.B. von & Agassiz, L. 1829-31. Selecta genera et species piscium quos in itinere per Brasiliam annis MDCCCXVII-MDCCCXX jussu et auspiciis Maximiliani Josephi I... . collegit et pingendos curavit Dr J.B. de Spix. Issued in two parts: part 1: xvi, 1, 82 pp., 48 pls. in 1829; part 2: 83-138 pp., pls. 49-101 in 1831. Monachii. Taylor, W.R. 1977. Pimelodidae. Jn W. Fischer (Ed.), FAO species identification sheets for fishery purposes. West Atlantic (Fishing Area 31), vol. 3. unpaginated. FAO, Rome. Vaillant, L.L. 1880. Synopsis des espéces de Siluridae recueillies par M. le Dr. Jobert, a Caldéron (Haute-Amazone). Bulletin de la Société Philomathique, (7)4: 150-159. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 63: 2. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 Case 3365 Atractus Wagler, 1828 and Atractus trilineatus Wagler, 1828 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation Marinus S. Hoogmoed Museu Paraense Emilio GoeldilCZO/Herpetologia, Caixa Postal 399, 66017-970 Belem, PA, Brazil (e-mail: marinus@museu-goeldi.br) Jay M. Savage Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182-4614, U.S.A. (e-mail: savy1@cox.net) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the generic name A tractus Wagler, 1828 for a group of common Neotropical snakes by suppression of its senior objective synonym Brachyura Kuhl and van Hasselt, 1822. In addition, it is proposed that the specific name Atractus trilineatus Wagler, 1828 (the name of the type species of Atractus) is conserved by suppression of its senior objective synonym Brachyorrhos kuhli H. Boie in Schlegel, 1826. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Serpentes; Atractus; Brachyura; Atractus trilin- eatus; Brachyorrhos kuhli; Neotropical snakes. 1. The generic name Aftractus Wagler, 1828 (col. 741) (type species Atractus trilineatus Wagler, 1828 (col. 742) by monotypy) has been in continuous use since Boulenger (1894, p. 300) for a tropical American snake genus containing ca. 80 valid species. Hoogmoed (1982) discovered that the generic name Atractus and that of its type species, A. trilineatus, are junior objective synonyms of Brachyura Kuhl & Hasselt, 1822a (p. 101) and its type species by monotypy, Coluber brachyura Kuhl, 1820 (p. 89), respectively. Although Hoogmoed (1982, p. 135) indicated that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should be asked to give precedence to Atractus and A. trilineatus no application has previously been submitted. 2. Kuhl (1820, p. 89) described Coluber brachyurus based on a snake (RMNH 48) from ‘Java’ in the Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden (formerly Ryksmuseum van Natuurliyke Historie, RMNH). This name is preoccupied by Coluber brachiurus Shaw, 1802 (p. 470) for an entirely different species. Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822a (p. 101) proposed Brachyura as a new genus and included as its only named species Coluber brachyura Kuhl, 1820 which suffices to make the generic name available and C. brachyura its type species by monotypy. 3. During the period 1823 to 1825 Heinrich Boie prepared a large, never to be published, manuscript (with ca. 40 plates) on the “Erpétologie de Java’ (Hoogmoed, 1980, 1982). This opus was based on specimens, notes, illustrations and descriptions sent to Leiden by C. Reinwardt, H. Kuhl and J.C. van Hasselt as members of the Dutch “Natuurkundige Commissie’ (= Natural History Commission of the Dutch Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 61 East Indies). Several subsequent herpetologists published many of the names and descriptions contained in the Erpétologie de Java and attributed them to H. Boie or the previously mentioned members of the “Natuurkundige Commissie’. 4. Friedrich Boie (1826, col. 981) made the generic name Brachyorrhos available by indication in listing Coluber albus Linnaeus, 1758 as its only included named species, although he indicated there were more by using the letters ‘u.v.a.’ (und viele andere = and many more). He credited the generic name to Kuhl based on the Erpétologie de Java. Hoogmoed (1982, p. 132) and Williams & Wallach (1989, p. 21) incorrectly cited this generic name as H. Boie in Schlegel, 1826 but Schlegel’s papers (1826a, 1826b) appeared after that of F. Boie. Schlegel (1826a, p. 236, 1826b, col. 291) listed Brachyorrhos as containing several species including ‘Kuhli B. (brachyurus Kuhl.) N. esp.’ Consequently Brachyorrhos kuhli H. Boie in Schlegel, 1826 must stand as a new replacement name (nomen novum) for the preoccupied name Coluber brachyurus Kuhl, 1820. 5. Wagler (1828, p. 742, pl. X) described the genus Atractus and its single species A. trilineatus. As pointed out by Hoogmoed (1982, p. 134), the names Coluber brachyura Kuhl, 1820 and its replacement Brachyorrhos kuhli H. Boie in Schlegel, 1826 are based on the same species as the holotype of Atractus trilineatus Wagler, 1828. The specimen on which these first two names are based (RMNH 48) also served as one of the types of Rabdosoma lineatum Duméril, Bibron & Dumeéril, 1854, long recognized as a synonym of A. trilineatus, and it was selected as lectotype for R. lineatum by Hoogmoed (1982, p. 135). At the end of the description of A. trilineatus Wagler (1828) says that ‘the Trois-rayes of Bonnaterre . .. and Lacépéde . . . seem to be alike’. Their species, however, according to the text and the picture, has a distinct, blunt head and 34 pairs of subcaudals. We checked the descriptions of the Trois-raies in Bonnaterre (1790, p. 42 C. [oluber] Ter-lineatus, pl. 41, fig. 3) and Lacépéde (1789, p. 254 La Trois-raies, pl. XIII, fig.1; 1790, p. 30 La Trois-raies, pl. II, fig. 1; 1799, p. 166 La Trois-raies, pl. XIII, fig. 1). The descriptions by both authors are slightly different, but are essentially the same, as Bonnaterre (1790) bases his completely on Laceépeéde (1789). Apart from the shape of the head (which is drawn distinctly wider than the body) and the much higher number of subcaudals (34 versus 15 in A. trilineatus), the size mentioned for the Trois-raies also seems well over the maximum size for A. trilineatus (un pied cinq pouces six lignes = one foot five inches and six lines). Thus, we conclude that the Trois-raies of Lacépéde (1789) and Bonnaterre (1790) represents a different (unknown) species and is not synonymous with Wagler’s Atractus trilineatus. 6. The generic name Brachyura Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822a has not been used except by Kuhl & van Hasselt (1822b, p. 473) and Kuhl (1824, p. 81) as a valid name since its proposal. The name Brachyorrhos kuhli H. Boie in Schlegel, 1826 was used only a few times during the 19'" century by Schlegel (1826a, p. 233; 1826b, col. 291), F. Boie (1827, col. 540), Wagler (1830, p. 190) and Schlegel (1837, p. 34). Atractus on the other hand has been used repeatedly and continuously for the genus of snakes in question following Boulenger (1894). This usage is summarized in Savage (1960) and Hoogmoed (1980) by citation of 75 publications. All subsequent treatments of the genus continue to use the name Atractus. Similarly, Atractus trilineatus Wagler, 1828 has been used universally during the same time period for the species from Trinidad, northern Venezuela, western Guyana and northern Brazil, which is the same taxon as 62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 Brachyorrhos kuhli. The name Atractus Wagler, 1828 may qualify as nomen protectum, as it has been in continuous use, while the name Brachyura Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822 has not been used since 1899. However, Atractus trilineatus Wagler, 1828 does not seem to have been used in 25 publications by ten different authors and therefore does not qualify for the automatic reversal of precedence under Article DBDoll 5 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to suppress the following names for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (a) Brachyura Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822; (b) kuhli H. Boie in Schlegel, 1826, as published in the binomen Brachyorrhos kuhli (senior objective synonym of Atractus trilineatus); (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Atractus Wagler, 1828 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy A. trilineatus Wagler, 1828; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name trilineatus, as published in the binomen Afractus trilineatus Wagler, 1828; (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Brachyura Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822, as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name Auh/j H. Boie in Schlegel, 1826, as published in the binomen Brachyorrhos kuhli (senior objective synonym of Atractus trilineatus) and as suppressed in (1)(b) above. References Boie, F. 1826. Generalibersicht der Familien und Gattungen der Ophidier. Jsis von Oken, 19(10): columns 981-982. Boie, F. 1827. Bemerkungen tiber Merrem’s Versuch eines Systems der Amphibien. Marburg, 1820. 1te Lieferung: Ophidier. Jsis von Oken, 20(6): columns 508-566. Bonnaterre, J.P. 1790. Tableau encyclopédique et methodique des trois régnes de la nature. xliv, 76 pp., 42 pls. Panckoucke Lib., Paris. Boulenger, G.A. 1894. Catalogue of the snakes in the British Museum (Natural History), 2: x1, 382 pp., 20 pls. British Museum (Natural History), London. Hoogmoed, M.S. 1980. Revision of the genus Atractus in Surinam, with the resurrection of two species (Colubridae, Reptilia). Notes on the herpetofauna of Surinam VII. Zoologische Verhandelingen Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie te Leiden, 175: 1-47. Hoogmoed, M.S. 1982. Nomenclatural problems relating to Atractus trilineatus Wagler, 1828. Zoologische Mededelingen Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie te Leiden, 56(10): 131-138. Kuhl, H. 1820. Beitradge zur Zoologie und vergleichenden Anatomie. Erste Abtheilung. Beitrdge zur Zoologie. Beitrdge zur Kenntniss der Amphibien. Pp. 75-132. Hermann, Frankfurt a. M. Kuhl, H. 1824. 69. Sur les reptiles de Java. Extrait d’une lettre addressée de Java en Hollande, par M. Kuhl, datée de Pijihorjavor au pied du Pangerango, le 18 juillet 1821. Bulletin des Sciences Naturelles et de Géologie, 20(2): 79-83. Kuhl, H. & van Hasselt, J.C. 1822a. Uittreksels uit brieven van de Heeren Kuhl en van Hasselt, aan de Heeren C.J. Temminck, Th. Swinderen en W. De Haan. Algemeene Konst- en Letterbode, 1(7): 99-104. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 63 Kuhl, H. & van Hasselt, J.C. 1822b. Aus einem Schreiben von Dr. Kuhl und Dr. van Hasselt aus Java. An Professor Th. van Swinderen zu Gronigen. Jsis von Oken, 10(4): columns 472-476. Lacépéde, B.G.E. de la V. 1789. Histoire Naturelle des Serpens, 2: 9, 20, 144, 527 pp., 22 pls. Hotel de Thou, Paris. Lacépéde, B.G.E. de la V. 1790. Histoire Naturelle des Serpens, 4: 8, 408 pp., 11 pls. Hotel de Thou, Paris. Lacépéde, B.G.E. de la V. 1799. Histoire Naturelle des Serpens, 2: 14, 280 pp., 22 pls. A. Blussé & Fils, Dordrecht. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Savage, J.M. 1960. A revision of the Ecuadorian snakes of the colubrid genus Atractus. Miscellaneous Publications Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 112: 1-86. Schlegel, H. 1826a (October). Notice sur l’erpétologie de Vile de Java; par M. Boié. (Ouvrage manuscrit.). Bulletin des Sciences Naturelles et de Géologie, Paris, 9(2): 233-240. Schlegel, H. 1826b. (December 31). Erpetologische Nachrichten. Jsis von Oken, 20(3): columns 281-294. Schlegel, H. 1837. Essai sur la physionomie des serpens. Partie descriptive. xv, 1-606, [1] pp. M.H. Schonekat, Libraire-Editeur, Amsterdam; J. Kips, J. Hz. J. et W.P. van Stockum, La Haye. Shaw, G. 1802. General zoology, or systematic natural history, vol. Ill, part 1. vi, [ii], 615 pp. G. Kearsley, London. Wagler, J.G. 1828. Ausziige aus seinem Systema Amphibiorum. Jsis von Oken, 21(7): columns 740-744. Wagler, J.G. 1830. Nattirliches System der Amphibien mit vorangehender Classification der Sdugthiere und Vogel. Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Zoologie. vi, 354 pp. J.G. Cotta, Miinchen, Stuttgart, Tubingen. Williams, K.L. & Wallach, V. 1989. Snakes of the world. Volume 1. Synopsis of snake generic names. [vi], vill, 234 pp. Krieger Publishing, Malabar, Florida. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 63: 1. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 Comments on the proposed conservation of Oncopus Thorell, 1876 and ONCOPODIDAE Thorell, 1876 (Arachnida, Opiliones) (Case 3350; BZN 63: 167-171) (1) Gonzalo Giribet Associate Professor of Biology and Associate Curator of Invertebrates, Museum of Comparative Zoology Department of Organismic & Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, 16 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A. (e-mail: ggiribet@oeb.harvard.edu) I found it strange that the names Oncopus and ONCOPODIDAE are pre-occupied, but I concur with the authors’ view about the inconvenience of using a new name for both taxa since these two names are widely used in the arachnological literature. In addition, I am one of three Editors of a book currently in press with Harvard University Press (Harvestmen: The Biology of Opiliones) where both Oncopus and ONCOPODIDAE are used, and it would be bad if the names were replaced at the same time that the book came out. It would certainly create unnecessary confusion in the systematic community and would definitely not contribute to the interests of nomenclatural stability. (2) Similar letters of support for the conservation of Oncopus and ONCOPODIDAE were received from Dr Peter Jager (Sektion Arachnologie, Forschungsinstitut und Naturmuseum Senckenberg, .Senckenberganlage 25, D-60325 Frankfurt, Germany (e-mail: Peter. Jaeger@Senckenberg.de)), Dr. Jurgen Gruber (Curator of Arachnida (retired), Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, 3 Zoologische Abteilung, Burgring 7, A-1010 Wien, Austria (e-mail: juergen.gruber@nhm-wien.ac.at)) and Pakawin Dankittipakul (TIGER Insect Museum, Queen Sirikit Botanic Garden, P.O. Box 7, Mae Rim 50180, Chiang Mai, Thailand (e-mail: pakawin@gmail.com)). Comments on the proposed fixation of the feminine gender of the genus Trachys Fabricius, 1801 (Insecta, Coleoptera) and the form of derivation of family-group names based on Trachys (Case 3335; see BZN 63: 172-176, 273-274) (1) Ted C. MacRae Research Entomologist, Monsanto Company, 700 Chesterfield Parkway West, Chesterfield, MO 63017, U.S.A. (e-mail: ted.c.macrae@monsanto.com) I do not support the proposed fixation of the feminine gender of Trachys. Articles 30.1.2 through 30.1.3 of the Code give clear guidance on determining the gender of genus-group names based on Greek words transliterated to Latin or with a Latin or latinized suffix. The grammatically correct treatment of the name Trachys is masculine. This fact was first recognized many years ago, and even Bily & Kuban themselves readily acknowledge such in their proposal. Additionally, neither of the exceptions specified in Article 30.1.4 is applicable to Trachys — Fabricius did use feminine endings for the included species but did not expressly state that Trachys was neither formed from nor treated as a Latin or Greek word, and, as Bily & Kuban Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 65 have noted, there is no clear indication that Trachys or its stem are of common or variable gender. Thus, a masculine treatment is clearly called for. However, instead of accepting this guidance, Bily & Kuban invoke a nebulous argument involving ‘non-standard names’ and the idiosyncrasies of Fabricius’s nomenclatural practices in an attempt to justify a feminine treatment. Bily & Kuban also do not explain why a feminine treatment for Trachys is preferred or why this is in the best interest of stability. They cite a lack of uniformity in interpretation of the gender of Trachys in the literature and the desirability to resolve the ‘problem’ ahead of the completion of several current catalogue projects. However, I interpret this ‘lack of uniformity’ not so much a result of lingering disagreement over the grammatical correctness of a masculine treatment for Trachys, but rather reflecting the belated recognition of this fact. Most of the early literature promulgates Fabricius’s original, albeit grammati- cally incorrect, feminine treatment while a substantial volume of later literature has adopted the more grammatically correct masculine usage. I am unconvinced by these strained rationalizations for a feminine treatment of Trachys. In contrast, the evidence favoring a masculine treatment is clear (i.e. grammatical correctness and conformity with the Code). In my opinion, stability would be best served by maintaining a masculine treatment for Trachys. This becomes even more evident when one considers the impact of this question on other buprestid genus-group names ending in ‘-achys’ (e.g. Brachys, Neotrachys, Paratra- chys). For Brachys in particular, a genus that includes several commonly encountered North American species (e.g. B. aerosus, B. ovatus, B. tessellatus), there has been a preponderance of masculine usage for more than 60 years. Would fixation of the feminine gender for Trachys provide a precedent for reversing gender in Brachys as well? Or would such precedence apply only to genus-group names expressly derived from Trachys? Or will the gender of any genus-group name ending in ‘-achys’ need to be addressed individually by petition? Or are their genders assumed to be masculine, per the Code, unless petitioned otherwise? Such questions, should this ‘against-the-rules’ application to treat Trachys as feminine be accepted, are sure to arise repeatedly and would serve only to undermine uniform interpretation of gender for these other genus-group names. Greater stability will result if rules for trans- literation from Greek to Latin are applied properly and consistently, regardless of the extent of any past improper application. (2) Jacques Rifkind (Research Associate (Entomology), Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County) 5105 Morella Avenue, Valley Village, CA 91607, U.S.A. (e-mail: Clerid@aol.com) I am writing to recommend that the proposed fixation of the name Trachys to the feminine gender be rejected. Trachys is obviously a masculine name, regardless of how it has been treated, and maintaining and standardizing it as masculine creates no nomenclatural disruption. The modification of suffixes to form agreement with the names of genera happens every time a species is transferred to a genus with a different gender. Why should this minor inconvenience force a ruling in one case? | think it is best here to maintain a conservative approach by adhering to the rules and allowing the linguistic facts to determine how we treat a taxon name, rather than following arbitrary post-facto impulses to ‘tidy things up’. 66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 (3) Richard L. Westcott Plant Division, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Salem, Oregon, U.S.A. (e-mail: rwestcot@oda.state.or.us) I wish to comment on the proposal by Bily & Kuban to fix the gender of Trachys Fabricius, 1801 as feminine. I find their argument without merit. There is no question that Trachys is masculine, as those authors themselves pointed out in para. 6 of their application. Furthermore, the authors of this case point out that “. . . it seems clear that there is no indication that Trachys, or its stem, is of common or variable gender’. Therefore, Article 30.1.4.2 of the Code has no bearing on this case. Rather than purporting to know what Fabricius intended 206 years ago, or to promote ‘non-standard’ or ‘grammatically incorrect’ transliterations, is it not more parsimonious to infer that Fabricius simply brought across the feminine endings for his genus (7rachys) from the feminine genus Buprestis, wherein earlier names were included (e.g. Buprestis pygmaea L.), and made his specific names to conform? In the absence of being able to ascertain just what Fabricius was thinking (not that I believe it matters in this case), let us not promote instability by changing gender for what should be an unambiguous Greek word. If the proposal is accepted, then what befalls the genera Brachys (another clearly masculine derivation), Neotrachys, Paratrachys (all BUPRESTIDAE), and any other ‘-achys’ epithets that may exist in zoological nomenclature? It is a primary stated purpose of the Code to promote stability in zoological nomenclature. To change gender for a genus derived from a word where the gender is not in question, is not variable and where similarly derived genera either would not be in accordance or would need separate proposals to overturn their genders, does Just the opposite: it promotes instability. I strongly recommend that the Commission reject Case 3335. (4) Petr Zabransky Mautner Markhof-Gasse 13-15/6/23, A-1110 Wien, Austria I support the proposal by Bily & Kuban to rule that the gender of Trachys Fabricius, 1801 is feminine and that family-group names derived from that name should be formed by adding the appropriate ending to the name of the genus in the nominative case. Comment on the proposed conservation of the generic names Gnorimus Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828 and Osmoderma Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828 (Insecta, Coleoptera) (Case 3349; see BZN 63: 177-183, 274) Brett C. Ratcliffe Curator & Professor, Systematics Research Collections, W436 Nebraska Hall, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68588-0514, U.S.A. (e-mail: bratcliffel@unl.edu) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 67 I wish to indicate my full support for the arguments put forward by Krell, Ballerio, Smith and Audisio for conserving the generic names Gnorimus and Osmoderma. Nomenclatural stability would best be maintained by conserving these names and would reflect the current, worldwide usage of these names. The names recently ‘discovered’ and noted in the literature as senior synonyms (A/eurostictus Kirby, 1827 and Gymnodus Kirby, 1827) have long been forgotten and have not been used. They should not be resurrected. Comment on the proposed conservation of Cisseis Gory & Laporte de Castelnau, 1839 and Curis Gory & Laporte de Castelnau, 1838 (Insecta, Coleoptera) (Case 3366; see BZN 63: 247-250) Allen Sundholm (e-mail: Allen.Sundholm@lands.nsw.gov.au) I wish to add my support to Chuck Bellamy’s proposal in Case 3366 that the names Cisseis and Curis be conserved, on the same grounds which he has raised. I confirm that neither of the prior names is in use. Comment on the proposed conservation of Curculio contractus Marsham, 1802 (Insecta, Coleoptera) (Case 3367; see BZN 63: 251-254) Geoff Hancock Curator of Entomology, Hunterian Museum (Zoology),Graham Kerr Building, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 S8QOQ, Scotland, U.K. (e-mail: g.hancock@museum.gla.ac.uk) I would like to support the retention of the name Curculio contractus Marsham, 1802 for the common and widespread species that mines in the leaves of cruciferous plants. In addition to its broad distribution it has connections with agricultural/ horticultural practices. This is the result of feeding on the leaves of domesticated Brassica spp. and name changes would have an additional impact on economic entomological literature. Any alternative names based on one of the few small and isolated island populations are not helpful. These are almost certainly not distinctive species, varying only in colour and reduced wing size (see Hancock & Dyer, 2005; other data in preparation). These names include Ceutorhynchus pallipes Crotch, 1866, C. insularis Dieckmann, 1971 and [ab.] testaceipes Dieckmann, 1971 for populations on Lundy, St Kilda and Surtsey. In the last case particularly the beetles’ appearance on a recently erupted volcanic island and their likely recruitment from any neighbouring population throws doubt on speciation processes requiring geographical isolation. Additional reference Hancock, E.G. & Dyer, H. 2005. Finding Ceutorhynchus weevils (Coleoptera, Curculionidae) again on St Kilda. The Coleopterist, 14: 39-42. 68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of Rana ocellata Linnaeus, 1758 (Amphibia, Anura) : (Case 3323: see BZN 63: 184-193) Jay M. Savage Rana Dorada Enterprises, S.A., 3401 Adams Avenue, Suite A, San Diego, CA 92116-2490, U.S.A. (e-mail: savy!@cox.net) I write to register my support for the proposed conservation of usage of Rana _ocellata Linnaeus, 1758. Comment on the proposed precedence of Chelodina rugosa Ogilby, 1890 (currently Macrochelodina rugosa; Reptilia, Testudines) over Chelodina oblonga Gray, 1841 (Case 3351: see BZN 63: 187-193) Jay M. Savage Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182-4614, U.S.A. (e-mail: savy1@cox.net) I write in opposition to Thomson’s proposals regarding the names of several Australian turtles. I support the argument that action should be taken to conserve the name Chelodina oblonga Gray, 1841 for a species from southwestern Australia, a course rejected by Thomson in paragraph 12 of his application. Conservation of the name C. oblonga, used for the southwestern species since 1967 by most workers, could easily be accomplished by having the Commission set aside all previous type designations for that name and designating the lectotype (BMNH 1947.3.5.91) of Chelodina colliei Gray, 1856 as the neotype of C. oblonga. This would leave Chelodina rugosa Ogilby, 1890 as the valid name for the northern Australian species known by that name since it was removed from the synonymy of C. oblonga by Burbridge (1974). This action would contribute to the stability in the use of Australian turtle names as an extensive literature, documented in the Thomson proposal, has applied the names C. oblonga and C. rugosa to the southwestern and northern species, respectively. The status of the nominal genus Macrochelodina Wells & Wellington, 1985 (type: C. rugosa by action of Iverson et al., 2001) is unaffected by the proposed action. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous designations of type specimen for Chelodina oblonga Gray, 1841 and to designate as its neotype BMNH 1947.3.5.91, the lectotype of Chelodina colliei Gray, 1856; (2) to approve item (2) in the Thomson proposal: (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) oblonga Gray, 1841, as published in the binomen Chelodina oblonga and as defined by the neotype as designated in (1) above); (b) rugosa Ogilby, 1890, as published in the binomen Chelodina rugosa and as defined by the holotype (catalogue no. R6256 in the Australian Museum, Sydney) (type species of Macrochelodina Wells & Wellington, 1985). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 69 OPINION 2166 (Case 3304) Oceania Péron & Lesueur, 1810 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): usage conserved by the designation of Oceania armata KO6lliker, 1853 as the type species Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the usage of the generic name Oceania Péron & Lesueur, 1810 is conserved by the designation of Oceania armata KOlliker, 1853 as the type species. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Cnidaria; Hydrozoa; OCEANIIDAE; Oceania; Oceania armata; hydromedusae. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Oceania Péron & Lesueur, 1810 before the designation by Mayer (1910) of Oceania armata KOélliker, 1853 are set aside. The name Oceania Péron & Lesueur, 1810 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Mayer (1910) Oceania armata Kolliker, 1853 as ruled in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name armata Kolliker, 1853, as published in the binomen Oceania armata, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (specific name of the type species of Oceania Péron & Lesueur, 1810). (4) The name OcEANIIDAE Escholtz, 1829 (type genus Oceania Péron & Lesueur, 1810) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology (a valid emendation of the incorrect original spelling OCEANIDAE). The name OcEANIDAE Escholtz, 1829 is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (an incorrect original spelling of OCEANIIDAE). —a N — (5 wm History of Case 3304 An application to conserve the usage of the hydrozoan name Oceania Péron & Lesueur, 1810 by validating a previous but invalid designation by Mayer (1910) of Oceania armata K6lliker, 1853 as the type species was received from Peter Schuchert (Muséum dhistoire naturelle, Geneva 6, Switzerland) on 8 October 2003. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 62: 221-225 (December 2005). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. A correction to the spelling of the family-group name based on Oceania was published in BZN 63: 130, together with a proposal to place the relevant family- group names on the Official List and the Official Index. Decision of the Commission On | September 2006 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 62: 223 and 63: 130. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2006 the votes were as follows: 70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 Affirmative votes — 27: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Halliday, Kerzhner, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Lim, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Ng, Pape, Papp, Patterson, Pyle, Rosenberg, Song, Stys, van Tol and Zhang. Negative vote — 1: Grygier. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: armata, Oceania, KOlliker, 1853, Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Zoologie, 4: 323. Oceania Péron & Lesueur, 1810, Annales du Muséum national d'histoire naturelle de Paris, 14: 343. OCEANIDAE Escholtz, 1829, System der Acalephen. Eine ausftihrliche Beschreibung aller meduse- nartigen Strahltiere, p. 96. OCEANIIDAE Escholtz, 1829, System der Acalephen. Eine ausftihrliche Beschreibung aller medusenartigen Strahltiere, p. 96. The following is the reference for the designation of Oceania armata KOlliker, 1853 as the type species of the nominal genus Oceania Péron & Lesueur, 1810. Mayer, A.G. 1910. Medusae of the world. Hydromedusae, p. 147. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 71 OPINION 2167 (Case 3305) NAIDIDAE Ehrenberg, 1828 (Annelida, Clitellata): precedence over TUBIFICIDAE Vejdovsky, 1876 maintained Abstract. The Commission has ruled that precedence is maintained for NAIDIDAE Ehrenberg, 1828 over TUBIFICIDAE Vejdovsky, 1876 for a well-known group of aquatic oligochaetous clitellates. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Annelida; Oligochaeta; Clitellata; NAIDIDAE; TUBIFICIDAE; Nais; Tubifex; sludge worms. Ruling (1) The proposal to give TUBIFICIDAE Vejdovsky, 1876 precedence over NAIDIDAE Ehrenberg, 1828 whenever their type genera are placed in the same family- group taxon was not approved. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Nais Miller, 1774 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designa- tion by Sperber (1948) Nais barbata Miller, 1774; (b) Tubifex Lamarck, 1816 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Beddard (1895) Lumbricus tubifex Miller, 1774 (senior objective synonym of Tubifex rivulorum Lamarck, 1816). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) barbata Miller, 1774, as published in the binomen Nais barbata (specific name of the type species of Nais Miller, 1774); (b) tubifex Miller, 1774, as published in the binomen Lumbricus tubifex (specific name of the type species of Tubifex Lamarck, 1816). (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) NAIDIDAE Ehrenberg, 1828 (type genus Nais Miller, 1774); (b) TUBIFICIDAE Vejdovsky, 1876 (type genus Tubifex Lamarck, 1816). History of Case 3305 An application to give the family-group name TUBIFICIDAE Vejdovsky, 1876 precedence over NAIDIDAE Ehrenberg, 1828 for a well-known group of aquatic oligochaetous clitellates was received from Christer Erséus (Department of Zoology, Goteborg University, Géteborg, Sweden), Lena Gustavsson (Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm, Sweden) and Ralph O. Brinkhurst (3570 Cainsville Road, Lebanon, TN 37090, U.S.A.) on 21 October 2003. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 62: 226-231 (December 2005). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. A comment in support of the case was published in BZN 63: 48. 72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 Decision of the Commission On 1 September 2006 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 62: 229. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2006 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 10: Bock, Halliday, Kullander, Macpherson, Mahnert, Ng, Papp, Rosenberg, Song and Zhang. Negative votes — 18: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, Kerzhner, Kottelat, Krell, Lamas, Lim, Mawatari, Minelli, Pape, Patterson, Pyle, Stys and van Tol. Commissioners voting against the proposal to give precedence to TUBIFICIDAE Vejdovsky, 1876 over NAIDIDAE Ehrenberg, 1828 considered that the use of the former name was not so great as to justify reversal of precedence and that no confusion would result from adherence to priority. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: barbata, Nais, Miller, 1774, Vermium Terrestrium et Fluviatilium, seu Animalium Infusoriorum, Helminthicorum et Testaceorum, non Marinorum, Succincta Historia, vol. 1, part 2, p. 23. NAIDIDAE Ehrenberg, 1828, Symbolae physicae. Animalia evertebrata, p. 59. Nais Miller, 1774, Vermium Terrestrium et Fluviatilium, seu Animalium, Infusoriorum, Helminthicorum et Testaceorum, non Marinorum, Succincta Historia, vol. 1, part 2, p. 20. Tubifex Lamarck, 1816, Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres, p. 224. tubifex, Lumbricus, Muller, 1774, Vermium Terrestrium et Fluviatilium, seu Animalium Infusoriorum, Helminthicorum et Testaceorum, non Marinorum, Succincta Historia, vol. 1, part 2, p. 27. TUBIFICIDAE Vejdovsky, 1876, Sitzungsberichte der k. Bohmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaf- ten, Prag, 1875: 193. The following is the reference for the designation of Lwmbricus tubifex Miller, 1774 as the type species of the nominal genus Tubifex Lamarck, 1816: Beddard, F.E. 1895. A monograph of the order Oligochaeta, p. 243. The following is the reference for the designation of Nais barbata Miller, 1774 as the type species of the nominal genus Nais Miller, 1774: Sperber, C. 1948. Zoologiska Bidrag fran Uppsala, 28: 102. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 73 OPINION 2168 (Case 3292) Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890, Microcerotermes Silvestri, 1901 and NASUTITERMITINAE Hare, 1937 (Insecta, Isoptera): application to conserve names not approved Abstract. An application to conserve the generic names Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890 (and the family-group name based upon it, NASUTITERMITINAE Hare, 1937) and Microcerotermes Silvestri, 1901 for two well-known groups of ecologically and agriculturally important termites has not been approved. The Commission did not accept that the names Nasutitermes, the largest genus of termites in the world, and Microcerotermes were threatened by the little-known but possibly synonymous name Eutermes Heer, 1849, and considered that the authors of the application should, without recourse to the Commission, resolve the perceived problem by designating an appropriate species as type species of Nasutitermes. No names are placed on the Official Lists or Indexes. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Isoptera; NASUTITERMITINAE; Nasutitermes; Microcerotermes; Eutermes; termites. Ruling (1) It is hereby ruled that the application for the proposed conservation of Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890, Microcerotermes Silvestri, 1901 and NASUTITERMI- TINAE Hare, 1937 is not approved. No names are placed on the Official Lists or Indexes. History of Case 3292 An application to conserve the generic names Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890, Micro- cerotermes Silvestri, 1901 and NASUTITERMITINAE Hare, 1937 for two well-known groups of ecologically and agriculturally important termites was received from Michael S. Engel (Division of Entomology, Natural History Museum, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) and Kumar Krishna (Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.) on 7 July 2003. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 62: 8-13 (March 2005). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. A comment proposing an alternative solution to the perceived problem without recourse to the Commission was published in BZN 62: 149-150, to which the authors of the application replied in BZN 62: 240. An amplification of the suggested alternative solution was received and circulated to Commissioners. Decision of the Commission On | September 2006 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 62: 11. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2006 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 6: Bouchet (parts 1b, 2a, 3a), Krell, Macpherson, Mahnert, Papp and Patterson. 74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 Negative votes — 23: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bogutskaya, Bouchet (parts la, 5, 6), Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, Halliday, Kerzhner, Kottelat, Kullander, Lamas, Lim, Mawatari, Minelli, Ng, Pape, Pyle, Rosenberg, Song, Stys, van Tol and Zhang. Commissioners voting against the proposal agreed that action by the Commission was unnecessary and that the authors of the application should resolve the perceived problem by designation of a suitable type species for the nominal genus Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 75 OPINION 2169 (Case 3297) Sphyraena acus Lacépéde, 1803 (currently Tylosurus acus; Teleostei, BELONIDAE): reinstated as a valid name Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the name Sphyraena acus Lacépéde, 1803, is reinstated for a nearly worldwide species of needlefish. The name was suppressed and placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology in Opinion 900 (April 1970). Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; BELONIDAE; Ty/osurus acus; needlefish. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the ruling in Opinion 900(1) is amended to delete the name acus Lacépéde, 1803, as published in the binomen Sphyraena acus, from the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. (2) The name acus Lacépede, 1803, as published in the binomen Sphyraena acus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 3297 An application to reinstate the name Sphyraena acus Lacépéde, 1803 for a nearly worldwide species of needlefish was received from Bruce B. Collette (National Marine Fisheries Service Systematics Laboratory, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A) and N.V. Parin (P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia) on 26 August 2003. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 62: 232-236 (December 2005). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commis- sion’s website. A comment in support of the case from members of the Committee on Names of Fishes (a joint Committee of the American Fisheries Society and the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists) was published in BZN 63: 48-49. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 2006 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 62: 234. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2006 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 25: Bock, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Grygier, Halliday, Kerzhner, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Lim, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Pape, Papp, Patterson, Pyle, Rosenberg, Song, Stys, van Tol and Zhang. Negative votes — 3: Alonso-Zarazaga, Fautin and Ng. Voting against, Alonso-Zarazaga and Ng stressed the importance of zoologists following the rulings of the Commission; had this been done following the ruling in Opinion 900 the nomenclatural confusion outlined in the application would have been avoided. 76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(1) March 2007 Original reference The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: acus, Sphyraena, Lacépéde, 1803, Histoire naturelle des poissons, p. 325. Contents — continued On the proposed conservation of the generic names Gnorimus Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828 and Osmoderma Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828 (Insecta, Coleoptera). B.C. Ratcliffe } On the proposed conservation of Cisseis Gory & Laporte de Cassie 1839 aad Curis Gory & Laporte de Castelnau, 1838 (Insecta, Coleoptera). A. Sundholm . On the proposed conservation of Curculio contractus Marsham, 1802 (Insecta, Coleoptera). G. Hancock . cone On the proposed conservation of usage oF Rana Greiata LIBR, 1758 (Acai, Anura). J.M. Savage. On the proposed precedence of Chelodina rugosa Oxiby, 1890 (Conently Wacroets elodina rugosa; ae Testudines) over Chelodina es Gray, 1841. J.M. Savage . A choot re Moh mathet wees SAC hs secien MAL or Rulings of the Commission OPINION 2166 (Case 3304). Oceania Peron & Lesueur, 1810 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): usage conserved by the ry of Oceania armata Kolliker, 1853 as the type species . Pal cat iin itch waren arcs ey ee bunthae OPINION 2167 (Case 3305). NAIDIDAE Ehrenberg, 1828 (Annelida, Clitellata): precedence over TUBIFICIDAE Vejdovsky, 1876 maintained i OPINION 2168 (Case 3292). Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890, Meroeeraterines Silvestni 1901 and NASUTITERMITINAE Hare, 1937 ee ae application to conserve names not approved . OPINION 2169 (Case 3297). Gaaanea acus Macepede! “1803 (curently Ty Tosh us acus; Teleostei, BELONIDAE): reinstated as a valid name Berean 66 67 67 68 68 WiHOAAANIN coms Notices . : New npamemionert to the Comanesion ; The International Commission on Zoological Nemencitere 5 Members of the Commission : The International Trust for Zoological anercicitine Members of the Trust . The Commission’s website ; The International Code of Lael Neuneceine : The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Publications . Applications Eatoniella Dall, 1876 and EATONIELLIDAE Ponder, 1965 ee mae proposed conservation. D. Kadolsky ; 2, tO Cardium egmontianum Shuttleworth, 1856 (currently Trachy car Bis comnaiiae Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposed conservation of usage. H.G. Lee & R.E. Petit . ARANEIDAE Clerck, 1758, Araneus Clerck, 1758 and Tegenaria Latreille, 1804 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed conservation. N.J. Kluge . Etisus H. Milne Edwards, 1834 and Chlorodiella Rathbun, 1897 (Cnitiace, Deed poda, Brachyura): proposed conservation of the generic names by suppression of the generic name Clorodius A-G. Desmarest, 1823. P.K.L. Ng & L.B. Holthuis . Phyllomorpha Laporte, 1833 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed conservation of eae ing and existing usage. I.M. Kerzhner . Bothynus Hope, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera, SCARABAEIDAR): Siggesedl egies ae i usage by designation of Scarabaeus ascanius Kirby, 1819 as the type species. B.C. Ratcliffe & A.B.T. Smith . ; ; Onthophagus sycophanta Fairmaire, 1887 assem, Caleaiee Boece. conserva- tion of the specific name. F.-T. Krell Fidia Baly, 1863 and Lypesthes Baly, 1863 (Insecta, Sele: proposed conser- vation of usage. M.S. Strother, V.M. Bayless & C.L. Staines . _Ataenius Harold, 1867 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence over Aphodinus Motschulsky, 1862. H.F. Howden & A. Smetana. : E Dactylozodes Chevrolat, 1838 (Insecta, Coleoptera): prgpes eoceer aod a usage. C.L. Bellamy & T.M. Rodriguez . ORTHOCLADINAE Kieffer, 1911 and Oniieciadins van ier Wulp, 1874 (assve. Diptera, CHIRONOMIDAE): proposed conservation of subfamilial name and fixation of type species. M. Spies . Brachyplatystoma Bleeker, 1862 (Ostcichthyes: Guenter: proposed miseseace over Piratinga Bleeker, 1858 and Piramutana Bleeker, 1858. A. Akama & J.G. Lundberg . : Atractus Wagler, 1828 aad ae actus tr ees Wagler, 1828 (Repili, Serpentes} proposed conservation. M.S. Hoogmoed & J.M. Savage . : Comments On the proposed conservation of Oncopus Thorell, 1876 and ONcopopIDAE Thorell, 1876 (Arachnida, Opiliones). G. Giribet; P. Jager, J. Gruber & P. Dankittipakul. On the proposed fixation of the feminine gender of the genus Trachys Fabricius, 1801 (Insecta, Coleoptera) and the form of derivation of family-group names based on Trachys. T.C. MacRae; J. Rifkind; R.L. Westcott; P. Zabransky. Page AMunbk BRN NY 64 64 Continued on Inside Back Cover Printed in the United Kingdom by Henry Ling Limited, at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, DT] 1HD {Meet The | Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature “se on Zoological Nomenclature THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 2007 is £150 or US$270 or €270, postage included; individual subscribers for personal use are offered a subscription of £75 or US$135 or €135. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 020 7942 5653) (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) (http://www.iczn.org) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Officers President Vice-President Executive Secretary Vacant Members Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga (Spain; Coleoptera) Dr N. G. Bogutskaya (Russia; Ichthyology) Prof P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) Prof D. J. Brothers (South Africa; Hymenoptera) Prof D. G. Fautin (U.S.A.; Cnidaria) Dr M. J. Grygier (Japan; Crustacea) Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari) Prof I. M. Kerzhner (Russia; Heteroptera) Dr M. Kottelat (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Dr F.-T. Krell (U.S.A.; Coleoptera) Dr S. O. Kullander (Sweden; Ichthyology) Prof Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera) Prof S. Lim (Malaysia; Parasitology) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Secretariat Prof D. J. Brothers (South Africa) Dr A. Polaszek (U_K.) Dr V. Mahnert (France; Ichthyology) Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan; Bryozoa) Prof A. Minelli (/taly; Myriapoda) Dr P. K. L. Ng (Singapore; Crustacea, Ichthyology) Dr T. Pape (Denmark; Diptera) Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera) Prof D. J. Patterson (U.S.A.; Protista) Dr R. Pyle (U.S.A.; Ichthyology) Dr G. Rosenberg (U.S.A.; Mollusca) Prof D. X. Song (China; Hirudinea) Prof P. Stys (Czech Republic; ' Heteroptera) Mr J. van Tol (The Netherlands; Odonata) Dr Z.-Q. Zhang (New Zealand; Acari) Dr A. Polaszek (Executive Secretary and Bulletin Editor) Dr S. Coppard (Development Officer) Mrs S. Morris (Zoologist) Dr S. Nikolaeva (Zoologist) Mr J. D. D. Smith (Scientific Administrator) Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman) Dr P. L. Forey (Secretary and Managing Director) © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2007 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) Junef2007 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 64, part 2 (pp. 77-136) 30 June 2007 Notices (1) Applications and correspondence relating to applications to the Commission should be sent to the Executive Secretary at the address given on the inside of the front cover and on the Commission website. English is the official language of the Bulletin. Please take careful note of instructions to authors (present in a one or two page form in each volume) as incorrectly formatted applications will be returned to authors for revision. The Commission’s Secretariat will answer general nomenclatural (as opposed to purely taxonomic) enquiries and assist with the formulation of applications. As far as it can, the Secretariat will check the main nomenclatural references in applications. Correspondence should be sent by e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ where possible. (2) The Commission votes on applications eight months after they have been published, although this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Comments for publication relating to applications (either in support or against, or offering alternative solutions) should be submitted as soon as possible. Comments may be edited. (3) Requests for help and advice on the Code can be made direct to the Commission and other interested parties via the Internet. Membership of the Commission’s Discussion List is free of charge. You can subscribe and find out more about the list at http://lst.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list. (4) The Commission also welcomes the submission of general-interest articles on nomenclatural themes or nomenclatural notes on particular issues. These may deal with taxonomy, but should be mainly nomenclatural in content. Articles and notes should be sent to the Executive Secretary. New applications to the Commissicn The following new applications to the Commission have been received since the last issue of the Bulletin (volume 64, part 1, 31 March 2007) went to press. Under Article 82 of the Code, the existing usage of names in the applications is to be maintained until the Commission’s rulings on the applications (the Opinions) have been published. CASE 3406: Belostoma annulipes Herrich-Schaeffer, 1845 (currently Lethocerus annulipes; Insecta, Heteroptera, BELOSTOMATIDAE): proposed conservation of usage of the specific name. P.J. Perez-Goodwyn. CASE 3407: Drosophila Fallén, 1832 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of usage. K. van der Linde, G. Bachli, M.J. Toda, W.-X. Zhang, T. Katoh, Y.-G. Hu & GS. Spicer. 78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 CASE 3408: Geophilus holstii Pocock, 1895 (currently Arrup holstii; Chilopoda, MECISTOCEPHALIDAE): replacement of the holotype by designation of a neotype. M. Uliana, L. Bonato & A. Minelli. CASE 3409: Tragolytoceras Spath, 1924 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): proposed conservation. J. Palfy & R. Tomas. CASE 3410: Dasyatis say / sayi (Le Sueur, 1817) (Chondrichthyes, Myliobati- formes, DASYATIDAE): proposed fixation of the correct spelling. H.R.S. Santos & M.R. de Carvalho. CASE 3411: Dasyatis americana Hildebrand & Schroeder, 1927 (Chondrichthyes, Myliobatiformes, DASYATIDAE): proposed conservation. H.R.S. Santos & M.R. de Carvalho. CASE 3412: Reticulitermes Holmgren, 1913 (Insecta, Isoptera): proposed conser- vation. M.S. Engel & K. Krishna. CASE 3413: Dermestes nigrinus Marsham, 1802 (currently Limnebius nigrinus; Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed suppression of the specific name. R.T. Thompson & M. Jach. CASE 3414: John Latham’s “Supplementum Indicis ornithologici sive Systematis Ornithologiae’: proposed determination of date of publication. R. Schodde, W.J. Bock, W.E. Boles, L. Christidis & F. Steinheimer. CASE 3415: The avian genus-group names Pedionomus Gould, 1840 (PEDIONOMI- DAE), Leipoa Gould, 1840 (MEGAPoDIIDAE) and A trichornis Stejneger, 1885 (ATRICHOR- NITHIDAE), and the species-group names Leipoa ocellatus Gould, 1840 (MEGAPODIIDAE) and Columba spadicea Latham, 1801 (COLUMBIDAE): proposed conservation. R. Schodde & W.J. Bock. CASE 3416: Murex rostratus Olivi, 1792 and Fusus crassus Pallary, 1901 (currently Fusinus rostratus and Fusinus crassus; Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conserva- tion. G. Buzzuro & P. Russo. CASE 3417: Malmgrenia McIntosh, 1874 (Annelida, Polychaeta, POLYNOIDAE): proposed conservation of usage. A. Muir & S.J. Chambers. CASE 3418: Specific names of nine Australian birds (Aves): proposed conserva- tion. R. Schodde & W. Bock. CASE 3419: corysTIDAE Foster & Philip, 1978 (Echinodermata, Echinoidea): proposed emendment of spelling to corysTUSIDAE to remove homonymy with CORYSTIDAE Samouelle, 1819 (Crustacea, Brachyura). C.B. Boyko. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 79 Case 3386 Pseudocoenia d’Orbigny, 1850 (Coelenterata, Scleractinia): proposed conservation of usage by the designation of a lectotype for the type species H. Loser Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México, Instituto de Geologia, Estacion Regional del Noroeste, Apartado Postal 1039, 83000 Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico (e-mail: loeser@paleotax.de) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 74.1 of the Code, is to conserve the name Pseudocoenia d’Orbigny, 1850 in its accustomed usage by designating a new lectotype for its type species Pseudocoenia bernardina d’Orbigny, 1850. The present lectotype of the type species contradicts the original description of the type species as well as the concept of the genus as indicated by its author and as currently used. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coelenterata; Scleractinia; Pseudocoenia; Pseu- docoenia bernardina; Jurassic—Cretaceous; corals. 1. The genus Pseudocoenia (Coelenterata, Scleractinia, STYLINIDAE) was established by d’Orbigny (1850, p. 33). His original diagnosis of the genus is short but to the point for people who know Mesozoic corals: ‘Ce sont des Cryptocoenia a huit systemes, au lieu de six’ [It is a Cryptocoenia with eight systems instead of six]. Cryptocoenia was established earlier by d’Orbigny (1849, p. 7) as a ‘“Tremocoenia, sans columelle styliforme’ [a Tremocoenia without any styliform columella]. 2. The genus Pseudocoenia was characterised as a Cryptocoenia with eight instead of six septal systems, i.e. the number of septa in one generation (or cycle) is eight or a multiple (16, 32) of eight. When the genus was established, d’Orbigny (1850, p. 34) listed seven species: Pseudocoenia suboctonis, Pseudocoenia bernardina, Pseudocoenia ramosa, Pseudocoenia digitata, Pseudocoenia octonis, Pseudocoenia elegans and Pseudocoenia ramosa. In some cases the presence of eight septal systems is repeated in the species diagnosis. Currently a total of 23 Jurassic (Lathuiliére, 1989) and one Cretaceous species (Léser, 2000) are assigned to the genus. The genus is widely distributed in the Late Jurassic and is rare in the Early Cretaceous. All seven originally assigned species have equal claim to be designated as the type species, since there is no Article in the Code which gives priority to the first species in the list. 3. The type species of Pseudocoenia was designated by Wells (1936, p. 128) according to Article 69.1 of the Code (Type species by subsequent designation): Pseudocoenia bernardina d’Orbigny, 1850 (p. 34). The type locality according to d’Orbigny is ‘France, Landeyron’. 4. Pseudocoenia bernardina d@’Orbigny, 1850 is characterised as ‘Espéce voisine de Yoctonis par ses huit chambres aux cellules, mais dont celles-ci sont d’un tiers plus 80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 petites’ [species close to octonis by its eight chambers in the cell, but these are one third smaller]. ; 5. Four syntypes of Pseudocoenia bernardina d’Orbigny, 1850 exist in the Coll. d’Orbigny, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (MNHN) Paris: (1) MNHN (Paris), typotheque, R9199 (ex Coll. d’Orbigny 4472); “Pseudocoenia bernardiana d’Orbigny Corallien, Landeyron (Ain); figured in Cottreau, 1931, pl. 61, fig. 6; small specimen with one polished surface. Septa in a decameral system. Styliform columella. (2) MNHN (Paris), Coll. d’?Orbigny, 4472 no label; Landeyron (Ain); poorly preserved small specimen without polished surface which possibly belongs to the same species as R9199. (3) MNHN (Paris), Coll. d’Orbigny, 4472a; no label; Tonnerre (Yonne); a mould of a plocoid coral. (4) MNHN (Paris), Coll. d’Orbigny, 4472b; no label; Chatel-Censoir (Yonne); a large specimen with a thin section. Septa in an octomeral system. No columella. 6. From these syntypes, Wells (1936, p. 128) designated the specimen of number 4472 as lectotype. He excluded the specimens numbered 4472a and 4472b by writing ‘Type No. 4472 [non 4472a, b]’. Wells was probably influenced by (1) this specimen was depicted by Cottreau (1931), who first illustrated — at least in part — the fossil corals of the d’Orbigny Collection, (2) the identical type locality to the locality indicated by d’Orbigny, and (3) the opinion expressed by other authors, like Milne-Edwards & Haime (1851, p. 78), that Pseudocoenia was a junior synonym of Stylina Lamarck, 1816. The last has to be seen in a historical context. Milne-Edwards and Haime believed that all ‘Stylina without columella’ were only poorly preserved and that the absence of the columella was caused by an ‘accident dependent on the process of fossilisation’. Milne-Edwards and Haime saw no reason why corals comparable to Stylina but without columella should be separated. Milne-Edwards (1857, p. 235) mentioned the eight systems in Pseudocoenia (not ten, as in the lectotype designated by Wells), but did not see any reason why Pseudocoenia or analogous genera (such as the above-mentioned Cryptocoenia, among other forms without columella) should be regarded as being different from Sty/ina. 7. Wells’s designation contradicts (1) d’Orbigny’s diagnosis of the species Pseudo- coenia bernardina d’Orbigny, 1850, (2) the definition of the genus Pseudocoenia, and (3) most of the originally included species, as far as type material is available. The genus Pseudocoenia in its accustomed usage is understood as belonging to stylinids without columella, and with short and/or rudimentary septa in symmetry of eight. The current lectotype of Pseudocoenia bernardina dOrbigny, 1850 belongs to a stylinid genus (1.e. Sty/ina) with ten septal systems and a styliform columella. When Wells (1936) designated the lectotype, he did not comply with d’Orbigny’s intention (1850). Instead of admitting a coral comparable to Cryptocoenia but with an 8-part septal symmetry, Wells obviously sought to synonymize genera, including Pseudo- coenia. Pseudocoenia is still in use in recent literature in its original understanding; its synonymy with Stylina is widely ignored (Beauvais, 1964; EliaSova, 1981; Errenst, 1990; Helm et al., 2003; Helm, 2005; Kuzmicheva, 2002; Liao & Xia, 1994; Pandey & Fiirsich, 2003; Roniewicz, 1966, 1976: TurnSek, 1972). 8. Alloiteau (1948, p. 704) revised the genus Pseudocoenia. The proposed designa- tion of Pseudocoenia suboctonis d’Orbigny, 1850 as the type species is invalid being Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 81 preceded by. Well’s designation. Alloiteau based his investigations on type material of Pseudocoenia suboctonis, emending the characteristics of the genus. He was followed by Beauvais (1964). Later Roniewicz (1966, 1976) and EliaSova (1981) modified the generic concept and also accepted corals with symmetry other than eight. In the past fifteen years this has caused some confusion, mainly when dealing with Cretaceous corals, where one and the same species has been successively assigned to Adelocoenia d’Orbigny, 1849, Convexastrea dOrbigny, 1849, Cryptocoenia dOrbigny, 1849, Cyathophora Michelin, 1842, Orbignycaenia Alloiteau, 1948 or Pseudocoenia d’Orbigny, 1850. 9. In order to conserve the name Pseudocoenia d’Orbigny, 1850 in its accustomed use, it is proposed that all previous type fixations for its type species Pseudocoenia bernardina d’Orbigny, 1850 be set aside and that a lectotype consistent with current usage be designated; a suitable specimen would be specimen 4472b, Coll. d’Orbigny, MNHN (Paris). 10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal species Pseudocoenia bernardina d@Orbigny, 1850 and to designate specimen 4472b, Coll. d’Orbigny, MNHN (Paris) as the lectotype; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name bernardina dOrbigny, 1850, as published in the binomen Pseudocoenia bernardina and as defined by the lectotype 4472b, Coll. d’Orbigny, MNHN (Paris) designated in (1) above. Acknowledgements The proposal was submitted to various specialists on Mesozoic corals; minor corrections were provided by B. Lathuili¢re (Nancy) and D.K. Pandey (Jaipur). References Alloiteau, J. 1948. Polypiers des couches albiennes a grandes trigonies de Padern (Aude). Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France. Sér. 5, 18: 699-738. Beauvais, L. 1964. Etude stratigraphique et paléontologique des formations a madréporaires du Jurassique supérieur du Jura et de l'Est du Bassin de Paris. Mémoires de la Société Géologique de France. N.S., 43: 1-287. Cottreau, J. 1931. Types du prodrome de paléontologie stratigraphique universelle (8). Annales de Paléontologie, 20(1): 133-172. EliaSova, H. 1981. Sous-ordre Stylinina Alloiteau, 1952 (Hexacorallia) des calcaires de Stramberk (Tithonien, Tchécoslovaquie). Sbornik geologickych vied, Paleontologie, 24: 117-133. Errenst, C. 1990. Das korallenfiihrende Kimmeridgium der nordwestlichen iberischen Ketten und angrenzender Gebiete (1). Palaeontographica. Abt. A, 214(3/6): 121-207. Helm, C. 2005. Riffe und fazielle Entwicklung der florigemma-Bank (Korallenoolith, Oxfordium) im Siintel und Gstlichen Wesergebirge (NW-Deutschland). Geologische Beitrdge Hannover, 7: 3-339. Helm, C., Reuter, M. & Schiilke, I. 2003. Die Korallenfauna des Korallenooliths (Oxfordium, Oberjura, NW-Deutschland): Zusammensetzung, Stratigraphie und regionale Verbrei- tung. Paldontologische Zeitschrift, 77(1): 77-94. Kuzmicheva, E.I. 2002. Morfologiya skeleta, sistema i evolyutsiya skleraktinii [Skeletal morphology, systematics and evolution of Scleractinia]. Trudy Paleontologicheskogo instituta, 286: 1-211. 82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 Lathuiliére, B. 1989. Répertoire objectif des coraux jurassiques. 76 pp. Presses universitaires, Nancy. Liao, Wei-hua & Xia, Jin-bao. 1994. Mesozoic and Cenozoic scleractinian corals from Tibet. Palaeontologia Sinica (Zhongguo-gushengwu-zhi), 184: 1-252. Loser, H. 2000. Répertoire of Species. Catalogue of Cretaceous Corals, vol. 1. 137 pp. CPress Verlag, Dresden. Milne-Edwards, H. 1857. Histoire naturelle des coralliaires ou polypes proprement dits (1, 2). viii, 326 pp., 633 pp. Librairie encyclopédique de Roret, Paris. Milne-Edwards, H. & Haime, J. 1851. A monograph of the British fossil corals (2): Corals from the oolitic formations. Palaeontographical Society monographs, 5: 74-146. Orbigny, A. d’. 1849. Note sur les polypiers fossiles. 12 pp. Masson, Paris. Orbigny, A. d’. 1850. Prodréme de paléontologie stratigraphique universelle des animaux mollusques et rayonnés (2). 428 pp. Masson, Paris. Pandey, D.K. & Fiirsich, F.T. 2003. Jurassic corals of east-central Iran. Beringeria, 32: 3-138. Roniewicz, E. 1966. Les madréporaires du Jurassique supérieur de la bordure des monts de Sainte-croix, Pologne. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 11(2): 157-264. Roniewicz, E. 1976. Les scléractiniaires du Jurassique superieur de la Dobrogea centrale Roumanie. Palaeontologia Polonica, 34: 17-121. Turnsek, D. 1972. Zgornjejurske korale iz juzne Slovenije. Razprave Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, (4)15(6): 147-265. Wells, J.W. 1936. The nomenclature and type species of some genera of recent and fossil corals. American Journal of Science, (5)31(182): 97-134. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 63: 154. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 83 Case 3385 Termes serratus Froggatt, 1898 (currently Microcerotermes serratus) and Termes serrula Desneux, 1904 (currently Microcerotermes serrula) (Insecta, Isoptera, TERMITINAE): proposed conservation of the specific names David T. Jones Department of Entomology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: dtj@nhm.ac.uk) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the specific names Termes serratus Froggatt, 1898 (currently Micro- cerotermes serratus) and Termes serrula Desneux, 1904 (currently Microcerotermes serrula) (Isoptera, TERMITINAE) for two species of termite. Both names are currently invalid: 7. serratus Froggatt, 1898 is a junior primary homonym of 7. serratus Haviland, 1898 and T. serrula Desneux, 1904 is an unjustified replacement name for T. serratus Haviland, 1898. However, the name 7. serratus Froggatt has been used since its publication to refer to an Australian termite species, while the name T. serrula Desneux, 1904 has been used since its publication to refer to a species from Southeast Asia. Roisin & Pasteels (2000) proposed that the name TJ. serratus Froggatt, 1898 should be replaced with 7. parviceps Mjéberg, 1920, its earliest synonym, and that the name T. serrula Desneux, 1904 should be replaced with T. serratus Haviland, 1898. However, these corrections would result in considerable confusion and nomenclatural instability, and it is therefore proposed that the specific names be conserved. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Isoptera; TERMITIDAE; TERMITINAE; Microcero- termes serratus; Microcerotermes serrula; termites; Southeast Asia; Australia. 1. Haviland (1898, p. 403) described a common wood-feeding termite from Borneo as Termes serratus. The date of publication was Ist April 1898. 2. Froggatt (1898, p. 731) described Termes serratus, a common species from Australia. The volume is dated 1897, but the actual date of publication was 4th June 1898 (see Watson et al., 1998, p. 232; Roisin & Pasteels, 2000, p. 165). Therefore Termes serratus Froggatt, 1898 is a junior primary homonym of Termes serratus Haviland, 1898. 3. Desneux (1904, p. 45), probably misled by the confusion over the year of publication (see para. 2), considered Termes serratus Froggatt, 1898 to have priority, and thus proposed Termes serrula as a nomen novum for T. serratus Haviland, 1898. Holmgren (1911, p. 461) transferred 7. serratus Haviland, 1898 to Microcerotermes and later Holmgren (1913, p. 262) adopted M. serrula (Desneux, 1904) as the valid name for this species. The binomen Microcerotermes serrula (Desneux, 1904) has since been widely accepted and used extensively to identify this species which is now known to occur in Borneo, Sumatra and Peninsular Malaysia (Snyder, 1949, p. 145; 84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 Ahmad, 1958, p. 167; Thapa, 1981, p. 172; Tho, 1992, p. 92; Eggleton et al., 1999, p. 1795; Jones & Prasetyo, 2002, p. 121; Jones et al., 2003, appendix; Gathorne- Hardy, 2004, p. 120). 4. Silvestri (1909, p. 304) transferred Termes serratus Froggatt, 1898 to Microcero- termes, and this binomen was adopted by Mjoberg (1920, p. 105), Hill (1942, p. 411), Snyder (1949, p. 145), Perry et al. (1985, p. 69), Watson & Abbey (1993, p. 123), Watson et al. (1998, p. 232). Barnacle et al. (1992, p. 36) confirmed the status of Termes serratus Froggatt, 1898 as a pest of wooden railway sleepers, and the name has also been used in the ecological literature to identify this widespread Australian species (Ratcliffe et al., 1952, p. 115; Gay & Calaby, 1970, p. 431; Holt et al., 1993, p. 314). 5. Mjéberg (1920, p. 103) described Microcerotermes parviceps from Australia. However, Hill (1942, p. 442) considered M. parviceps Mjéberg, 1920 to be a junior synonym of M. serratus (Froggatt, 1898), an opinion supported by Snyder (1949, p. 145) and Watson et al. (1998, p. 232). Apart from Hill (1927, p. 70) and Roisin & Pasteels (2000, p. 166, but see para. 6 below), the name M™. parviceps Mjoberg, 1920 has never been used as valid in the literature since its publication. 6. Roisin & Pasteels (2000, p. 165) discovered the error over priority (see paras. | and 2) and proposed the following corrections under Articles 53.3 (Homonyms in the species group), 57.2 (Primary homonyms) and 60.2 (Junior homonyms with synonyms) of the Code. Termes serratus Haviland, 1 April 1898 (currently Micro- cerotermes serratus) is valid. Termes serratus Froggatt, 4 June 1898 (currently Microcerotermes serratus) 1s invalid being a junior primary homonym of T. serratus Haviland, 1898. Termes serrula Desneux, 1904 (currently Microcerotermes serrula) is invalid being an unjustified replacement for 7. serratus Haviland, 1898. Microcero- termes parviceps Mjoberg, 1920, replaces Microcerotermes serratus (Froggatt, 1898) because it is the earliest synonym. 7. As noted in paras. 3 and 4 above, the names Microcerotermes serrula (Desneux, 1904) and M. serratus (Froggatt, 1898) are both currently in use for well-known and common species in Southeast Asia and Australia respectively. These two taxa have never been considered conspecific. Replacement of the name M. serrula (Desneux, 1904) by the valid but unused name M. serratus (Haviland, 1898) would cause considerable confusion and may be misunderstood as implying that the Australian species now occurs in Southeast Asia. Furthermore, the formally correct act of replacing the name M. serratus (Froggatt, 1898) with the valid but unused name M. parviceps Mj6berg would also lead to confusion within the Australian termite fauna. The corrections outlined in para. 6 would result in unnecessary confusion and inconsistencies rather than nomenclatural stability. The case is therefore referred to the Commission under Article 23.9.3 of the Code. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power: (a) to suppress the specific name serratus Haviland, 1898, as published in the binomen Termes serratus, and all uses of the name Termes serratus before Froggatt, 1898 for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 85 (b) to. rule that the specific name serrula Desneux, 1904, as published in the binomen Termes serrula, is not invalid by reason of being an unjustified replacement for the name Termes serratus Haviland, 1898; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) serratus Froggatt, 1898, as published in the binomen Termes serratus; (b) serrula Desneux, 1904, as published in the binomen Termes serrula (not invalid by reason of being an unjustified replacement for the name Termes serratus Haviland, 1898, as ruled in (1)(b) above); (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name serratus Haviland, 1898, as published in the binomen Termes serratus and as suppressed in (1)(a) above. References Ahmad, M. 1958. Key to the Indomalayan termites. Biologia, 4: 33-118. Barnacle, J.E., Creffield, J.W. & Miller, L.R. 1992. Attack of oil creosote-treated rail sleepers of karri (Eucalyptus diversicolor F. Muell.) by Microcerotermes spp. in north Western Australia. Material und Organismen, 27: 3\-4S. Desneux, J. 1904. Isoptera. Family Termitidae. Pp. 1-52 in: Genera Insectorum. Fasc. 25. Wytsman, Brussels. Eggleton, P., Homathevi, R., Jones, D.T., MacDonald, J., Jeeva, D., Bignell, D.E., Davies, R.G. & Maryati, M. 1999. Termite assemblages, forest disturbance and greenhouse gas fluxes in Sabah, East Malaysia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 354: 1791-1802. Froggatt, W.W. 1898. Australian Termitidae. Part III. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 22: 721-758. Gathorne-Hardy, F.J. 2004. The termites of Sundaland: a taxonomic review. Sarawak Museum Journal, 60: 89-133. Gay, F.J. & Calaby, J.-H. 1970. Termites of the Australian region. Pp. 393-448 in Krishna, K. & Weesner, F.M. (Eds.), Biology of Termites, vol. 2. Academic Press, New York. Haviland, G.D. 1898. Observations on termites; with descriptions of new species. Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology, 26: 358-442. Hill, G.F. 1927. Termites from the Australian region — Part 1. Memoirs of the National Museum, Melbourne, 7: 5-120. Hill, G.F. 1942. Termites (Isoptera) from the Australian Region. 479 pp. CSIRO, Melbourne. Holmgren, N. 1911. Neu-Guinea-Termiten. Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museum in Berlin, 5: 452-466. Holmgren, N. 1913. Termitenstudien. 4. Versuch einer systematischen Monographie der Termiten der orientalischen Region. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, 50: 1-276. Holt, J.A., Robertson, L.N. & Radford, B.J. 1993. Effects of tillage and stubble residue treatments on termite activity in two central Queensland vertosols. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 31: 311-317. Jones, D.T. & Prasetyo, A.H. 2002. A survey of the termites (Insecta: Isoptera) of Tabalong district, South Kalimantan, Indonesia. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 50: 117-128. Jones, D.T., Susilo, F.X., Bignell, D.E., Hardiwinoto, S., Gillison, A.N. & Eggleton, P. 2003. Termite assemblage collapse along a land-use intensification gradient in lowland central Sumatra, Indonesia. Journal of Applied Ecology, 40: 380-391. Mioéberg, E. 1920. Results of Dr E. Mjéberg’s Swedish scientific expedition to Australia, 1910-1913. 19. Isoptera. Arkiv for Zoologi, 12: 1-128. Perry, D.H., Watson, J.A.L., Bunn, S.E. & Black, R. 1985. Guide to the termites (Isoptera) from the extreme south-west of Western Australia. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia, 67: 66-78. 86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 Ratcliffe, F.N., Gay, F.J. & Greaves, T. 1952. Australian termites: the biology, recognition, and economic importance of the common species. 124 pp. CSIRO, Melbourne. Roisin, Y. & Pasteels, J.M. 2000. The genus Microcerotermes (Isoptera: Termitidae) in New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. Invertebrate Taxonomy, 14: 137-174. Silvestri, F. 1909. Isoptera. Pp. 279-314 in Michaelsen, W. & Hartmeyer, R. (Eds.), Die Fauna Stidwest-Australiens, vol. 2. Gustav Fischer, Jena. Snyder, T.E. 1949. Catalog of the termites (Isoptera) of the world. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 112: 1-490. Thapa, R.S. 1981. Termites of Sabah. Sabah Forest Record, 12: 1-374. Tho, Y.P. 1992. Termites of Peninsular Malaysia. Malayan Forest Records, 36: 1-224. Watson, J.A.L. & Abbey, H.M. 1993. Atlas of Australian Termites. 155 pp. CSIRO, Canberra. Watson, J.A.L., Miller, L.R. & Abbey, H.M. 1998. Isoptera. Pp. 163-250 in Houston, W.W.K. & Wells, A. (Eds.), Zoological catalogue of Australia, vol. 23. CSIRO, Melbourne. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 63: 154. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I-C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 87 Case 3337 Hydroporus discretus Fairmaire & Brisout de Barneville, 1859 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name Manfred A. Jach Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Burgring 7, A-1010 Wien, Austria (e-mail: manfred.jaech@nhm-wien.ac.at) Hans Fery Rduschstr. 73, D-13509 Berlin, Germany (e-mail: hanfry@aol.com) A.N. Nilsson Department of Animal Ecology, Umeda University, S-901 87 Umeda, Sweden (e-mail: anders.nilsson@emg.umu.se) Pyotr N. Petrov Department of Biology, Gymnasium 1543, ul. 26 Bakinskikh Komissarov, 119571 Moscow, Russia (e-mail: tinmonument@gmail.com) Ignacio Ribera Departamento de Biodiversidad y Biologia Evolutiva, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, José Gutiérrez Abascal 2, E-28006 Madrid, Spain (e-mail: i.ribera@mncn.csic.es) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name Hydroporus discretus Fairmaire & Brisout de Barneville, 1859 for a widespread diving beetle species. An application to conserve the name Hydroporus discretus, and to place its senior synonym AHydroporus neuter Fairmaire & Laboulbéne, 1855 on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology was published in 2001 as Case 3147 (BZN 58: 105-107). The case received a majority of Commission votes, but did not achieve the two-thirds required (BZN 61: 59-60), apparently because of inappropriate presentation of the evidence concerning prevailing usage of the name Hydroporus discretus. Data presented here unambiguously prove that maintenance of priority of the name Hydroporus neuter is not in accordance with nomenclatural stability. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; DyTiIscIDAE; Hydroporus neuter; Hydroporus discretus; diving beetle; Europe; Palaearctic. 1. The name Hydroporus discretus Fairmaire & Brisout de Barneville, 1859 (Coleoptera, DYTISCIDAE) is generally used for a species widely distributed in the Palaearctic region, where it is known from Europe, Africa and Asia, including more 88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 than 40 countries from Ireland to China (see Nilsson, 2001, 2003). It is especially common in western, central and northern Europe. 2. An application to conserve the name Hydroporus discretus, threatened by its senior subjective synonym Hydroporus neuter Fairmaire & Laboulbéne, 1855, was published by Fery in 2001 as Case 3147 (BZN 58: 105-107). A comment in support of the application was published by G. Foster in BZN 59: 38 and a comment opposing the application was published by P. Bouchet in BZN 58: 305. The application was voted on twice, the original vote resulting in a majority (but not the required two-thirds) and the revote also not achieving the required majority, the implication being that the name Hydroporus neuter Fairmaire & Laboulbéne, 1855 retains priority. 3. Two of the nine Commissioners who had voted against the proposal presented their views: as ‘the applicant has not demonstrated that a name so infrequently used as Hydroporus discretus needs conservation’ (BZN 58: 305) and ‘evidence presented concerning prevailing usage of the junior synonym Hydroporus discretus was insufficient to warrant suppression of its senior synonym Hydroporus neuter Fairmaire & Laboulbéne, 1854 (Opinion 2065; BZN 61: 60). 4. In fact, the applicant did not demonstrate sufficient evidence of prevailing usage of the junior synonym Hydroporus discretus, which misled some of the members of the Commission. Indeed, the references compiled by the applicant included only well-known catalogues and other publications of outstanding importance. The data presented below unambiguously prove that the maintenance of the priority of the name Hydroporus neuter is indeed threatening stability. The name Hydroporus discretus has been in continuous use since 1887 and it was treated as a valid name in hundreds of publications since then. We have compiled a list of references (held by the Secretariat) containing 521 publications in which the name Hydroporus discretus was used as valid. 143 of these papers were published before 1950, 378 were published since 1950. In contrast, Hydroporus neuter was used only once during the entire 20th century, in a most controversial paper by Adam (1996); critical comments on this paper were published by Nilsson (1998). In the Coleopterorum Catalogus (Zimmermann, 1920, p. 83) Hydroporus discretus is listed as a valid name and Hydroporus neuter 1s placed among its synonyms. In the World Catalogue of Insects (Nilsson, 2001, p. 156) Hydroporus discretus is still listed as the valid name and the following note is added after the name Hydroporus neuter: ‘To be rejected; CASE 3147. 5. In the Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera (Nilsson, 2003, p. 60) the name H. neuter was omitted intentionally in order to guarantee unchallenged validity of the name Hydroporus discretus. 6. The conservation of the name Hydroporus discretus is supported by 109 water beetle experts from 28 countries, including practically all pytiscIDAE specialists worldwide. A list of the supporters (containing their names and e-mail addresses) is held by the Secretariat. Numerous supporters sent their comments along with their declaration of support. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power: (a) to rescind Opinion 2065; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 89 (b) to suppress the name neuter Fairmaire & Laboulbéne, 1855, as published in the binomen Hydroporus neuter, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name discretus Fairmaire & Brisout de Barneville, 1859, as published in the binomen Hydroporus discretus; (3) to delete the entry for Hydroporus neuter Fairmaire & Laboulbéne, 1855 on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name neuter Fairmaire & Laboulbéne, 1855, as published in the binomen Hydroporus neuter, as suppressed in (1)(b) above. References Adam, L. 1996. A check-list of the Hungarian caraboid beetles (Coleoptera). Folia Ento- mologica Hungarica, 57: 5—64. Fairmaire, L. & Brisout de Barneville, C. 1859. Hydroporus discretus. P. 28 in Fairmaire, L., Miscellanea entomologica. Troisieme Partie. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (3)7: 21-64. Fairmaire, L. & Laboulbéne, A. 1855. 2e partie. Pp. 181-370 in: Faune entomologique frangaise ou description des insectes qui se trouvent en France, coléoptéres, vol. 1. xxxv, 665 pp. Deyrolle, Paris. Jach, M.A. 2004. Short note. A new attempt to conserve the name Hydroporus discretus Fairmaire & Brisout, 1859 (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Koleopterologische Rundschau, 74: 10. Nilsson, A.N. 1998. Adam’s checklist of Hungarian Dytiscidae and the stability of Nomenclature. Latissimus, 10: 1-3. Nilsson, A.N. 2001. World catalogue of insects, vol. 3. Dytiscidae (Coleoptera). 395 pp. Apollo Books, Stenstrup. Nilsson, A.N. 2003. Dytiscidae, vol. 1. Pp. 35-78 in Lobl, I. & Smetana, A. (Eds.), Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera. Apollo Books, Stenstrup. Zimmermann, A. 1920. Dytiscidae, Haliplidae, Hygrobiidae, Amphizoidae. Jn Schenkling, S. (Ed.), Coleopterorum Catalogus, vol. 71. 326 pp. W. Junk, Berlin. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 62: 1. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 Case 3400 Hybosorus illigeri Reiche, 1853 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation by giving it precedence over Hybosorus roei Westwood, 1845 Peter G. Nise BSES Limited, PO Box 86, Indooroopilly 4068, Australia (e-mail: pallsopp@bses.org.au) Tristao Branco Rua de Camées, 788, 2° Dto, 4000-142 Porto, Portugal (e-mail: tv.branco@clix.pt) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name Hybosorus illigeri Reiche, 1853 for a well-known, widely distributed scarabaeoid beetle (family HyBosoRIDAE). The name is threatened by the senior subjective synonym Hybosorus roei Westwood, 1845, which after 1899 has been used twice by Adam (1994, 2003). Therefore, precedence of the name Hybosorus illigeri Reiche, 1853 is proposed. Two unused senior subjective synonyms, Hybosorus pinguis Westwood, 1845 and Hybosorus carolinus LeConte, 1847, are considered nomina oblita. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; HYBOSORIDAE; Hybosorus illigeri; Hybosorus roei; Hybosorus pinguis; Hybosorus carolinus; scarabaeoids. 1. In 1803, Iliger (1803, p. 210) described the widespread Scarabaeus arator, the neotype of which is in the collection of the Entomological Institute of the University of Lund, Sweden (Landin, 1964, p. 136). MacLeay (1819, p. 120) subsequently erected the genus Hybosorus for this species. However, as Reiche (1853, p. 87) realized, Scarabaeus arator IMliger is a junior primary homonym of Scarabaeus arator Fabricius, 1775. Reiche proposed the substitute name Hybosorus illigeri for Scara- baeus arator Mliger. Under Article 60.3 of the Code, the substitute name takes the date of its own publication and must compete for priority with any synonym recognized later. 2. A few authors (LeConte, 1862; LeConte & Horn, 1883; Quedenfeldt, 1884; Endroédi, 1957, 1959, 1962, 1968, 1970, 1973; Petrovitz, 1972; Baraud, 1977, 1985; Pauhian & Baraud, 1982) have ignored the homonymy of Scarabaeus arator Fabricius and Scarabaeus arator Mliger and have continued to use Hybosorus arator Illiger as a valid name. This is obviously incorrect. 3. Reiche (1853) also synonymized Hybosorus laportei Westwood, 1845 (p. 440) and Hybosorus thoracicus Westwood, 1845 (p. 440) with Scarabaeus illigeri. How- ever, Hybosorus laportei is now considered a valid species (Kuijten, 1983, p. 22), albeit partially sympatric with Scarabaeus illigeri, with Hybosorus thoracicus a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 91 synonym. The problem is further complicated as subsequently three other names, all of which predate Scarabaeus illigeri, have been synonymized with Scarabaeus illigeri: Hybosorus roei Westwood, 1845 (p. 440) by Arrow (1912, p. 36); Hybosorus pinguis Westwood, 1845 (p. 440) by Endrédi (1957, p. 45); and Hybosorus carolinus LeConte, 1847 (p. 84) by LeConte (1862, p. 127). This arrangement of synonyms (and other post-1853 synonyms) is recognized as valid in the most recent taxonomic treatment of the genus (Kuijten, 1983) and in the most recent checklist of the family (Ocampo & Ballerio, 2006, p. 191). Therefore, Hybosorus roei, Hybosorus pinguis and Hybosorus carolinus strictly should take precedence over Scarabaeus illigeri (Articles 23.3.5 and 60.2 of the Code — Invalid names with synonyms). 4. The senior synonym Hybosorus roei remained unused until Adam (1994, p. 9; 2003, p. 132) used it as the valid name of the species. We accept the view adopted by Krell et al. (2006) that Adam’s lists are more than ‘lists of names’ and are lists of taxa containing information about the distribution of the species in Hungary, thus being valid for determining usage. 5. However, most authors since 1853 have referred to the species as Scarabaeus illigeri in taxonomic treatments, check lists, phylogenies, faunistic lists, identification keys and notes about its distribution, biology, physiology and parasites (e.g. Lacordaire, 1856; Boheman, 1857; Harold, 1871; Lansberge, 1882; Péringuey, 1892, 1901; Brancsik, 1893; Kolbe, 1912; Benderitter, 1914; Cartwright, 1934; Miller, 1939; Paulian, 1944, 1978; Loding, 1945; Panin, 1957; Derwesh, 1965; Ritcher, 1966; Howden, 1970; Woodruff, 1973; Alfieri, 1976; Kuiyten, 1980, 1983; Masters, 1980; Allsopp, 1984; Nel & Scholtz, 1990; Rozas et al., 1991; Arnold, 1992; Crocker et al., 1992; Thomas, 1993; Lopez-Colon et al., 1996; Moron, 1996, 2003; Agoiz Bustamante, 1998, 2001; Moron et al., 1998; Deloya, 2000; Buss, 2002, 2006; Jameson, 2002; Ocampo, 2002; Weeks et al., 2003; Grebennikov & Scholtz, 2004; Grebennikov et al., 2004; Morales et al., 2004; Dupuis, 2005; Delgado & Marquez, 2006; Kral & Lo6bl, 2006; Ocampo & Hawks, 2006), as well as numerous web sites. 6. Because the further usage of the name H. roei Westwood, 1845 would cause confusion and instability in nomenclature and ecology, we propose that under Article 23.9.3 of the Code the specific name H. illigeri be given precedence over that name, whenever they are considered synonyms. This solution is similar to that proposed by Allsopp (1982) in an application to the Commission, and similar to that advocated by Woodward (1973) and Ocampo (2002). Allsopp’s proposal was complicated by the re-establishment of H. laportei Westwood, 1845 as a valid species and the case lapsed. Given the use of H. roei by Adam (1994, 2003), the case does not meet both requirements of Article 23.9.1 and a ruling by the Commission is necessary. 7. As neither H. pinguis nor H. carolinus have been used as a valid name after 1899, and H. illigeri has been used as the taxon’s valid name in at least 25 works published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years (see list in paragraph 5), H. pinguis and H. carolinus are nomina oblita. 8. Although we believe that the synonymy of Kuijten (1983) is correct, there is always potential, particularly since i//igeri was described from Portugal and roei from India, that roei and illigeri are distinct taxa. If roei is suppressed, this would necessitate a new name if roei was shown to be distinct from i/ligeri. 92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to give the specific name i/ligeri Reiche, 1853, as published in the binomen Hybosorus illigeri, precedence over the name roei Westwood, 1845, as published in the binomen Hybosorus roei, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) illigeri Reiche, 1853, as published in the binomen Hybosorus illigeri, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name roei Westwood, 1845, as published in the binomen Hybosorus roei, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (b) roei Westwood, 1845, as published in the binomen Hybosorus roei, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name i/ligeri Reiche, 1853, as published in the binomen Hybosorus illigeri, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. References Adam, L. 1994. A checklist of the Hungarian Scarabaeoidea with the description of ten new ___ taxa (Coleoptera). Folia Entomologica Hungarica, 55: 5-17. Adam, L. 2003. Faunisztikai adatok a Karpat-medencebol (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea). Folia Historico Naturalia Musei Matrensis, 27: 101-136. Agoiz Bustamante, J.L. 1998. Coléopteros interesantes atraidos por las luces de Penalba (Huesca). Boletin de Sociedad Entomologica Aragonesa, 19: 19-20. Agoiz Bustamante, J.L. 2001. Un agresivo comportamiento alimentario de Aphodius (Ammo- ecius) lusitanicus Erichson, 1848 y nuevos datos sobre su corolgia y trofismo (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea, Aphodiidae). Boletin de Sociedad Entomologica Aragonesa, 29: 79-80. Alfieri, A. 1976. The Coleoptera of Egypt. A systematic list of the fauna, its distribution over the country, monthly occurrence, ecological information and taxonomic notes. Mémoires de la Société Entomologique d’Egypte, 5: 1-287. Allsopp, P.G. 1982. Hybosorus illigeri Reiche, 1853 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conserva- tion by use of the plenary powers. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 39: 218-219. Allsopp, P.G. 1984. Checklist of the Hybosorinae (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Coleopterists Bulletin, 38: 105-117. Arnold, D.C. 1992. The scarab beetle Hybosorus illigeri (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Hybosori- nae) in Oklahoma. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, 65: 92. Arrow, G.J. 1912. Scarabaeidae. Pachypodinae, Pleocominae, Aclopinae, Glaphyrinae, Ochod- aeinae, Orphninae, Idiostominae, Hybosorinae, Dynamopinae, Acanthocerinae, Troginae. Coleopterorum Catalogus. Pars 43, vol. 19(6), 66 pp. Junk, Berlin. Baraud, J. 1977. Coléoptéres Scarabaeoidea. Faune de l'Europe occidentale: Belgique, France, Grande-Bretagne, Italie, Péninsule Ibérique. Supplément a la Nouvelle Revue d Entomologie, 7: 1-352. Baraud, J. 1985. Coléoptéres Scarabaeoidea. Faune du Nord de l'Afrique du Maroc au Sinai. Encyclopédie Entomologique, 46. 651 pp. Lechevalier, Paris. Benderitter, E. 1914. Ochodaeinae, Orphninae et Hybosorinae. Pp. 195-206 in: Voyage de Ch. Alluaud et R. Jaennel en Afrique Orientale 1911-1912. Résultats Scientifiques, Coleoptera, V. Schulz, Paris. Boheman, C.H. 1857. Insecta Caffrarie Annis 1838-1845 a J.A. Wahlberg Collecta. Pars II. Cum Tab. I. Coleoptera. (Scarabeides). 396 pp. Norstedt, Holmie. Brancsik, K. 1893. Beitrage zur Kenntniss Nossibés und dessen Fauna nach Sendungen und Mittheilungen des Herrn P. Frey. Jahresheft des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereines des Trencsiner _Komitates, 15: 202-258. Buss, E.A. 2002. White Grub Biology and Management. ENY-321/LH037. University of Florida, Gainesville. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/LH037 (Accessed February 23, 2006). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 93 Buss, E.A- 2006. Flight activity and relative abundance of phytophagous scarabs (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea) from two locations in Florida. Florida Entomologist, 89: 32-40. Cartwright, O.L. 1934. A list of Scarabaeidae collected at Clemson College, South Carolina (Coleoptera). Entomological News, 45: 237-240. Crocker, R.L., Cromroy, H.L., Woodruff, R.E., Nailon, W.T. & Longnecker, M.T. 1992. Incidence of Caloglyphus phyllophagianus (Acari: Acaridae) on adult Phyllophaga spp. and other Scarabaeidae (Coleoptera) in north central Texas. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 85: 462-468. Delgado, L. & Marquez, J. 2006. Estado del conocimiento y conservacion de los coleopteros Scarabaeoidea (Insecta) del estado de Hidalgo, México. Acta Zoologica Mexicana (n.s.), 22: 57-108. Deloya, C. 2000. Escarabajos exoticos (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) para fauna de los estados de Morelos y Oaxaca. Folia Entomologia Mexicana, 108: 125-126. Derwesh, A.I. 1965. A Preliminary List of Identified Insects and Some Arachnids of Iraq. 123 pp. Government Press, Directorate General of Agricultural Research Projects, Baghdad. Dupuis, F. 2005. L’abdomen et les genitalia des femelles de coléoptéres Scarabaeoidea (Insecta, Coleoptera). Zoosystema, 27: 733-823. Endrédi, S. 1957. Hybosorinae (Coleoptera, Lamellicornia, Scarabaeidae). Parc National de l'Upemba. I. Mission G.F. de Witte, 46: 43-49. Endrédi, S. 1959. Zur Kenntnis der afrikanischen Phaeochrous-Arten. Revue Zoologique et Botanique de I’ Afrique, 59: 287-300. Endrédi, S. 1962. Mission zoologique de l’I.R.S.A.C. en Afrique orientale (P. Basilewsky et N. Leleup, 1957). LXIII. Coleoptera Scarabaeidae: Chironinae et Hybosorinae. Annales de le Musée Royal de l'Afrique Centrale Zoologique, Ser. 8, 107: 424. Endrédi, S. 1968. Contributions a la connaissance de la faune entomologique de la Céte- D'Ivoire (J. Decelle, 1961-1964). IX. — Coleoptera Lucanidae, Dynastinae und Hybos- orinae. Annales de le Musée Royal de I’ Afrique Centrale Zoologique, Ser. 8, 165: 171-175. Endrédi, S. 1970. Coleoptera aus Nordostafrika. Melolonthidae: Dynastinae, Scarabaeidae: Hybosorinae, Orphninae, Dynamopinae. Notulae Entomologicae, 50: 73-80. Endrédi, S. 1973. Entomological explorations in Ghana by Dr. S. Endrédi-Younga 14. Lamellicornia (Coleoptera), I. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici, 65: 195-229. Grebennikoy, V.V., Ballerio, A., Ocampo, F.C. & Scholtz, C.H. 2004. Larvae of Ceratocanthi- dae and Hybosoridae (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea): study of morphology, phylogenetics analysis and evidence of paraphyly of Hybosoridae. Systematic Entomology, 29: 524-543. Grebennikoy, V.V. & Scholtz, C.H. 2004. The basal phylogeny of Scarabaeoidea (Insecta: Coleoptera) inferred from larval morphology. Invertebrate Systematics, 18: 321-348. Harold, E. 1871. Verzeichniss der von Dr. Beccari in Bogos gesammelten coprophagen lamellicornien. Coleopterologische Hefte, 8: 1-28. Howden, H.F. 1970. Jamaican Scarabaeidae: notes and descriptions (Coleoptera). Canadian Entomologist, 102: 1-15. Illiger, J.C.W. 1803. Verzeichniss der in Portugall einheimischen Kafer. Erste Lieferung. Magazin fiir Insektenkunde, 2: 186-258. Jameson, M.L. 2002. Hybosoridae in Arnett, R.H., Thomas, M.C., Skalley, P.E. & Frank, J.H. (Eds.), American Beetles. Polyphaga: Scarabaeoidea through Curculionoidea, vol. 2. Pp. 32-33. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Kolbe, H. 1912. Die tiergeographischen Verhaltnisse der Scarabaeidengruppe der Phaeochro- inen. Entomologische Rundschau, 29: 153-155. Kral, D. & Lobl, I. 2006. Family Hybosoridae Erichson, 1847 in: Lobl, I. & Smetana, A. (Eds.), Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera. Volume 3: Scarabaeoidea — Scirtoidea — Dascilloidea — Buprestoidea — Byrrhoidea. Pp. 96-97. Apollo Books, Stenstrup. Krell, F-T., Ballerio, A., Smith, A.B.T. & Audisio, P. 2006. Gnorimus Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828 and Osmoderma Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of generic names. Bulletin of Zoologi- cal Nomenclature, 63: 177-183. 94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 Kuijten, P.J. 1980. Insects of Saudi Arabia Coleoptera: Fam. Scarabaeidae, Subfam. Hybos- orinae. Fauna of Saudi Arabia, 2: 155-156. Kuijten, P.J. 1983. Revision of the genus Hybosorus Macleay (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae, Hybosorinae). Zoologische Verhandelingen, 203: 1-49. Lacordaire, T. 1856. Histoire Naturelle des Insectes. Genera des Coléoptéres ou Exposé Méthodique et Critique de Tours les Genres Proposés Jusquwici dans cet Ordre d’Insectes. Tome 3. Contenant les Families des Pectinicornes et Lamellicornes. Roret, Paris. Landin, B-O. 1964. The identity of ““Scarabaeus arator Fabricius, 1775” (Col. Lamellicornia) with the designation of neotypes of arator Fabr. and arator Illig. and a list of the insects from the Cape Colony described by Fabricius 1775. Opuscula Entomologica, 29: 117-142. Lansberge, J.W. van. 1882. Enumération des scarabzides rapportes du pays des Somalis (Afrique Equatoriale) par M. Révoil avec diagnoses des espéces nouvelles. Compte Rendu Séances de la Société Entomologique de Belgique, 26: 21-31. LeConte, J.L. 1847. Fragmenta entomologica. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, (2)1: 71-93. LeConte, J.L. 1862. Classification of the Coleoptera of North America. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 3: 1-285. LeConte, J.L. & Horn, G.H. 1883. Classification of the Coleoptera of North America. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 507: 1-566. Loding, H.P. 1945. Catalogue of the beetles of Alabama. Alabama Geological Survey Monographs, 11: 1-172. Lopez-Colon, J.I., Gonzalez Pena, C. & Bletran Valen, J.R. 1996. Familias Geotrupidae, Ochodaeidae, Hybosoridae, Glaresidae y Trogidae (Insecta: Coleoptera 9 (Familias 27-31): Scarabaeoidea). Catalogus de la Entomofauna Aragonesa, Sociedad Entomologica Aragonesa, 12: 3-14. MacLeay, W.S. 1819. Horae Entomologicae: or Essays on the Annulose Animals, vol. 1. Part 1. xxx, 523 pp. Bagster, London.. Masters, W.M. 1980. Insect disturbance stridulation: characterization of airborne and vibrational components of the sound. Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethol- ogy, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology, 135: 259-268. Morales, C.J.M., Najera, R.R. & Delgardo, L. 2004. Primer registro de Euoniticellus intermedius (Reiche, 1849) y datos nuevos de distribucion de Digitonthophagus gazelle (Fabricius, 1787) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) e Hybosorus illigeri Reiche, 1853 (Coleoptera: Hybosoridae) para el estado de Chipas. Dugesiana, 11: 21-23. Moron, M.A. 1996. Scarabaeidae (Coleoptera). Pp. 309-328 in Llorente Bousquets, J. & Garcia Aldrete Gonzalez Soriano (Eds.), Biodiversidad, Taxonomia y Biogeografia de Artropodos de México: Hacia una Sintesis de su Conocimiento. CONABIO-UNAM, Mexico. Moron, M.A. 2003. Subfamilia Hybosorinae. Pp. 112-114 in Moron, M.A. (Ed.), Atlas de los Escarabajos de México. Coleoptera: Lamellicornia. Vol. II. Familias Scarabaeidae, Trogidae, Passalidae y Lucanidae. Argania Editio, Barcelona. Moron, M.A., Deloya, C., Ramirez Campos, A. & Hernandez Rodriguez, S. 1998. Faune de Coleoptera Lamellicornia de Sierra del Tentzo, Puebla, México. Acta Zoologica Mexicana (n.s.), 79: 77-102. Miller, G. 1939. Coleoptera Cicindelidae, Carabidae, Paussidae, Dytiscidae, Gyrinidae, Hydrophilidae, Silphidae, Histeridae, Cerambycidae, Brenthidae, Scarabaeidae (partim). Missione Biologica Paese Borana, 2: 244-309. Nel, A. & Scholtz, C.H. 1990. Comparative morphology of the mouthparts of adult Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera). Entomology Memoir, Department of Agricultural Development, Republic of South Africa, 80: 1-84. Ocampo, F.C. 2002. Hybosorids of the United States and expanding distribution of the introduced species Hybosorus illigeri (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea: Hybosoridae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 95: 316-322. Ocampo, F.C. & Ballerio, A. 2006. Phylogenetic analysis of the scarab family Hybosoridae and monographic revision of the New World subfamily Anaidinae (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea). 4. Catalog of the subfamilies Anaidinae, Ceratocanthinae, Hybosorinae, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 95 Liparochrinae, and Pachyplectrinae (Scarabaeoidea: Hybosoridae). Bulletin of the Uni- versity of Nebraska State Museum, 19: 178-209. . Ocampo, F.C. & Hawks, D.C. 2006. Phylogenetic analysis of the scarab family Hybosoridae and monographic revision of the New World subfamily Anaidinae (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea). 2. Molecular phylogenetics and systematic placement of the family Hybosoridae (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea). Bulletin of the University of Nebraska State Museum, 19: 7-12. Panin, S. 1957. Coleoptera Familia Scarabaeidae. Fauna Republicii Populare Romine Insecta, 10(4): 1-315. Paulian, R. 1944. Hybosoridae et Trogidae (Coleoptera Lamellicornia). Exploration du Parc National Albert Mission G.F. de Witte (1933-1935), 46: 3-8. Paulian, R. 1978. Coléoptéres Scarabaeoidea de l’Archipel des Comores. Mémoires Nouvelle du Muséum National d Histoire Naturelle, 109: 71-78. Paulian, R. & Baraud, J. 1982. Faune des Coléoptéres de France. II, Lucanoidea et Scarabaeoidea. Encyclopédie Entomologique, 43. Lechevalier, Paris. Péringuey, L. 1892. Third contribution to the South African coleopterous fauna. On beetles collected in tropical South-West Africa by Mr. A.W. Eriksson. Transactions of the South African Philosophical Society, 6: 1—94. Péringuey, L. 1901. Catalogue of the Coleoptera of South Africa. Transactions of the South African Philosophical Society, 12: 1-563. Petrovitz, R. 1972. Contribution a létude biologique du Sénégal septentrional XX. Coléoptéres Aphodiidae et Hybosoridae. Bulletin de l'Institut Fondamental d'Afrique Noire, ser. A, 34: 363-377. Quedenfeldt, G. 1884. Verzeichniss der von Herrn Major a. D. von Mechow in Angola und am Quango-Strom 1878-1881 gesammelten Pectinicornen und Lamellicornen. Berliner entomologische Zeitschrift, 28: 265-340. Reiche, L.J. 1853. Note sur l’Hybosorus arator auctorum, et sur le Trox granulatus, F., et description d’une nouvelle espéce. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (3)1: 87-90. Ritcher, P.O. 1966. White grubs and their allies; a study of North American scarabaeoid larvae. Oregon State Monographs, Studies in Entomology, 4: 1-219. Rozas, L., Avila, J.M. & Sanchez-Pinero, F. 1991. Observacion de habitos depredadores en Hybosorus illigeri Reiche, 1853 (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea, Hybosoridae). Boletin de la Asociacion Espanola de Entomologia, 15: 111-115. Thomas, D.B. 1993. Scarabaeidae (Coleoptera) of the Chiapanecan forests: a faunal survey and chorographic analysis. Coleopterists Bulletin, 47: 363-408. Weeks, A.R., Velten, R. & Stouthamer, R. 2003. Incidence of a new sex-ratio-distorting endosymbiotic bactertum among arthropods. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 270: 1857-1865. Westwood, J.O. 1845. On the lamellicorn beetles which possess exserted mandibles and labrum, and 10-jointed antennae. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 4: 155-160. Woodruff, R.E. 1973. Arthropods of Florida and Neighboring Land Areas. Volume 8. The Scarab Beetles of Florida (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) Part I. The Laparosticti (Subfamilies: Scarabaeinae, Aphodiinae, Hybosorinae, Ochodaeinae, Geotrupinae, Acanthocerinae). 220 pp. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Gainesville. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 64: 1. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 Case 3376 Lithocolletis oxyacanthae Frey, 1855 (currently Phyllonorycter oxyacanthae; Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name by giving it precedence over Lithocolletis pomonella Zeller, 1846 Paolo Triberti clo Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Lungadige Porta Vittoria 9, I-37129 Verona, Italy (e-mail: caloptilia@alice.it) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the widely used specific name Phyllonorycter oxyacanthae (Frey, 1855) for a common European leaf miner moth (family GRACILLARIIDAE) by giving it precedence over Phyllonorycter pomonella (Zeller, 1846), which has recently been shown by Triberti (2007) to be its senior synonym. A change in the application of the name would cause considerable confusion as the name P. pomonella has been commonly applied to other species. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lepidoptera; GRACILLARIIDAE; Phyllonorycter; Phyllonorycter oxyacanthae; Phyllonorycter pomonella; leaf miner moth; Europe. 1. The name Lithocolletis oxyacanthae was established by Frey, 1855 (pp. 606-608) for a widespread European species whose larva is a leaf miner of Crataegus spp. (hawthorn) and a few other genera of ROSACEAE. The name of this species has been used consistently since the original description. 2. The name Lithocolletis pomonella Zeller, 1846 (p. 201) was established for a species collected on the wing. The author mentioned Crataegus, Pyrus and Prunus as possible host plants, occurring in the collecting site. Under this name, Zeller also described two ‘variants’ (b and c). Subsequently Lithocolletis pomonella has been reported as a synonym of Lithocolletis sorbi Frey, 1855 (Herrich-Schaffer, 1855; Staudinger & Rebel, 1901; Meyrick, 1912) or Lithocolletis spinicolella Zeller, 1846 (Stainton, 1854; Frey, 1856; Heinemann & Wocke, 1877; Bankes, 1899). From the beginning of the twentieth century it ceased to be cited (see Spuler, 1910; Caradja, 1920; Petersen, 1927; Meyrick, 1928; Pierce & Metcalfe, 1935; Mariani, 1940-41; Jacobs, 1945). Benander (1944) used the name Lithocolletis pomonella for Lithocol- letis spinicolella and was followed by Lhomme (1963), Bradley et al. (1969), Bradley (1972), Leraut (1980, 1997), Kuznetzov (1981), Huemer (1988), Vives Moreno (1994) and Gregor & Patocka (2001). This misidentification was corrected by Karsholt (1996). In 1963 an unknown species mining the leaves of cultivated Malus was found by Ciampolini (1967) in Northern Italy, and identified by Hering (1966) as Lithocolletis pomonella (Zeller, 1846). However, this was a misidentification of a new species subsequently described as Phyllonorycter hostis Triberti, 2007. It is unclear why this name was used by Hering as he had never seen the types of Lithocolletis pomonella Zeller, 1846 (see Hering, 1966) and Malus is not mentioned in Zeller’s Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 97 description as a possible host plant. In Italy this new species has been referred to by the name pomonella in the applied entomological literature for twenty years: Ciampolini (1967), Baumgartner et al. (1981), Stiss & Ciampolini (1986). Later, it was corrected by Deschka in Ciampolini et al. (1988) and simply named Phyllonorycter “sp. 3. A study of the type material of Lithocolletis pomonella revealed that this species is a senior synonym of L. oxyacanthae and consequently the name Litho- colletis pomonella should take priority. ‘Variants’ b and c correspond to Litho- colletis oxyacanthae Frey, 1855 and Lithocolletis cerasicolella Herrich-Schaffer, 1855 respectively (Triberti, 2007). 4. The name pomonella has also been incorrectly used in many publications where it is applied to various species. In the last fifty years, it has been used for spinicolella, a species feeding on Prunus spinosa and P. domestica, and for a new species mining Malus subsequently described as Phyllonorycter hostis (Triberti, 2007), whereas oxyacanthae feeds on Crataegus, Pyrus, Sorbus and Cydonia. Therefore, if the name pomonella were given precedence over oxyacanthae, it would cause considerable confusion in both taxonomy and agriculture. 5. This application is submitted to coincide as closely as possible with the publication of Triberti (2007) to avoid usage of Lithocolletis pomonella Zeller, 1846 as the senior synonym of Lithocolletis oxyacanthae Frey, 1855. Comments in support of this application are published in BZN 64: 126-127. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to give the name oxyacanthae Frey, 1855, as published in the binomen Lithocolletis oxyacanthae, precedence over the name pomonella Zeller, 1846, as published in the binomen Lithocolletis pomonella, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) oxyacanthae Frey, 1855, as published in the binomen Lithocolletis oxya- canthae, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name pomonella Zeller, 1846, as published in the binomen Lithocolletis pomonella, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (b) pomonella Zeller, 1846, as published in the binomen Lithocolletis pomonella, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name oxyacanthae Frey, 1855, as published in the binomen Lithocolletis oxyacanthae, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. Acknowledgements I am indebted to O. Karsholt (Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) and A. Minelli (Department of Biology, Padova University, Italy) for commenting on this application and improving the text. References Bankes, E.R. 1899. Lithocolletis concomitella n. sp. and its nearest allies. Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 35: 241-255, 284-288. 98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 Baumgartner, J., Delucchi, V. & Genini, M. 1981. Taxonomic characters and physiological response to temperature and photoperiod of two Lithocolletis mining apple leaves. Mitteilungen der Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft, 54: 245-255. Benander, P. 1944. Sveriges Lithocolletider (Gracilariidae). Opuscula Entomologica, 9: 79-137. Bradley, J.D. 1972. [Microlepidoptera]. In Kloet, G.S. & Hincks, W.D.A. (Eds.), A Check List of British Insects. Vol. XXIV Lepidoptera. Second Edition (revised). 153 pp. Royal Entomological Society, London. Bradley, J.D., Jacobs, S.N.A. & Tremewan, W.G. 1969. A key to the British and French species of Phyllonorycter Hubner (Lithocolletis Hubner) (Lep. Gracillariidae). Entomologist's Gazette, 20: 3-33. Caradja, A. 1920. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der geographischen Verbreitung der Mikrolepidop- teren des palaearktischen Faunengebietes nebst Beschreibung neuer Formen. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift ‘Iris’, herausgegeben vom Entomologische Verein zu Dresden, 35: 75-179. Ciampolini, M. 1967. Un/altra specie di Lithocolletis sta diffondendosi nei frutteti italiani. Giornate fitopatologiche 1967. Atti del Convegno, Bologna, 1967: 627-630. Ciampolini, M., Siiss, L. & Trematerra, P. 1988. 1 Phylionorycter (Lepidoptera, Gracillariidae) piu frequenti e nocivi alle Pomoidee e Prunoidee in Italia. Bollettino di Zoologia agraria e di Bachicoltura, 20: 61-88. Frey, H. 1855. Ueber die in der Schweiz beobachten Arten des Genus Lithocolletis. Mittheilun- gen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Ziirich, 3: 600-635. Frey, H. 1856. Die Tineen und Pterophoren der Schweiz. 430 pp. Meyer & Zeller, Ztirich. Gregor, F. & Patocka, J. 2001. Die Puppen der mitteleuropaischen Lithocolletinae. Mitteilun- gen des Internationalen Entomologischen Vereins e. V. Frankfurt a. M. Suppl, VW: 1-177. Heinemann, H. & Wocke, M.F. 1877. Die Schmetterlinge Deutschland und der Schweiz. Zweite Abteilung. Kleinschmetterlinge. Band 2 Die Motten und Federmotten. Pp. 389-825. C.A. Schwetschke & Sohn, Braunschweig. Hering, E.M. 1966. Das Lithocolletis-Artenpaar des Apfelbaumes (Lep. Lithocolletidae). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift N. F., 13: 279-287. Herrich-Schaffer, G.A.W. 1855. Systematische Bearbeitung der Schmetterlinge von Europa, vol. 5. Die Schaben und federmotten. 394 pp. Regensburg. Huemer, P. 1988. Kleinschmetterlinge an Rosaceae unter besonderer Berticksichtigung ihre Vertikalverbreitung (excl. Hepialidae, Cossidae, Zigaenidae, Psychidae und Sesiidae). Neue entomologische Nachrichten, 20: 1-376. Jacobs, S.N.A. 1945. On the British species of the genus Lithocolletis Hb. Proceedings & Transactions of the South London Entomological & Natural History Society, 1944/45: 32-59. Karsholt, O. 1996. [Comment on Phyllonorycter spinicolella| In Karsholt, O. & Razowski, J. (Eds.), The Lepidoptera of Europe. A Distributional Checklist. 380 pp. Apollo Books, Stenstrup. Kuznetzoy, V.I. 1981. Fam. Gracillariidae (Lithocolletidae) leaf blotch miners. Jn Medvedev, GS. (Ed.), A guide to the insects of the European part of the USSR. Lepidoptera, vol. 4, part 2. 786 pp. Nauka, Leningrad. Leraut, P. 1980. Liste systématique et synonymique des lépidopteres de France, Belgique et Corse. Supplément a Alexanor et au Bulletin de la Société entomologique de France. 334 pp. Paris. Leraut, P. 1997. Liste systematique et synonymique des Lépidopteres de France, Belgique et Corse. Supplément a Alexanor. 526 pp. Wetteren, Lhomme, L. 1946-1963. Catalogue des Lépidoptéres de France et de Belgique, vol. 2/2. Pp. 489-1253. Tineina. Le Carriol, par Douelle, Lot. Mariani, M. 1940-41. Fauna lepidopterorum Italiae. Parte I. Catalogo ragionato dei lepidotteri d'Italia. Giornale di scienze Naturali ed Economiche, 42: 1-236. Meyrick, E. 1912. Adelidae, Micropterygidae, Gracillaridae. In Wagner, H. (Ed.), Lepidop- terorum Catalogus, Pars 6. 68 pp. W. Junk, Berlin. Meyrick, E. 1928. A revised handbook of British Lepidoptera. 914 pp. Watkins & Doncaster, London. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 99 Petersen, W. 1927. Die Blattminierergattungen Lithocolletis u. Nepticula (Lep.). Entomolo- gische Zeitung, herausgegeben von dem entomologischen Vereine zu Stettin, 88: 113-174. Pierce, F.N. & Metcalfe, J.W. 1935. The genitalia of the Tineid families of the Lepidoptera of the British Isles. 114 pp. E.W. Classey, Middlesex. Spuler, A. 1910. Die Schmetterlinge Europas, vol. 2. 523 pp. E. Schweizerbartsche Verlag- sbuchhandlung, Stuttgart. Stainton, H.T. 1854. Lepidoptera Tineina. In: Insecta Britannica, vol. 3. 313 pp. Lovell Reeve, London. Staudinger, O. & Rebel, H. 1901. Catalog der Lepidopteren des palaearctischen Faunengebietes, part 2. 368 pp. Friedlander und Sohn, Berlin. Siiss, L. & Ciampolini, M. 1986. Phyllonorycter pomonella allarga la sua invadenza al pesco. Informatore Agrario, 42: 71-74. Triberti, P. 2007 [in press]. The Phyllonorycter species from Palaearctic Region feeding on Rosaceae (Lepidoptera, Gracillariidae). Bollettino del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona Botanica Zoologia, vol. 31. Vives Moreno, A. 1994. Catalogo sistematico y sinonimico de los lepidopteros de la Peninsula Iberica y Baleares (Insecta: Lepidoptera) (segunda parte). 775 pp. Secretaria General Tecnica, Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentacion, Madrid. Zeller, P.C. 1846. Die Arten der Blattminierergattung Lithocolletis. Linnaea Entomologica, 1: 166-261. Acknowledgement of receipt of this publication was published in BZN 63: 85. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 Case 3382 Mystus Scopoli, 1777 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): proposed conservation of usage by designation of Bagrus halepensis Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840 as the type species Maurice Kottelat Route de la Baroche 12, Case Postale 57, CH-2952 Cornol, Switzerland (e-mail: mkottelat@dplanet.ch) Heok Hee Ng Fish Division, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 1109 Geddes Avenue, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1079, U.S.A. Current address: Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research, Department of Biological Sciences, 6 Science Drive 2 #03—01, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117546 (e-mail: dbsnhh@nus.edu.sg) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 70.2 of the Code, is to conserve the current usage of the names Mystus Scopoli, 1777 and Platydoras Bleeker, 1862 for two genera of bagrid and doradid catfishes respectively. The names are currently in use, but their current usage is threatened by the discovery of an overlooked fixation of the type species of Mystus. The suppression of this fixation is sought and it is proposed that Bagrus halepensis Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840 should be accepted as the type species of Mystus as designated by Jordan & Evermann (1907). Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; BAGRIDAE; DORADIDAE; Mystus; Platydoras; Mystus halepensis; Platydoras costatus; catfishes. 1. The nominal genus Mystus Scopoli, 1777 (p. 451) was originally described without any validly named species. The name has been most frequently used for a genus in the Old World catfish family BAGRIDAE. Mystus currently includes 32 valid species, but at some time included up to 62 valid species, now distributed in the genera Mystus and Hemibagrus Bleeker, 1862 (p. 9) (Ng, 2003, p. 441). 2. The first inclusion of a validly named species in Mystus is by Swainson (1838, p. 340), who included in it ‘Cataphractus costatus of Bloch, 1794: pl. 376’ as the only included species. This makes it the type species of Mystus by subsequent monotypy (Article 69.3 of the Code). The ‘Cataphractus costatus of Bloch, 1794: pl. 376’ is Silurus costatus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 306) (currently Platydoras costatus), a member of the neotropical family DORADIDAE. 3. Swainson’s designation of a type species has been overlooked since. Jordan & Evermann (1917, p. 21) designated Bagrus halepensis Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840a (p. 413) as the type species of Mystus. This designation was often cited (e.g. by Roberts, 1994, p. 243; Eschmeyer, 1998, p. 2028). Bagrus halepensis Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840 is currently considered a junior subjective synonym of Silurus pelusius Solander in Russell, 1794 (p. 210). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 101 4. Some-authors (see Whitley, 1936, p. 191) have also referred to a type species designation (because of first inclusion of ‘silure alasias’) by Bosc (1803, p. 325). However, that does not constitute a valid type species designation because Bosc’s ‘silure alasias’ is neither an available name nor an incorrect spelling (Article 67.2.1 of the Code — Originally included nominal species) but a gallicised version of a misspelling of Silurus clarias Linnaeus, 1758. The ‘silure alasias’ of Bosc (1803) possibly refers to the species misidentified as Silurus clarias by Bloch, 1782 (p. 247, pl. 35); this has been redescribed as Pimelodus blochii Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840b (p. 188), a member of the neotropical family PIMELODIDAE. 5. Although Platydoras (type species Silurus costatus Linnaeus, 1758, by original designation) was described by Bleeker in 1862 (p. 5), it was regarded for a long time as a junior subjective synonym of Doras Lacépeéde (as La Cepéde), 1803 until Eigenmann (1925, p. 315) resurrected it as a valid genus. Since then, it has been in continuous use. 6. Mystus Scopoli, 1777 has been in continuous and unambiguous use for the same genus in the BAGRIDAE since 1928. 7. Use of the valid type species Si/urus costatus Linnaeus, 1758 for Mystus Scopoli, 1777 would result in changing the name of the South American catfishes from Platydoras to Mystus and the name of the 32 Asian species currently assigned to Mystus to either Aspidobagrus Bleeker, 1862 or Hypselobagrus Bleeker, 1862, two simultaneous junior subjective synonyms, which have almost never been used since their original proposal. Some species of Mystus are very common and the name appears in hundreds of works, inventories, surveys, fisheries statistics in South and Southeast Asia. Platydoras is also widely used in South America. The situation is compounded by the fact that Platydoras costatus 1s a species widely encountered in the aquarium trade and, as such, has been widely cited in both scientific and aquarium literature for 80 years (e.g. Ferraris, 1991; Moyer et al., 2004). 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to set aside all type species fixations for the nominal genus Mystus Scopohi, 1777 before that by Jordan & Evermann (1917) of Bagrus halepensis Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Mystus Scopoli, 1777 (gender: masculine), type species Bagrus halepensis Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840 by subsequent designation by Jordan & Evermann, 1917, as ruled in (1) above; (b) Platydoras Bleeker, 1862 (gender: masculine), type species Si/urus costatus Linnaeus, 1758 by original designation; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) pelusius Solander in Russell, 1794, as published in the binomen Silurus pelusius (the valid name of Bagrus halepensis Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840, the type species of Mystus Scopoli, 1777); (b) costatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Si/urus costatus (specific name of the type species of Platydoras Bleeker, 1862). References Bleeker, P. 1862-63. Atlas ichthyologique des Indes Orientales Néérlandaises, publié sous les auspices du Gouvernement colonial néérlandais. Tome II. Siluroides, Chacoides et Hétéro- branchoides. 112 pp., pls. 49-101. Frédéric Muller, Amsterdam. 102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 Bloch, M.E. 1782. Oekonomische Naturgeschichte der Fische Deutschlands. 1. Theil. 258 pp., pls. 1-37. Morino, Berlin. Bloch, M.E. 1794. Naturgeschichte der ausldndischen Fische. 8. Theil. iv, 174 pp., pls. 361-396. Morino, Berlin. Bosc, L.A.G. 1803. Myste. P. 325 in: Nouveau dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle, appliquée aux arts, principalement a lagriculture et a l'économie rurale et domestique: par une Société de naturalistes et d’agriculteurs: avec des figures tirées des trois régnes de la nature, vol. 15. 580 pp., pls. 23-36. Deterville, Paris. Cuvier, G. & Valenciennes, A. 1840a. Histoire Naturelle des Poissons. Tome Quartozieme. Suite du livre seiziéme. Labroides. Livre dix-septiéme. Des Malacoptérygiens. xxii, 464 pp., pls. 389-420. Pitois-Levrault, Paris. Cuvier, G. & Valenciennes, A. 1840b. Histoire Naturelle des Poissons. Tome Quinziéme. Suite du livre dix-septiéme. Siluroides. xxxi, 540 pp., pls. 421-455. Pitois, Paris. Eigenmann, C.H. 1925. A review of the Doradidae, a family of South American Nematognathi, or catfishes. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society (New Series), 22: 280-365. Eschmeyer, W.N., Ferraris, C.J., Hoang, M.D. & Long, D.J. 1898. Part I. Species of fishes. Pp. 25-1820 in Eschmeyer, W.N. (Ed.), Catalog of Fishes. California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco. Ferraris, C.J. 1991. Catfish in the Aquarium. 199 pp. Tetra Press, Morris Plains, NJ. Jordan, D.S. & Evermann, B.W. 1917. The genera of fishes, from Linnaeus to Cuvier, 1758-1833, seventy-five years, with the accepted type of each. A contribution to the stability of scientific nomenclature. Leland Stanford Jr. University Publications, University Series, 27: 1-161. La Cepéde, [E.] 1803. Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 5. Ixvi, 803 pp., pls. 1-21. Didot, Paris. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvi, Holmiae. Moyer, G.R., Burr, B.M. & Krajewski, C. 2004. Phylogenetic relationships of thorny catfishes (Siluriformes: Doradidae) inferred from molecular and morphological data. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society of London, 140: 551—S75. Ng, H.H. 2003. Phylogeny and systematics of Bagridae. Pp. 439-463 in Kapoor, B.G., Arratia, G., Chardon, M. & Diogo, R. (Eds.), Catfishes, vol. 1. Science Publishers, Enfield. Roberts, T.R. 1994. Systematic revision of Asian bagrid catfishes of the genus Mystus sensu stricto, with a new species from Thailand and Cambodia. Ichthyological Exploration of Freshwaters, 5: 241-256. Russell, A. 1794. Natural History of Aleppo. Containing a Description of the City, and the Principal Natural Productions in its Neighbourhood. Together with an Account of the Climate, Inhabitants, and Diseases; Particularly of the Plague. Second Edition, revised by P. Russell, vol. 2. vii, 430 pp., xxxiv, 26 pp., index; pls. 1-16. G.G. & J. Robinson, London. Scopoli, J.-A. 1777. Introductio ad historiam naturalem, sistens genera lapidum, plantarum et animalium hactenus detecta, caracteribus essentialibus donata, in tribus divisa, subinde ad leges naturae. x, 506 pp. Wolfgang Gerle, Prague. Swainson, W. 1838. The Natural History and Classification of Fishes, Amphibians, & Reptiles, or Monocardian Animals, vol. 1. vi, 368 pp. Longman, Brown, Green & Longmans, London. Whitley, G.P. 1936. Ichthyological genotypes: some supplementary remarks. Australian Zoologist, 8: 189-192. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 63: 153. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 103 Case 3383 Gobius lagocephalus Pallas, 1770 (currently Sicyopterus lagocephalus; Osteichthyes, Teleostei, GoBIIDAE): proposed suppression of the specific name Wm. Leo Smith and John S. Sparks American Museum of Natural History, Department of Ichthyology, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, New York 10024, U.S.A. (e-mails: leosmith@amnh.org and jsparks@amnh.org) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 81.1 of the Code, is to suppress the name Gobius lagocephalus Pallas, 1770 (currently Sicyopterus lagocepha- lus) commonly used for a species of sicydiine goby. The name was originally applied to a species from the western Atlantic, but is currently applied to various populations of sicydiine gobies in the Indo-West Pacific. The species identity of Gobius lagocepha- lus 1s uncertain, and previous neotype designations were based on Indo-Pacific species and are rendered invalid. Further use of this name will disturb stability in the nomenclature of GoBlmiDAE. The name Gobius lagocephalus has not been used for an Atlantic sicydiine goby since 1837. If a neotype is designated based on an Indo-West Pacific species, the use of the current combination Sicyopterus lagocephalus will be confusing and not consistent with the original description. It is proposed to suppress the name Gobius lagocephalus Pallas, 1770 to avoid further confusion in gobiid nomenclature. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Teleostel; GOBIIDAE; SICYDIINAE; Gobius; Sicyopterus lagocephalus; western Atlantic; Indo-West Pacific; goby. 1. Pallas (1770) described Gobius lagocephalus from a single specimen from the zoological collection of St. Petersburg (presumably from the Kunstkammer, which is now housed at the St. Petersburg Zoological Museum). The original description of the goby, to which the name was applied, was somewhat brief, but it did provide an illustration that is clearly identifiable as a sicydiine goby. This species had been described earlier by Koelreuter (1764) who did not use binominal nomenclature. Koelreuter (1764) did not provide locality information; however, Pallas (1770) wrote, *Pisculum ipse ex America habui Koelreuterus e specimen Musei Petropolitani descripsit, ignoravit autem patriam’. We translate this as, ‘I myself regard this small fish as being from America. Koelreuter described [the species] from a specimen in the St. Petersburg Museum, however he was ignorant of [its] native land’. The limited character states that are provided by Pallas (e.g. number of rays in the second dorsal fin [10]) are inconclusive with regard to establishing the specific identity of this name; however, the pectoral-ray counts provided by Pallas exclude Gobius lagocephalus from Sicyopterus. Furthermore, the specimen upon which Pallas based his description has been lost (see Kottelat, in press). 104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 2. The present difficulties not only arise from Pallas’s work but also from the frequent use of the name Gobius lagocephalus for a taxon from the Indo-West Pacific, a region that is far removed from the type locality (American Seas’). The first use of lagocephalus for an Indo-West Pacific sicydiine goby was by Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes (1837), who included Gobius lagocephalus in a newly described genus Sicydium Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1837 (p. 167). In that study, Sicydium lagocephalus was attributed, without justification, to the Mascarene region. Since Valenciennes’s incorrect attribution, /agocephalus has frequently but intermit- tently been used for various populations of Indo-West Pacific (primarily Mascarene) sicydine gobies of the genus Sicyopterus Gill, 1860 (p. 101). This assignment to Sicyopterus began with Bleeker (1876, p. 276) and has been generally followed since (e.g. Kiener, 1963; Allen, 1991; Reinthal & Stiassny, 1991; Watson et al., 2000; Keith et al., 2005a). To complicate matters, on two separate occasions invalid neotype designations have been made based on specimens collected in the Mascarene region. Fricke (1999, p. 523) designated a neotype for Gobius lagocephalus and many other species, but these designations were invalid because they did not satisfy several Articles of the Code (75.3, 75.3.2, 75.3.4, 75.3.5 and 75.3.6 — Neotype qualifying conditions). Shortly thereafter, Fricke (2000) rescinded his neotype designations. Watson et al. (2000, p. 13) followed up Fricke’s work by designating a neotype for G. lagocephalus. However, this designation is also invalid because the Watson et al. (2000) study did not discuss Pallas’s description, the need for designating a neotype, or their efforts to locate type material. Therefore, the conditions of Article 75.3 (neotype qualifying designationsy were not met. Sparks & Nelson (2004) discussed the availability of the name Gobius lagocephalus and concluded at that time that it must be considered a nomen dubium. 3. If the existing name-bearing type of a species-group taxon is indeterminate (i.e. a nomen dubium), the introduction to the Code makes it clear that an application should be made to the Commission to either suppress the name or designate a neotype. In this particular case, there are three options, which we list and discuss below; however, it is important to note that Gobius lagocephalus is the oldest available name for any sicydiine goby: (1) designating a neotype for a currently recognized species that is most consistent with Pallas’s description (i.e. assigning the name to any one of the species currently assigned to the Atlantic genus Sicydium); (2) designating a neotype that is most consistent with current usage (Sicyopterus); (3) suppressing the name Gobius lagocephalus and placing it on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. The choice among these three options should be based on stabilizing nomenclature and Article 75.3 of the Code (neotype qualifying designations). We will discuss all three options; however, we believe that suppression of the name Gobius lagocephalus Pallas, 1770 is preferable in this case. Pallas’s original description notes that he regards the specimen as originating from ‘American Seas’, although with some uncertainty. This locality information is supported by his reference to the holotype having 15 pectoral-fin rays. Generally speaking, the western Atlantic and Caribbean sicydiine gobies of the genus Sicydium and the two Cotylopus species (Réunion and Mayotte (Comoros)) have lower pectoral-fin ray counts than the Indo-West Pacific Sicyopterus species ({17—22 rays in Sicyopterus]; Watson, 1995; Watson, 2000; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 105 Watson et al., 2000; Keith et al., 2005b), which would be more consistent with Pallas’s count of 15 rays. Therefore, a correct neotype designation for Gobius lagocephalus would be most consistent with one of the Sicydium gobies from the “American seas.’ However, the designation of a neotype that is consistent with the type-locality and species description that would fix the name Gobius lagocephalus to any one taxon of Sicydium goby would be arbitrary and threaten the usage of names of the well-established Atlantic and Caribbean species of Sicydium. This 1s particu- larly true because the name /agocephalus has not been used for an ‘American’ sicydiine since Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes (1837) misattributed the name to a species from the Mascarene region. The second option of designating a neotype that is most consistent with recent usage (e.g. Fricke, 1999; Watson et al., 2000; Keith et al., 2005a) contradicts two Articles of the Code, 75.3.5 and 75.3.6. Designating a neotype from the Mascarene region would violate these two Articles because a Sicyopterus assignment would be inconsistent with the original description (Article 75.3.5) because of inconsistent pectoral-ray counts and because it would be desig- nating a neotype from nearly halfway around the world, which is not proximate to the original type locality (Article 75.3.6). Furthermore, if a western Indian Ocean sicydiine were to be designated as a neotype, it would be inappropriate for it to be a Sicyopterus species when only the two Cotylopus Guichenot, 1863 (p. 9) species have pectoral-fin ray counts that are consistent with Pallas’s description. However, the designation of a neotype that would fix the name Gobius lagocephalus to either one of the Cotylopus species would also be arbitrary and threaten the usage of either species-group names of this well-established Indian Ocean genus. Given that these previous two options would threaten the usage of well-established names and/or contradict one or more of the neotype qualifying designations (Article 75.3), we believe that the best action is to suppress the name Gobius lagocephalus Pallas, 1770 and place it on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. It is also important to note that there are numerous available names for sicydiine gobies described from the Mascarene region that were synonymized with G. lagocephalus by Watson et al. (2000) when they invalidly designated a neotype for this species-group name. Although we recognize that this eliminates a commonly used species-group name, we believe that it is the only justifiable action that does not threaten usage of well-established and nomenclaturally unproblematic names or violate any Articles or guidelines of the Code. 4. In order to avoid confusion and promote stability, as outlined in Article 81, we propose the suppression of the specific name Gobius lagocephalus Pallas, 1770. We have discussed this proposal with many of our colleagues within ichthyology and herpetology. Everyone that we have spoken to (including various researchers at the American Museum of Natural History, Los Angeles County Museum, Smithsonian Institution, University of Michigan, and Villanova University) has agreed with our recommendation that the name should be suppressed because the problems outweigh any benefits that designating a neotype would provide. 5. The name Gobius lagocephalus Pallas, 1770 is currently used for a large number of species in the Indo-West Pacific, the situation that follows the assignments by Watson et al. (2000) and Keith et al. (2005). Until detailed phylogenetic and taxonomic investigations are undertaken, all of the names synonymised with Sicyopterus lagocephalus by Watson et al. (2000) that were not dealt with in Sparks 106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 & Nelson (2004) should be recognized: Sicydium laticeps Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1837; Sicydium macrostetholepis Bleeker, 1853; Sicydium gymnauchen Bleeker, 1858; Sicydiuwm taeniurum Ginther, 1877; Sicydiun halei Day, 1888; Sicyopterus tauae Jordan & Seale, 1906; Sicyopterus extraneus Herre, 1927; Bryanina inana Fowler, 1932; Sicyopterus eudentatus Parenti & Maciolek, 1993. The oldest available name for a Sicyopterus from the Mascarene region 1s Sicyoperus laticeps, but other species (e.g. Sicyopterus punctissimus Sparks & Nelson, 2004) are also found in that region, so no broad generalisations can be made. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to suppress the name /agocephalus Pallas, 1770, as published in the binomen Gobius lagocephalus, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name /agocephalus Pallas, 1770, as published in the binomen Gobius lagocephalus and as suppressed in (1) above. Acknowledgements We thank A.M. Bauer, T. Grant, D.W. Nelson and S.A. Schaefer for discussions and for offering opinions about this taxonomic issue. We also thank W.N. Eschmeyer for relaying information about the loss of the holotype of Gobius lagocephalus. Finally, we thank D.W. Nelson and D. Ross for help with the translation of Pallas (1770). References Allen, G.R. 1991. Field guide to the freshwater fishes of New Guinea. 268 pp. Christensen Research Institute, Madang, Papua New Guinea. Cuvier, G. & Valenciennes, A. 1837. Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 12. 507 pp. Levrault, Paris. Fricke, R. 1999. Fishes of the Mascarene Islands (Réunion, Mauritius, Rodriguez): An annotated checklist, with descriptions of new species. 759 pp. Koeltz Scientific Books, Koenigstein. Fricke, R. 2000. Invalid neotypes. Copeia, 2000: 639-640. Keith, P., Galewski, T., Cattaneo-Berrebi, G., Hoareau, T. & Berrebi, P. 2005. Ubiquity of Sicyopterus lagocephalus (Teleostei: Gobioidei) and phylogeography of the genus Sicyo- pterus in the Indo-Pacific area inferred from mitochondrial cytochrome b gene. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 37: 721-732. Keith, P., Hoareau, T. & Bosc, P. 2005a. The genus Cotylopus (Teleostei: Gobioidei) endemic to the rivers of islands of the Indian Ocean with description of a new species from Mayotte (Comoros). Journal of Natural History, 39: 1395-1405. Kiener, A. 1963. Poissons, péche et pisciculture a Madagascar. Centre Technique Forestier Tropical. Nogent-sur-Marne (France), 24: |—-244. Koelreuter, J. 1764. Descriptions piscium rariorum e museo petripolitano exceptorum continuatio. Novi commentarii Academiae scientiarwm imperialis petropolitanae, 9: 420-470. Kottelat, M. In press. Nomenclatural status and identity of Gobius lagocephalus (Teleostei: Gobiidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. Pallas, P.S. 1770. Spicilegia Zoologica quibus novae imprimis et obscurae animalium species iconibus, descriptionibus atque commentaries ilustrantur, vol. 1, fasc. 8. 56 pp. Gottl. August. Lange, Berolini. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 107 Reinthal, P.N. & Stiassny, M.L.J. 1991. The freshwater fishes of Madagascar: A study of an endangered fauna with recommendations for a conservation strategy. Conservation Biology, 5: 231-241. Sparks, J.S. & Nelson, D.W. 2004. Review of the Malagasy sicydiine gobies (Teleostei: Gobiidae), with descriptions of a new species and comments on the taxonomic status of Gobius lagocephalus Pallas, 1770. American Museum Novitates, 3440: 1-20. Watson, R.E. 1995. Review of the freshwater goby genus Cotylopus (Teleostei: Gobiidae: Sicydiinae). Ichthyological Exploration of Freshwaters, 6: 61—70. Watson, R.E., Marquet, G. & Péllabauer, C. 2000. New Caledonia fish species of the genus Sicyopterus (Teleostei: Gobioidei: Sicydiinae). Aqua, 4: 5-34. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 63: 153. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 Case 3380 Columba roseogrisea Sundevyall, 1857 (currently Streptopelia roseogrisea; Aves, COLUMBIDAE): proposed conservation Thomas M. Donegan ProAves Foundation, 33 Blenheim Road, Caversham, Reading, U.K. (e-mail: thomasdonegan@yahoo.co.uk) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9 of the Code, is to conserve the name Streptopelia roseogrisea (Sundevall, 1857) for the African collared dove. The name is threatened by its senior subjective synonym Streptopelia risoria (Linnaeus, 1758), which is in use for the domestic form of S. roseogrisea. It is proposed to conserve the name Streptopelia roseogrisea (Sundevall, 1857) by ruling that the name is not invalid because it is pre-dated by a name based on a domestic form. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Streptopelia roseogrisea; Streptopelia risoria; Streptopelia decaocto; ringed dove; ringed turtle-dove; barbary dove; African collared dove; collared dove. 1. Columba risoria (ringed dove, ringed turtle-dove or barbary dove) was described by Linnaeus (1758, p. 165) and later transferred to the genus Streptopelia by Bonaparte (1855, p. 17). Ringed doves are kept in captivity in many parts of the world, being used frequently in biological research (e.g. Zenone et al., 1979; Walker et al., 1983; Janik & Buntin, 1985; Cheng, 1986; Cate et al., 1993; Georgiou et al., 1995) or as pets by bird fanciers. Feral populations of S. risoria have been found in the United States (Robbins et al., 1983, p. 168; National Geographic, 1999, pp. 236-237), the Virgin Islands (Raffaele et al., 1998, p. 299), the Canary Islands (Svensson et al., 1999, p. 390), the Balearic Islands (Snow & Perrins, 1998, pp. 852-853), the U.K. (British Ornithologists’ Union, 2006), elsewhere in Europe (Peterson et al., 1983, p. 131) and Colombia, South America (Donegan & Huertas, 2002). Ringed doves are considered ‘introduced’ in North America (American Ornithological Union, 2000; Banks et al., 2006), ‘hypothetical’ (pending confirmation of a sustainable population) for South America (Remsen et al., 2006), possibly introduced in Colombia (Salaman et al., 2007) and ‘Category E’ in the U.K. (British Ornithologists’ Union, 2006). 2. Columba roseogrisea (African collared dove) was described by Sundevall (1857, p. 54) and is a wild species found in south-west Mauritania and Senegal, Gambia east through Mali, Niger, Chad and Sudan to west Ethiopia and coastal Eritrea and Somalia and Arabia to South Yemen. S. roseogrisea is the name given to wild populations in all literature of which I am aware (e.g. Sibley & Monroe, 1990; Dowsett & Forbes-Watson, 1993; Baptista et al., 1997; Snow & Perrins, 1998, pp. 852-853; Svensson et al., 1999, p. 382; Gibbs et al., 2001; Johnson et al., 2001; Dickinson, 2003, p. 161; BirdLife International, 2005). Two subspecies are currently Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 109 recognised (Dickinson, 2003): the nominal subspecies and S. r. arabica (Neumann, 1904). 3. Due to their morphological similarities S. risoria is widely considered to be a domestic descendant of S. roseogrisea (Bonaparte, 1855; Goodwin, 1983; Sibley & Monroe, 1990; Snow & Perrins, 1998, p. 852; Banks et al., 2003). Some domestic and feral S. risoria individuals can be differentiated from wild S. roseogrisea populations due to leucisms (lighter feathers) which are more common in domestic populations and, possibly, average larger tail size (Goodwin, 1983; Snow & Perrins, 1998) and call (Dowsett & Forbes-Watson, 1993). However, some domestic and feral individuals of ‘S. risoria in Colombia (pers. obs.), Tenerife (pers. obs.) and Mallorca (Snow & Perrins, 1998) are essentially indistinguishable from wild ancestral S. roseogrisea. Wild and domestic birds interbreed in captivity and S. roseogrisea is a tame species, possibly leading to multiple insertion of wild stock to domestic populations over time. Captive birds resembling wild populations interbreed freely with leucistic individuals in captivity. S. risoria and S. roseogrisea are therefore conspecific under most if not all concepts in modern use and as such have been considered synonymous by various authors (American Ornithologists’ Union, 1998; Svensson et al., 1999; BirdLife International, 2005; Remsen et al., 2006; Banks et al., 2006). 4. As was noted by Gentry et al. (BZN 53(1): 28-37, 1996) for mammals, most bird species with both domestic and wild populations have only one scientific name. Examples of bird species which include or sometimes include distinctive domestic forms but for which the same name is used include Anas platyrhynchos Linnaeus, 1758 (domestic duck/mallard), Meleagris gallopavo Linnaeus, 1758 (wild turkey/turkey), Numida meleagris (Linnaeus, 1758) (helmeted guinea-fowl), Pha- sianus colchicus Linnaeus, 1758 (common pheasant), Coturnix coturnix (Linnaeus, 1758) (common quail), Melopsittacus undulatus (Shaw, 1805) (budgerigar) and Serinus canaria (Linnaeus, 1758) (canary). Other bird species name-pairs Columba domestica Linnaeus, 1758 / Columba livia Gmelin in Linnaeus, 1789 (feral pigeon / rock pigeon) and Gallus domesticus (Linnaeus, 1758) / Gallus gallus (Linnaeus, 1758) (chicken / red junglefowl) may require Commission attention in the future but are not the subject of this application. In Opinion 2027 (Case 3010), the Commission conserved the usage of specific names for 15 Mammalia, one Lepidoptera and one Osteichthyes species based on wild species each of which was pre-dated by or contemporary with a name based on a domestic form (BZN 60: 81-84, 2003). The relevant case was controversial and generated much interest and many responses, all cited in Opinion 2027. I propose that a similar approach be adopted here for consistency and to promote stability and universality. 5. Considerable confusion is apparent in the ornithological literature as to the correct nomenclature for the ringed dove and African collared dove. The name S. risoria has been considered unusable by some (e.g. Peters, 1937, p. 92; Sibley & Monroe, 1990; Banks et al., 2006) but multiple examples of frequent recent usage nonetheless exist. Feral populations have been referred to in a number of ways, for example ‘S. risoria in inverted commas (e.g. Snow & Perrins, 1998; National Geographic, 1999; British Ornithologists’ Union, 2006), sometimes within a species account for S. roseogrisea (e.g. Snow & Perrins, 1998), °“S. roseogrisea var. risoria’ (Svensson et al., 1999) or simply as S. risoria (Zenone et al., 1979; Walker et al., 1983; Robbins et al., 1983; Janik & Buntin, 1985; Cheng, 1986; Cate et al., 1993; Georgiou 110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 et al., 1995), sometimes with a note as to questions over the taxon’s nomenclature (e.g. Donegan & Huertas, 2002; Remsen et al., 2006). Banks et al. (2006) recently changed the American Ornithologists’ Union’s official name from S. risoria to S. roseogrisea on the basis that Opinion 2027 enshrines a ‘general principle’ regarding the treatment of names for domestic and feral species. However, Opinion 2027 applies only to the species mentioned therein. Numerous references to the name S. risoria in the literature cited above and confusion caused through the proliferation of non-Code compliant systems for the nomenclature of domestic and feral forms (described further in Gentry et al., 1996, pp 28-37) are reasons behind this application. 6. The case of these two species is complicated somewhat by the apparent reference to individuals of other (currently) Streptopelia species in the description of Columba risoria. Linnaeus (1758) included only a brief, ambiguous text and referred to descriptions by Aldrovandi (1599, p. 510), Willughby (1678, p. 184, pl. 35), Ray (1713, p. 61) and Albin (1738, p. 42, pl. 45). These works include plates and descriptions of birds similar to leucistic, domestic ringed doves (Aldrovandi and Willughby plates; Aldrovandi, Willughby and Ray descriptions of the ‘male’), African collared dove (possibly, Aldrovandi, Willughby and Ray descriptions of the ‘female’) and wild Eurasian collared dove Streptopelia decaocto (Frivaldszky, 1838, pp. 183-184, pl. 8) (Albin’s plate and description and, possibly, Aldrovandi, Willughby and Ray descriptions of the ‘female’). Probably as a result, Baptista et al. (1997) noted that S$. decaocto and S. risoria could be synonyms. However, almost all other literature on the topic ignores Linnaeus’s (1758) references to S. decaocto or wild S. roseogrisea material in fhe description of S. risoria and treats S. risoria as referring to domestic populations of the ringed dove, to which the majority of illustrations and descriptions referenced therein refer. In a separate paper, I intend to designate a neotype for S. risoria in order to stabilise its nomenclature further and note this issue herein only for completeness. 7. The confusion caused by the existence of the names S. risoria and S. roseogrisea is particularly an issue for the nomenclature of feral populations of this species, some individuals of which are indistinguishable from ancestral stock. Such birds have traditionally been assigned to S. risoria (references above) but recently have been called S. roseogrisea (Banks et al., 2006). If the Principle of Priority (Article 23.1 of the Code) were applied, the name S. risoria would take precedence, contrary to the position adopted for other species in Opinion 2027. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to rule that the name roseogrisea Sundevall, 1857, as published in the binomen Columba roseogrisea, is not invalid by virtue of being pre-dated by a name based on the domestic form risoria Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Columba risoria; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) risoria Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Columba risoria; (b) roseogrisea Sundevall, 1857, as published in the binomen Columba roseo- grisea, with the endorsement that it is not invalid by virtue of being pre-dated by a name based on the domestic form risoria Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Colwmba risoria. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 111 Acknowledgements Thanks to Gina Douglas (Linnean Society of London) and University College London library staff for assisting me in locating historic literature. My wife Blanca Huertas obtained various other references and provided helpful comments on the manuscript. Various anonymous reviewers provided other comments on the manuscript. References Albin, E. 1738. 4 natural history of birds, vol. 3. 96 pp., 101 plates. Published by the author, London. Aldrovandi, U. 1599. Ornithologiae, vol. 1, lib. XI, ch. 9, 862 pp. Published by the author, Bologna. American Ornithologists’ Union. 2000. The A.O.U. Checklist of North American Birds. Auk, 117: 847-858. Banks, R.C., Cicero, C., Dunn, J.L., Kratter, A.W., Rasmussen, P.C., Remsen, J.V. Jr., Rising, J.A. & Stotz, D.F. 2006. Forty-seventh supplement to the American Ornithologists’ Union Check-list of North American Birds. Auk, 123: 926-936. Baptista, L.F., Trail, P.W. & Horblit, H.M. 1997. Family Columbidae (pigeons and doves). Pp. 60-243 in del Hoyo, J. et al. (Eds.), Handbook of the Birds of the World, vol. 4. Sandgrouse to cuckoos. Lynx Editions, Barcelona. BirdLife International. 2005. Species factsheet: Streptopelia roseogrisea. http://www.birdlife.org (accessed on 20.02.2006). Bonaparte, C.L.J.L. 1855. Coup d’oeil sur les Pigeons (quatri¢me partie). Comptes rendus hebdomadaire des séances de I’ Academie des Sciences, 40: 15—24. British Ornithologists’ Union. 2006. The British List. Published online. www.bou.org.uk (accessed on 20.02.2006). Cate, C. ten, Lea, R.W., Ballintijn, M.R. & Sharp, P.J. 1993. Brood size affects behavior, inter-clutch interval LH levels and weight in Ring Dove (Streptopelia risoria) breeding pairs. Hormones and Behavior, 27: 539-550. Cheng, M.F. 1986. Female cooing promotes ovarian development in Ring Doves (Streptopelia risoria). Physiology and Behavior, 37: 371-374. Dickinson, E.C. (Ed.). 2003. The Howard and Moore complete checklist of the birds of the World. Revised and enlarged 3rd Edition. 1040 pp. Christopher Helm, London. Donegan, T.M. & Huertas, B.C. 2002. Registro de una pareja de la Tortola de Collar Streptopelia risoria en el departamento de Norte de Santander, Colombia. Boletin Sociedad Antioquena de Ornitologia, 8(24-25): 73-76. Dowsett, R.J. & Forbes-Watson, A.D. 1993. Checklist of Birds of the Afrotropical and Malagasy Regions. Volume 1: Species List and Distribution. 374 pp. Tauraco Press, Liege. Ferguson-Lees, J., Willis, I. & Sharrock, J.T.R. 1983. The Shell Guide to the Birds of Britain and Ireland. 336 pp. Michael Joseph, Penguin Group, London. Frivaldszky, I. 1838. Balkany vidéki természettudomanyi utazas. Kaarpaataljai Magyar Tudomaanyos Tarsasag. Evkonyvi, 3(3): 156-184. Gentry, A., Clutton-Brock, J. & Groves, C.P. 2004. The naming of wild animal species and their domestic derivatives. Journal of Archaeological Science, 31: 645-651. Georgiou G.C., Sharp, P.J. & Lea, R.W. 1995. (14C) 2-Deoxyglucose uptake in the brain of the Ring Dove (Streptopelia risoria) 11. Differential uptake at the onset of incubation. Brain Research, 700: 137-141. Gibbs, D., Barnes, E. & Cox, J. 2001. Pigeons and doves. A guide to the Pigeons and Doves of the World. 615 pp. Yale University Press, New Haven, U.S.A. & London and A&C Black / Christopher Helm, London. Goodwin, D. 1983. Pigeons and Doves of the World, 3rd edition. 363 pp. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. Hegenveld, R. 1993. What to do about the North American invasion by the Collared Dove? Journal of Field Ornithology, 64: 477-489. Heinzel, H., Fitter, R. & Parslow, J. 1972. Birds of Britain and Europe with North America and the Middle East. 366 pp. William Collins & Sons, London. 112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 Janik, D.S. & Buntin, J.D. 1985. Behavioral and physiological effects of prolactin in incubating doves (Streptopelia risoria). Journal of Endocrinology, 105: 201-210. Johnson, K.P. 2001. Book review of Gibbs et al., 2001 (op. cit.). Birding, 2001: 482-485. Johnson, K.P., Kort, S. de., Dinwoodey, K., Mateman, A.C., Cate, C. ten, Lessels, C.M. & Clayton, D.H. 2001. A molecular phylogeny of the dove genera Streptopelia and Columba. The Auk, 118(4): 874-887. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Linnaeus, C. 1789. Systema Naturae, Ed. 13, vol. 1, pt. 2. 769 pp. Apud J.B. Delamolliére, Lugduni. National Geographic. 1999. Field Guide to the Birds of North America, 3rd edition. 480 pp. National Geographic, Washington D.C. Neumann, O.R. 1904. Drei neue Formen aus Stid-Arabien. Ornithologische Monatsberichte, 12: 29-31. Peters, J.L. 1937. Check-list of birds of the world, vol. 3. 311 pp. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Peterson, R.T., Mountfort, G. & Hollom, P.A.D. 1983. A Field Guide to the Birds of Britain and Europe. 4th Edition. 240 pp. Collins, London. Raffaele, H., Wiley, J., Garrido, O., Keith, A. & Raffaele, J. 1998. Birds of the West Indies. 511 pp. Christopher Helm, London. Ray, J. 1713. J. Raii Synopsis methodica avium: opus posthumum. 198 pp. Printed for W. Innys by the author, London. Remsen, J.V. Jr., Jaramillo, A., Nores, M., Pacheco, J.F., Robbins, M.B., Schulenberg, T.S., Stiles, F.G., da Silva, J.M.C., Stotz, D.F. & Zimmer, K.J. 2006. A classification of the bird species of South America. American Ornithologists’ Union. http://www.museum.|su.edu/ ~Remsen/SACCBaseline.html. Version 18 December 2006. Hypothetical List and Proposal 182 by T. Donegan. Robbins, C.S., Bruun, B., Zim, H.Z. & Singer, A. 1983. A Guide to Field Identification: Birds of North America. Revised Edition. 360 pp. Golden Press, New York, U.S.A. Salaman, P., Donegan, T. & Caro, D. 2007. Listado de Avifauna Colombiana 2007. Conservacion Colombiana Suplemento (Marzo 2007). 85 pp. Fundacion ProAves, Bogota, Colombia. Shaw, G. 1805. The naturalists’ miscellany, vol. XVI. 1064 pl. London. Sibley, C.G. & Monroe, B.L. Jr. 1990. Distribution and taxonomy of birds of the World. 1111 pp. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Snow, D.W. & Perrins, C.M. 1998. The Birds of the Western Palearctic. Concise Edition, vol. 1. 1008 pp. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Svensson, L., Grant, P.J., Mullarney, K. & Zetterstrom, D. 1999. Collins Bird Guide. 399 pp. HarperCollins, London. Sundevyall, C.J. 1857. Om le vaillant oiseaux d’Afrique. Kritisk framstallning af fogelaterna uti alder ornithologiska arbeten. Kongliga Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar, 2(3): 16-60. Walker, L.E., Walker, J.M., Palca, J.W. & Berger, R.J. 1983. A continuum of sleep and shallow torpor in fasting doves (Streptopelia risoria). Science, 221: 194-195. Willughby, F. 1678. The ornithology of F. Willughby of Middleton. 441 pp. Published by the author, London. Zenone, P.G., Sims, M.E. & Erickson, C.J. 1979. Male ring dove (Streptopelia risoria) behavior and the defense of genetic paternity. American Naturalist, 114: 615-626. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 63: 86. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 113 Case 3384 Cornwallius tabatai Tokunaga, 1939 (currently Paleoparadoxia tabatai; Mammalia, Desmostylia): proposed conservation of usage of the specific name by the designation of a neotype Yoshikazu Hasegawa Gunma Museum of Natural History, Gunma 370-2345, Japan (e-mail: hasegawa@gmnh.pref.gunma.jp) Naoki Kohno Department of Geology and Paleontology, National Museum of Nature and Science, Tokyo 169-0073, Japan (e-mail: kohno@kahaku.go.jp) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 75.8 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name of Paleoparadoxia tabatai (Tokunaga, 1939) in its accustomed usage for a species of Middle Miocene desmostylian from Japan and California. The name has been widely used for this desmostylian since 1939 as defined by the neotype NSM-PV 5601 from the Akeyo Formation, Gifu Prefecture, Japan, designated by Shikama (1966). The accustomed usage is threatened by a recently discovered tooth supposedly belonging to the type series and designated as the lectotype by Inuzuka (2005). It is proposed that all type fixations prior to that by Shikama (1966) and the designation of a lectotype by Inuzuka (2005) be set aside. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Desmostylia; PALEOPARADOXIIDAE; Paleo- paradoxia; Paleoparadoxia tabatai; Middle Miocene; Japan. 1. In 1939, Tokunaga (p. 296) established the specific name tabatai in the genus Cornwallius Hay, 1923 for two isolated teeth collected in 1923 from the late Early to early Middle Miocene Orito Formation, Niigata Prefecture, Japan. Because the two teeth were said to be collected ‘from the same rock, quite close to each other’, Tokunaga (1939, p. 292) believed that these teeth ‘belonged most probably to the same animal’ and designated the two teeth the ‘type’ of the new species in the original description. Under Article 72.1.1 of the Code, this is sufficient to recognize the ‘type’ as the syntypes. Unfortunately, the syntypes of Cornwallius tabatai were destroyed at Waseda University in Tokyo by fire on May 25, 1945. 2. Reinhart (1959, p. 94) proposed the binomen Paleoparadoxia tabatai in referring to the description of the syntypes by Tokunaga (1939), and assigned to the same species a mandible with a molar (University of California Museum of Paleontology, UCMP 40862) and an isolated molar (UCMP 32076) collected from California. Although these teeth were slightly smaller than the syntypes, these assignments have been accepted by all subsequent workers (e.g. [jiri & Kamei, 1961; Mitchell & Repenning, 1963; Shikama, 1966; Barnes et al., 1985; Novacek & Wyss, 1989; Clark, 1991; Ray et al., 1994; Inuzuka et al., 1995; Domning, 1996, 2002; Taru, 2000). 114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 3. Tjiri & Kamei (1961) described the skull and mandible of a nearly complete skeleton of a desmostylian discovered in 1950 from the late Early Miocene Akeyo Formation, Gifu Prefecture, Japan. It now bears the registration number NSM-PV 5601 at the National Museum of Nature and Science in Tokyo, Japan, and 1s commonly referred to in the literature as the Izumi specimen. [jiri & Kamei (p. 19) identified it as Paleoparadoxia tabatai (Tokunaga, 1939) based on comparison with the California mandible that was referred to as Paleoparadoxia tabatai by Reinhart (1959). 4. Subsequently, Shikama (1966, pp. 154-155) described the appendicular bones of NSM-PV 5601, and designated this specimen as the neotype of Cornwallius tabatai Tokunaga, 1939 because the syntypes had been lost since 1945. However, Shikama did not give evidence that the neotype was consistent with what was known of the former name-bearing types. Instead he followed the concept and usage of Paleoparadoxia tabatai by Reinhart (1959) and Tjiri & Kamei (1961); the mandible and molars of NSM-PV 5601 coincide with those of Reinhart’s California specimens (p. 8). 5. Although the designation of the neotype by Shikama (1966) insufficiently fulfilled Article 75.3 of the Code, all subsequent workers on Paleoparadoxia tabatai accepted his designation of NSM-PV 5601 as the neotype (e.g. Kamei & Okazaki, 1974; Sakamoto, 1983; Domning et al., 1986; Shimada & Inuzuka, 1994; Hasegawa et al., 1995; Domning, 1996; Saegusa, 2002) since it was unquestionably more informative for diagnosing P. tabatai. 6. Recently, Inuzuka (2005, p. 10) reported that a tooth purportedly collected at the same time from the same locality as the syntypes was preserved at a local museum near the type locality, and he thought this tooth ‘probably’ belonged to the same individual as one of the syntypes. He stated: (1) ‘The Sawane specimen described here is a left third lower molar, and the two teeth Tokunaga (1939) described are identified as a left second lower molar and a fragment of an upper tooth’. (2) ‘It is probable that the lower tooth belongs to the same individual due to its different tooth class of the same side, although the upper tooth is of a different individual due to its unworn condition’. (3) ‘This molar is necessarily identified as P. tabatai, but is larger than and different from those of the Izumi specimen which has been designated the neotype’. ; (4) ‘Consequently, the middle-sized Izumi specimen should be given a new specific name: P. media’. He then designated the rediscovered third tooth as the lectotype of Cornwallius tabatai. 7. The lost syntypes and the ‘third tooth’ were said to be collected from the basal conglomerate as individual teeth with no jaw bone. Thus, there is no evidence of the individual relationships among the three teeth. The fact that the teeth represent different tooth classes of the same side of the jaw does not sustain the individual relationship. In addition, the ‘third tooth’ was not described or referred to by the original describer of Cornwallius tabatai (see Tokunaga, 1939) at all. Accordingly the ‘third tooth’ does not fulfil the requirements for name-bearing types under Article 72.4 of the Code. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 115 8. Inuzuka (2005) also argued that the cheek teeth of the neotype were smaller than the syntypes of Cornwallius tabatai, so he proposed the name Paleoparadoxia media for this smaller species, with NSM-PV 5601 as the holotype. However, the binomen Paleoparadoxia media applied to the neotype of Cornwallius tabatai causes confusion in a number of ways. Although Inuzuka (2005) pointed to some morphological differences between the syntypes and the neotype, all subsequent workers have accepted Shikama’s (1966) designation of NSM-PV 5601 as the neotype of Cornwal- lius tabatai, as mentioned above. Also, it is of special importance that a name should not be transferred to a taxon distinct from that to which it is generally applied, as emphasized in General Recommendation | of the Code. Therefore, the resurrection of the name-bearing types through the designation of a ‘lectotype’ of Cornwallius tabatai by this insecure interpretation at this time and in this complicated usage would be a blow to nomenclatural stability and universality. 9. The problem also extends to the taxonomy. Although the ‘third tooth’ was designated as the lectotype by Inuzuka (2005, p. 11), his emended diagnosis of Cornwallius tabatai was not based on any character of the lectotype itself. This contradicts Article 74.1 of the Code, which states that a lectotype is to be the standard for a name’s application. In fact, the tooth is not diagnostic specifically; it is well known that tooth size and cusp arrangements are sexually and individually variable in the desmostylians. Whether the lost syntypes and the ‘third tooth’ from possibly the same locality belong to one individual or not, it is at present impossible to diagnose the species of Paleoparadoxia from the teeth. Therefore, NSM-PV 5601 is the most reliable material to diagnose the species and hence the most appropriate type for P. tabatai (Tokunaga, 1939). 10. The neotype of P. tabatai, though its designation did not fulfil some of the requirements under Article 75.3 of the Code, is unambiguous in its reference and is supported by much more informative skeletal material. Therefore, it is in the interest of stability to protect its designation as neotype from displacement by the insecure interpretation of the resurrected name-bearing types based on a less diagnostic isolated tooth as the ‘lectotype’. 11. The name Paleoparadoxia media has had a destabilizing influence on nomen- clature since the time of its proposal. Because the problems described above arise in part from Inuzuka’s unfortunate decision to resurrect a ‘type’ based on the weakly supported designation of the ‘third tooth’ as the lectotype of P. tabatai, it is in the interest of stability to set aside this resurrection of the name-bearing type and to fix the designation of the previously proposed neotype. 12. We propose that the Commission fix as the neotype of Cornwallius tabatai Tokunaga, 1939 the nearly complete skeleton (National Museum of Nature and Science, Japan, NSM-PV 5601). If NSM-PV 5601 is fixed as the neotype of Cornwallius tabatai as proposed below, this will have a stabilizing effect by making P. media Inuzuka, 2005 a junior objective synonym of Cornwallius tabatai Tokunaga, 1939. This choice of a type specimen for Cornwallius tabatai is the most desirable because, of the specimens previously included in Cornwallius tabatai Tokunaga, 1939, almost all are referable to the same species as NSM-PV 5601 and because NSM-PV 5601 comprises the most complete and easily comparable material; 1.e. the nearly complete skeleton, replicas of which are available for comparison in several museums around the world. 116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 13. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: i (1) to use its plenary power to set aside: (a) all type fixations for the nominal species Cornwallius tabatai Tokunaga, 1939 prior to that by Shikama (1966); (b) the designation of a lectotype by Inuzuka (2005); (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name tabatai Tokunaga, 1939, as published in the binomen Cornwallius tabatai and as defined by the neotype designated by Shikama (1966); (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name media Inuzuka, 2005, as published in the binomen Paleoparadoxia media (a junior objective synonym of Cornwallius tabatai Tokunaga, 1939). Acknowledgements We wish to express our sincere thanks to Lawrence G. Barnes (Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County) and Daryl P. Domning (Howard University) for their encouragement and their assistance in formulating this case. References Barnes, L.G., Domning, D.P. & Ray, C.E. 1985. Status of studies on fossil marine mammals. Marine Mammal Science, 1(1): 15-53. Clark, J.M. 1991. A new early Miocene species of Paleoparadoxia (Mammalia: Desmostylia) from California. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 11(4): 490-S08. Domning, D.P. 1996. Bibliography and index of the Sirenia and Desmostylia. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology, 80: 1\-611. Domning, D.P. 2002. The terrestrial posture of desmostylians. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology, 90: 99-111. Domning, D.P., Ray, C.E. & McKenna, M.C. 1986. Two new Oligocene desmostylians and discussion of Tethyterian systematics. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology, 59: 1-56. Hasegawa, Y., Taketani, Y., Taru, H., Sakamoto, O. & Manabe, M. 1995. On sexual dimorphism in Paleoparadoxia tabatai. The Island Arc, 3: 513-521. ljiri, S. & Kamei, T. 1961. On the skulls of Desmostylus mirabilis Nagao from South Sakhalin and of Paleoparadoxia tabatai (Tokunaga) from Gifu Prefecture, Japan. Chikyu-kagaku (Journal of the Association for the Geological Collaboration in Japan), 53: 1-27. Inuzuka, N. 2005. The Stanford skeleton of Paleoparadoxia. Bulletin of Ashoro Museum of Paleontology, 3: 3-110. Inuzuka, N., Domning, D.P. & Ray, C.E. 1995. Summary of taxa and morphological adaptations of the Desmostylia. The Island Arc, 3: 522-537. Kamei, T. & Okazaki, Y. 1974. Mammalian fossils from the Mizunami Group, central Japan. Bulletin of the Mizunami Fossil Museum, 1: 263-291. Mitchell, E.D. & Repenning, C.A. 1963. The chronologic and geographic range of desmo- stylians. Contributions in Science, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 78: 3-20. Novacek, M.J. & Wyss, A.R. 1987. Selected features of the desmostylian skeleton and their phylogenetic implications. American Museum Novitates, 2870: |—8. Ray, C.E., Domning, D.P. & McKenna, M.C. 1994. A new specimen of Behemotops proteus (Order Desmostylia) from the marine Oligocene of Washington. Proceedings of the San Diego Society of Natural History, 29: 205-222. Reinhart, R.H. 1959. Review of the Sirenia and Desmostylia. University of California Publications of Geological Sciences, 36(1): 1-146. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 117 Saegusa, H. 2002. A partial skeleton of Paleoparadoxia from San-yama, Ogano-cho, Saitama Prefecture, central Japan. Nature and Human Activities, 7: 1-25. Sakamoto, O. 1983. On the occurrence of the two skeletons of Paleoparadoxia tabatai (Tokunaga) from Chichibu Basin, central Japan. Bulletin of the Saitama Museum of Natural History, 1: 17-26. Shikama, T. 1966. Postcranial skeletons of Japanese Desmostylia. Palaeontological Society of Japan Special Papers, 12: 1-202. Shimada, K. & Inuzuka, N. 1994. Desmostylian tooth remains from the Miocene Tokigawa Group at Kuzubukuro, Saitama, Japan. Transactions and Proceedings of the Palaeonto- logical Society of Japan, N. S., 175: 553-577. Taru, H. 2000. Inference of foraging and mastication from cranial morphology of Paleopara- doxia tabatai. Bulletin of Ashoro Museum of Paleontology, 1: 125-135. Tokunaga, S. 1939. A new fossil mammal belonging to Desmostylidae. The Jubilee Publication in the Commemoration of Prof. H. Yabe’s 60th Birthday, 1: 289-299. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 63: 153. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 Comment on the proposed conservation of Gigantopecten Rovereto, 1899 and Lissochlamys Sacco, 1897 (Mollusca, Bivalvia, PECTINIDAE) ‘ (Case 3343; see BZN 63: 155-162) P. Bouchet Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, 55 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France (e-mail: pbouchet@mnhn.fr) The application by Waller & Bongrain documents the prevailing usage of Gigantopecten over Macrochlamis or Macrochlamys, and the evenly balanced usage of Lissochlamys and Lissochlamis. Although their application does not specifically address the issue, it must be pointed out to non-malacologists that the suffix -chlamys (derived from the generic name Chlamys Roding, 1798) is used in numerous pectinoid genus-group names. It serves consistency and mnemonics to treat Macrochlamys and Lissochlamys as the correct spellings. However, it needs to be noted that Kasum-Zade (2003, pp. 47, 82) established the family-group name MACROCHLAMISINAE, based on Macrochlamis Sacco, 1897. If, as proposed in the application, the name Macrochlamis were suppressed and placed on the Official Index, MACROCHLAMISINAE Kasum-Zade, 2003 would become invalid under Article 39 of the Code. Therefore, I propose that, instead of the names Macrochlamis and Lissochlamis being suppressed, as suggested in the application, they should be declared incorrect original spellings of Macrochlamys and Lisso- chlamys. With this approach, MACROCHLAMISINAE Kasum-Zade, 2003 remains a potentially valid name, and nomenclature does not infringe on taxonomy. It needs to be added that: (1) ‘Macrochlamys Benson, 1832’ is a nomen nudum. The name was first made available by Gray (1847, p. 169); (2) Grandipecten Cossmann, 1914 (in Cossmann & Peyrot, 1914, p. 273) is another replacement name for ‘Macrochlamys Sacco, 1897, non Benson, 1832’. Cossmann (1920, p. 175) noted that Gigantopecten Rovereto, 1899, was an earlier replacement name, and Grandipecten Cossmann, 1914 could be placed on the Official Index. Therefore I put forward the following alternative proposals to the Commission: (1) to use its plenary power to rule that: (a) Macrochlamis Sacco, 1897 is an incorrect original spelling of Macro- chlamys; (b) Lissochlamis Sacco, 1897 is an incorrect original spelling of Lissochlamys; (2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Macrochlamis Sacco, 1897 (an incorrect original spelling of Macrochlamys as ruled in (1)(a) above); (b) Lissochlamis Sacco, 1897 (an incorrect original spelling of Lissochlamys as ruled in (1)(b) above); (c) Macrochlamys Sacco, 1897 (a junior homonym of Macrochlamys Gray, 1847); (d) Grandipecten Cossmann, 1914 (an unnecessary replacement name for Macrochlamys Sacco, 1897). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 119 I thank Alexander Guzhov (Moscow) for pointing out to me the work by Kasum-Zade (2003). Additional references Cossmann, M. 1920, Rectifications de nomenclature. Revue Critique de Paléozoologie et Paléophytologie, 24(4): 174-175. Cossmann, M. & Peyrot, A. 1914 (in 1909-1914). Conchologie néogénique de 1’ Aquitaine. Pélécypodes, vol. 2. Pp. 205-410, pls. 11-22. Bordeaux. Gray, J.E. 1847. A list of genera of Recent Mollusca, their synonyma and types. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 15: 129-182. Kasum-Zade, A.A. 2003. Sostoyanie izuchennosti mezozoiskikh dvustvorchatykh mollyuskov Azerbaidzhana (Otryad Pectinopida: reviziya i sistematika). [Advance in research of Mesozoic bivalve molluscs in Azerbaijan (Order Pectinoida: revision and systematics)]. 112 pp. El-ALhance, Baku. Comment on the proposed conservation of Obovaria Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) by the designation of Unio retusa Lamarck, 1819 as the type species (Case 3353; see BZN 63: 226-230) David Campbell 425 Scientific Collections Building, Department of Biological Sciences, Biodiversity and Systematics, University of Alabama, Box 870345, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345, U.S.A. (e-mail: amblema@bama.ua.edu) I am writing in support of the conservation of the current usage of Obovaria. As pointed out in the application, the current usage has held over the past 150 years. One minor correction is that Herrmannsen’s designation of a type for Obovaria is in volume 2 (1849), not volume 1 (1847). Additionally, no replacement name is available. Although two names are treated as junior subjective synonyms in the current literature, neither actually applies. The type species of Pseudoon Simpson, 1900 is Unio ellipsis Lea, 1828, a subjective synonym of Amblema olivaria Rafinesque, 1820. Currently this species is listed as Obovaria olivaria. However, recent molecular data suggest that O. olivaria is closely related to, but not the sister taxon of, the other species currently assigned to Obovaria (see Campbell et al., 2005). This requires further sampling and analysis to confirm, but it does suggest that the differences noticed by Simpson (1900) may be of greater significance than currently realized. No molecular data exist for the nearly extinct O. retusa (Lamarck, 1819), the proposed type of Obovaria. However, Ortmann (1911) and Simpson (1900, 1914) reported its anatomy as matching other species assigned to the genus (except O. olivaria) for which molecular data are available. Rotundaria Rafinesque, 1820, like Obovaria, has led to confusion due to over- looked type designations. Agassiz (1852) selected Obliquaria tuberculata Rafinesque, 1820 (currently Cyclonaias tuberculata) as the type of Rotundaria, and this was followed by most workers until Ortmann & Walker (1922) pointed out that 120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 Herrmannsen (1849) had designated Obliquaria subrotunda Rafinesque, 1820 (cur- rently Obovaria subrotunda) as the type species. They established the new genus Cyclonaias for Obliquaria tuberculata. It is surprising that Ortmann & Walker (1922) cite Herrmannsen’s type designation for Rotundaria but not his designation for Obovaria (pp. 407, 132 in the same volume). However, in this case, Herrmannsen was not the first to select a type. Valenciennes (1827) reported Obliquaria tuberculata specimens from Rafinesque, which he says were identified as the type of a new genus, Rotundaria. Thus, Rotundaria is a senior objective synonym of Cyclonaias. Cyclonaias tuberculata occurs phylogenetically within Quadrula as currently used (Campbell et al., 2005; the result of Serb et al., 2003, reflects a mixing of tissue clips with Potamilus alatus) and so Rotundaria 1s not available for species currently placed in Obovaria. Additional references Campbell, D.C., Serb, J.M., Buhay, J.E., Roe, K.J., Minton, R.L. & Lydeard, C. 2005. Phylogeny of North American amblemines (Bivalvia, Unionoida): prodigious polyphyly proves pervasive across genera. Invertebrate Biology, 124(2): 131-164. Herrmannsen, A.N. 1849. Indicis Generum Malacozoorum Primorida, vol. 2. Pp. xxix—xlii, 1-717. Theodore Fischer, Cassells. Ortmann, A.E. 1911. A monograph of the najades of Pennsylvania, parts I and II. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum, 4(6): 279-347. Serb, J.M., Buhay, J.E. & Lydeard, C. 2003. Molecular systematics of the North American freshwater bivalve genus Quadrula (Unionidae: Ambleminae) based on mitochondrial ND1 sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 28(1): 1-11. Valenciennes, A. 1827. Coquilles fluviatiles bivalves de nouveau-continent recueilles pendant le voyage de M.M. de Humboldt et Bonpland. Recueil d’Observations de Zoologie et d’ Anatomie Comparée... par Al. de Humboldt & A. Bonpland, vol. 2. Pp. 225-237. Smith & Gide, Paris. Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Hydroporus discretus Fairmaire & Brisout de Barneville, 1859 (Insecta, Coleoptera) (Case 3337; see BZN 64: 87-89) (1) R. Angus President of the Balfour-Browne Club (water beetle society), Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey, TW20 OEX, U_K. (e-mail: r.angus@rhul.ac.uk) The proposed application to have Hydroporus neuter placed on the Official Index of Rejected Names in Zoology has my fullest support. It is wrong that the application to conserve H. discretus was rejected, and appears quite outside the norm in recent cases. I gather that the application was rejected because it attracted insufficient favourable comment. My own view is that it appeared such an overwhelmingly compelling case that comment was superfluous. I very much hope that this second attempt succeeds. It would be wrong to lose such a well-known and well-established name as Hydroporus discretus, which must be conserved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 121 (2) E.J. van Nieukerken National Museum of Natural History, Darwinweg 2, 2333 CR Leiden, The Netherlands (e-mail: nieukerken@naturalis.nl) I have now studied the case in detail; it had only briefly passed me before. I think that the authors have had very bad luck, the case 1s almost enough for the new nomen oblitum (Article 23.9.2 of the Code), apart from this list by Adam. I think that the case was not presented strongly enough and that not enough people have sent positive comments. I strongly agree that the ruling should be reversed and that Hydroporus discretus must be conserved as a valid name for a species we have always known as discretus — I had never really considered the name neuter before. (3) G. Foster Scottish Agricultural College, Research and Development Division, Auchincruive, Ayr, KA6 SHW, U_K. I agree with the need to conserve the name Hydroporus discretus by the Commission revising their views and setting aside the name Hydroporus neuter. Otherwise the Commission will bring itself into disrepute for failing in its primary duty to stabilise nomenclature. (4) C.H.S. Watts South Australian Museum, Science Centre, North Terrace, Adelaide, 5000 South Australia, Australia (e-mail: Watts.Chris@saugov.sa.gov.au) I totally agree that the name Hydroporus discretus Fairmaire & Brisout de Barneville should be conserved to avoid ‘sinking’ a century of work accessed through that name. (5) F. Marnell National Parks and Wildlife Service, 7 Ely Place, Dublin 2, Ireland The proposed change of name appears to contradict all zoological and nomen- clatural sense and I wholeheartedly support your endeavours to have the name Hydroporus discretus conserved. (6) H.V. Shaverdo Naturhistorisches Museum, Burgring 7, A-1010 Wien, Austria (e-mail: shaverdo@mail.ru) Systematics of the genus Hydroporus has been the main focus of my research for more than ten years. In numerous papers on taxonomy, faunistics, ecology, phenology and larval morphology Hydroporus discretus was always treated by me under this name. A very important reason to conserve the name H. discretus is that recently it has been published as a valid name in two very important catalogues (Nilsson, 2001, 2003). If H. neuter is used as a valid name, it would cause considerable nomenclatural confusion. 122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 Comment on the proposed conservation of the generic names Gnorimus Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828 and Osmoderma Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828 (Insecta, Coleoptera) (Case 3349; BZN 63: 177-183) Maxwell V.L. Barclay Curator of Coleoptera, Natural History Museum, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: m.barclay@nhm.ac.uk) I would like to register my support for the proposal by Krell et al. to conserve the generally used names Gnorimus and Osmoderma for two related genera of scarab beetles of conservation importance. These names are well used outside taxonomic circles because of the large size, beauty and rarity of the beetles concerned. Instability in scientific names that are frequently used by the non-scientific public breeds disrespect for scientific nomenclature in general, and leads to increased reliance on a secondary system of vernacular nomenclature. These beetles already suffer from an assortment of vernacular names, such as ‘Noble Chafer’, ‘Variable Chafer’, ‘Hermit Beetle’, “Flower Hermit Beetle’, “Russian Leather Beetle’ and ‘Odor-of-Leather Beetle’. It would be unfortunate if these loosely applied, artificial constructs were to prove more stable than the scientific nomenclature. Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Curculio contractus Marsham, 1802 (currently Ceutorhynchus contractus; Insecta, Coleoptera) (Case 3367; BZN 63: 251-254) Maxwell V.L. Barclay Curator of Coleoptera, Natural History Museum, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: m.barclay@nhm.ac.uk) I would like to go on record as supporting the proposal by Morris to conserve the name Curculio. contractus Marsham (currently. Ceutorhynchus contractus) for a widespread cabbage-feeding weevil. The synonymy of Ceutorhynchus contractus (Marsham) and Ceutorhynchus pallipes Crotch is rather questionable, and may be overturned at any time by ongoing molecular and morphological studies. At present the former name is connected to a widespread pest of cabbages, and the latter to an obscure island taxon of conservation significance. To confuse this clear separation by making Ceutorhynchus pallipes the valid name for the widespread taxon almost universally known as Ceutorhynchus contractus (Marsham) would serve no useful purpose, and the already-confused situation would have to be revisited if the tenuous synonymy between Ceutorhynchus contractus and Ceutorhynchus pallipes was overturned. 1S) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 12 Comment on the proposed precedence of the generic name Ataenius Harold, 1867 over Aphodinus Motschulsky, 1862 (Insecta, Coleoptera) (Case 3377; see BZN 64: 39-42) Zdzistawa T. Stebnicka Institute of Systematics and Evolution of Animals, Polish Academy of Sciences, 31-016, Krakow, Poland (e-mail: Stebnicka@isez.pan.krakow.pl) I am in full support of the application to give precedence to the generic name Ataenius Harold, 1867 over Aphodinus Motschulsky, 1862. I write as a specialist of these beetles on a world basis, who has used the name Ataenius for many years in several papers and books. Based on a recently updated list of references concerning Ataenius, in the years 1870-2000 over 50 authors in the world have used the name Ataenius in over 150 papers, monographs and catalogues. The name Aphodinus Motschulsky was used only three times nearly 100 years ago in relation to the genus Aphodius Iliger, falling into oblivion even as a subgeneric name of Aphodius (these two names differ from each other only by one letter). The three type specimens of Aphodinus are preserved in Motschulsky’s collection in Moscow, while over 300 species with thousands of specimens of Ataenius are deposited in a large number of museum collections around the world. Changing all the specimen records in these collections would seem to be a pointless task. The taxonomy of Ataenius is very complicated (see Stebnicka & Lago, 2005) and an additional nomenclatural burden would make difficulties for students researching Ataenius and related genera. Adoption of the name Aphodinus would be seriously confusing not only to systematics and museum collections, but also to progressing molecular studies. In accord with current usage and the maintenance of nomenclatural stability, and to avoid name change and unnecessary confusion, I strongly support the application by Howden & Smetana. Additional note The genus Ataenius was described by Harold (1867, p. 82) as follows: “Ataenius (n.g. Eupariis et Rhyssemis intermedium) scutellaris: Affinis A. strigato Say ...’. Therefore, Harold originally indicated Ataenius scutellaris as type-species of the genus. In the same year, Harold, (1867, p. 100) added a complete definition of the genus as follows: ‘Ataenius (Nov. Gen.). Caput gibbosum, vertice mutico ...’. Additional references Harold, E. 1867a. Diagnosen neuer Coprophagen. Coleopterologische Hefte, 1: 76-84. Harold, E. 1867b. Diagnosen neuer Coprophagen. Coleopterologische Hefte, 2: 94-100. Stebnicka, Z.T. & Lago, P.K. 2005. The New World species of Ataenius Harold, 1867. V. Revision of the A. strigatus group (Scarabaeidae: Aphodiinae: Eupariini). Insecta Mundi, 19: 55-83. 124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 Comments on the proposed conservation of usage of the name Dactylozodes Chevrolat, 1838 (Insecta, Coleoptera) (Case 3393; see BZN 64: 43-44) (1) C.L. Bellamy Plant Pest Diagnostics Branch, California Department of Food & Agriculture, 3294 Meadowview Road, Sacramento, California 95832, U.S.A. (e-mail: cbellamy@cdfa.ca.gov) I write to ask for an amendment to the application to conserve the usage of the name Dactylozodes Chevrolat, 1838 proposed by myself and T. Moore Rodriguez. In para. 9(2) we recorded Dactylozodes as feminine. In point of fact it should be treated as masculine in accordance with Article 30.1.4.4 of the Code, which records that ‘a compound genus-group name ending in -odes is to be treated as masculine unless its author, when establishing the name, stated that it had another gender or treated it as such by combining it with an adjectival species-group name in another gender form’. (2) Svatopluk Bily Department of Entomology, National Museum, Kunratice 1, 148 00 Praha 4, Czech Republic (e-mail: svatopluk_bily@nm.cz) I support the application by Bellamy & Moore to conserve the prevailing usage of the generic name Dactylozodes Chevrolat, 1838. I agree with the authors’ proposed suppression of Lasionota Mannerheim, 1837 in favour of Dactylozodes Chevrolat, 1838 (BUPRESTIDAE). Mannerheim’s name has hardly been used for more than 100 years, and can be treated as a nomen oblitum. However, Dactylozodes should be treated as masculine rather than feminine for the following reasons: (1) According to Article 30.1.4.4 of the Code all genus-group names ending with -odes should be treated as masculine; (2) cee (1838) described Dactylozodes as a masculine name, including two nominal species: D. alternans and D. tetrazonus). Comments on the proposed conservation of the subfamilial name ORTHOCLADIINAE Kieffer, 1911 and on the proposed type-species fixation for Orthocladius van der Wulp, 1874 (Diptera, CHIRONOMIDAE) (Case 3355; see BZN 64: 45-53) (1) M. Spies clo Zoologische Staatssammlung Miinchen, Miinchhausenstr. 21, 81247 Miinchen, Germany (e-mail: spies@zi.biologie.uni-muenchen.de) N.L. Evenhuis J. Linsley Gressitt Center for Research in Entomology, Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, Hawati 96817, U.S.A. (e-mail: neale@bishopmuseum.org) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 125 Subsequent to publication of the application in this case, the present junior author (NLE) has discovered that publication priority between chironomid names published in the two works the application cites as van der Wulp (1874a) and van der Wulp (1874b) respectively is clear after all, rather than open to first-reviser action as proposed in the application. According to Barendrecht & Kruseman (1957; cited in the application), the earliest confirmed publication date for issue 4 of volume 17 of the Tijdschrift voor Entomologie is 29 August 1874, whereas for issue 5 of the same volume that date is 31 July 1875. Copies of volume 17 at the NHM and Australian Museum libraries seen by NLE still include the issue wrappers. The latter show: (1) that the work by van der Wulp (1874-1875; cited as ‘1874b’ in the application) spans both those issues 4 (pages 109-112 of van der Wulp’s paper) and 5 (pp. 113-148), (2) that the chironomid genus-group names in that work appeared in issue 5 (on pp. 128 onwards), and (3) that, hence, these names were not published effectively simul- taneously with the corresponding set of names in van der Wulp (1874 = *1874a’ in the application). Therefore, the genus name Orthocladius is available from van der Wulp (1874), and the same applies to all other chironomid genus-group names first proposed in that work. In addition, all the bibliographic references to van der Wulp’s respective works in Case 3355 must be corrected from *1874a’ to 1874, and from ‘1874b’ to 1874-1875. Moreover, all references to purportedly simultaneous publication of the two sets of chironomid genus-group names in those works must be corrected accordingly. Specifically: (1) the decision of publication priority by first-reviser action proposed in para. 9 of the application is null and void, and the entire paragraph to be ignored in further considerations; (2) there is no nominal species originally included in Orthocladius van der Wulp, 1874; the ten species assigned to the genus in van der Wulp (1874-1875) must be treated as subsequently included. All the corrections in this comment paper notwithstanding, the main arguments and aims of the application remain unaffected. As concerns the detailed course of Commission action sought, only one minor change is necessary: In para. 21(2)(a), the reference “1874(b)’ must be changed to 1874; the corrected sub-paragraph reads: (a) Orthocladius van der Wulp, 1874 (gender: masculine), type species Chironomus oblidens Walker, 1856, as ruled in (1)(b) above; On a final note, the work cited in the application as Evenhuis (1989) was written, not edited, by the said author. References Wulp, F.M. van der. 1874. [... over het geslacht Chironomus Meig. ...]. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 16: \xix—|xxi. Wulp, F.M. van der. 1874-1875. Dipterologische aanteekeningen. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 17: 109-148. (2) Torbjorn Ekrem Museum of Natural History and Archaeology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway (e-mail: Torbjorn.Ekrem@vm.ntnu.no) 126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 I support the action proposed by Martin Spies. Both the genus name Orthocladius and the subfamily name ORTHOCLADIINAE are now very well-founded in chironomid taxonomy and nomenclature, and a subsequent change in these names would cause much confusion among both taxonomists and freshwater ecologists. I therefore urge the Commission to fix the type species of Orthocladius to Chironomus oblidens Walker, 1856 and to give the subfamily name ORTHOCLADIINAE Kieffer, 1911 precedence over both ERETMOPTERINAE Kellogg, 1900 and CLUNIONINAE Kieffer, 1906. Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Lithocolletis oxyacanthae Frey, 1855 (currently Phyllonorycter oxyacanthae; Insecta, Lepidoptera) by giving it precedence over Lithocolletis pomonella Zeller, 1846 (Case 3376; see BZN 64: 96-99) (1) Giorgio Baldizzone via Manzoni 24, 14100 Asti, Italy (e-mail: giorgiobaldizzone@tin.it) I read Paolo Triberti’s application (Case 3376) about the synonymy of Phy/- lonorycter oxyacanthae (Frey, 1855) and Phyllonorycter pomonella (Zeller, 1846). In my opinion it is correct and in accordance with the Code’s recommendations. (2) Jurate De Prins Royal Museum for Central-Africa, Section of Entomology, Leuvensesteenweg 13, B-3080 Tervuren, Belgium (e-mail: jurate.de.prins@africamuseum.be) Willy De Prins Universiteit van Amsterdam, Zoélogisch Museum, Plantage-Middenlaan 64, NL-1018 DH Amsterdam, The Netherlands While acting as referees to the paper ‘The Phyllonorycter species from the Palaearctic Region feeding on ROSACEAE (Lepidoptera, Gracillariidae)’ by Paolo Triberti we have pointed to the problem of the misidentification and confusion of three species: Phyllonorycter oxyacanthae (Frey, 1855), P. pomonella (Zeller, 1846) and a manuscript name P. hostis Triberti, 2007 (in press). During our own GRACILLARIIDAE studies, we have encountered the same problem as Triberti, namely the continuous confusion caused in many publications by the name Lithocolletis pomonella Zeller, 1846. That name has been applied to various species, e.g. Phyllonorycter cydoniella ({[Denis & Schiffermiller]), 1775, P. spinicolella (Zeller, 1846), and P. sorbi (Frey, 1855). P. oxyacanthae (Frey, 1855) 1s a widely spread European species feeding on Crataegus spp. and Pyrus spp. (32 and 5 citations respectively from the ‘Global Taxonomic Database of Gracillariidae (Lepidoptera)’ (De Prins & De Prins, 2006), and this name has been used at least in 136 faunistic publications (see Global Gracillariidae Database at the Royal Museum for Central Africa, and De Prins & De Prins, 2005). The name pomonella Zeller, 1846 was used in at least 79 agricultural publications mainly to indicate a pest species on Malus without any taxonomic background. Therefore, we would like to support the proposition of Paolo Triberti and ask the International Commission on Zoological Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 127 Nomenclature to use its plenary power to overrule the Principle of Priority in this particular case and to give the name oxyacanthae Frey, 1855, as published in the binomen Lithocolletis oxyacanthae, precedence over the name pomonella Zeller, 1846, as published in the binomen Lithocolletis pomonella Zeller, 1846. Additional references Denis, M. & Schiffermiiller, I. 1775. Anktindung eines systematischen Werkes von den Schmetterlingen der Wienergegend herausgegeben von einigen Lehrern am k._ k. Theresianum. 323 pp., 2 pls. Augustin Bernardi, Wien. De Prins, W. & De Prins, J. 2005. Family Gracillariidae. Jn Landry, B. (Ed.), World Catalogue of Insects, vol. 6. 502 pp. Apollo Books, Stenstrup. De Prins, J. & De Prins, W. 2006. Global Taxonomic Database of Gracillariidae. (Lepidoptera). World Wide Web electronic publication (http://gc.bebif.be) (Accessed March, 2007). (3) Bernard Landry Muséum d’histoire naturelle, C.P. 6434, 1211 Genéve 6, Switzerland (e-mail: bernard.landry@ville-ge.ch) I am writing to support the application of Dr Paolo Triberti of the Muso civico di Storia Naturale in Verona (Case 3376) on the proposed conservation of the specific name Lithocolletis oxyacanthae Frey, 1855 (currently Phyllonorycter oxyacanthae; Insecta, Lepidoptera) by giving it precedence over Lithocolletis pomonella Zeller, 1846. Given the widespread use of the name Phyllonorycter oxyacanthae (Frey) since the description of the species and its consistant use with regard to host plant association, and given the continuous confusion regarding the meaning of the name Lithocolletis pomonella Zeller over time, I believe that this application is warranted and that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should use its plenary power to overrule the Principle of Priority in this case to give the name Lithocolletis oxyacanthae Frey, 1855 precedence over the name Lithocolletis pomonella Zeller, 1846. Comment on the proposed precedence of Chelodina rugosa Ogilby, 1890 (currently Macrochelodina rugosa; Reptilia, Testudines) over Chelodina oblonga Gray, 1841 (Case 3351; see BZN 63: 187-193, 64: 68) S.A. Thomson Institute of Applied Ecology, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia (e-mail: thomson@home.netspeed.com.au) One of the reasons for the Principle of Priority is to protect good taxonomic work presented to science from being overwritten by future errors. This is relevant to current problems in Australian turtle names. The case in question is one where a name, Chelodina oblonga, was correctly applied for 136 years. It has a valid type specimen that is extant in the collection of the Natural History Museum, London, as figured in Thomson (2000). Furthermore, the 128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 type is diagnosable using discrete characters. This name was incorrectly applied in an unpublished thesis in 1967, now 40 years ago. That same year a popular press book made the same error, and this has been perpetuated until Thomson (2000) demonstrated the error. Savage (2007) believes that using the lectotype of Chelodina colliei Gray, 1856 (BMNH 1947.3.5.91) as the neotype for Chelodina oblonga Gray, 1841, would be a justifiable means of salvaging an error in the name of conservation of current usage. Chelodina colliei is an available name with a lectotype and a complete type series. Gray’s descriptions actually contain a valid diagnosis which, when viewed in the light of the discoveries in Thomson (2000), are actually differential diagnoses of discrete characters that make sense when one looks at these species, not to mention that the type specimen is figured in the description. Creating a neotype for Chelodina oblonga would mean that the name-bearing type and the diagnosis in the description would be at odds with each other. In gauging the amount of disruption caused by what I have proposed it is important to note that half the species of turtles in Australia have been described since 1980, and all but one of these since 1994. All publications older than 10 years are so out of date nomenclaturally that it is important to have all recent descriptions to hand to sort out which species is being discussed. It is important to note that by reversing the precedence of Macrochelodina rugosa and Macrochelodina oblonga only one name would be changed. Chelodina colliei would become valid for the Western Australian species, and all Gray’s original intentions and descriptions would remain valid. Further, there is an available name for the differentially diagnosable western population of Macrochelodina rugosa should it be required in the future. A further complication is the effect on the name Macrochelodina Wells & Wellington, 1985. The original type species of this genus was Chelodina oblonga. Their intention, as discussed in Iverson et al. (2001), was to describe the Chelodina B group of species (which includes Macrochelodina rugosa). Iverson et al. (2001) proposed Macrochelodina rugosa as the type species, justifying this on the grounds that the types represented the same species and it would avoid confusion. It could be argued that Iverson et al. could not do this and that the proposal of the lectotype of Chelodina colliei as the neotype of Chelodina oblonga would erect a monotypic genus for the Western Australian species that would be valid, leaving the Chelodina B group in a paraphyletic arrangement. Setting the neotype removes the only real justification Iverson et al. had for proposing the change of type species in the first place. The setting of a neotype, although outwardly attractive, would actually create more work in itself — work that would not need to be done if the names were just put back the way they were supposed to be and.the way they were for 136 years until 40 years ago. In summary, I think it is important to appreciate that the conservation of the current usage of a name is not always the best option. It is important to look at all the consequences and weigh up the outcomes, which is what I did in the original proposal to the Commission. It is important to allow the Code to work the way it is intended, as authors who have presented to science in good faith have the right to have their work, when proven valid, recognized. My original proposal was intended as a balance between conservation, the recognition of valid taxonomic works of historical significance, and the prevention of unintended arrangements occurring. Hence, I stand by my original proposal in Case 3351. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 129 OPINION 2170 (Case 3300) Halipegus occidualis Stafford, 1905 and Cercaria projecta Willey, 1930 (Digenea, HEMIURIDAE): priority maintained Abstract. The Commission has ruled that priority is maintained for two species of hemiurid digeneans, Halipegus occidualis Stafford, 1905 and Cercaria projecta Willey, 1930, known to parasitise ranid frogs and various freshwater pulmonate snails. A proposal to conserve the junior homonym Halipegus occidualis Krull, 1935 of the former name and the junior synonym Halipegus eccentricus Thomas, 1939 of the latter name was not approved. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Digenea; HEMIURIDAE; Halipegus occidualis; Cercaria projecta; Halipegus eccentricus; Amphibia; RANIDAE; parasitic worms; North America. Ruling (1) It is hereby ruled that priority is maintained for the names occidualis Stafford, 1905, as published in the binomen Halipegus occidualis, and projecta Willey, 1930, as published in the binomen Cercaria projecta. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) occidualis Stafford, 1905, as published in the binomen Halipegus occidualis; (b) projecta Willey, 1930, as published in the binomen Cercaria projecta. History of Case 3300 An application to conserve the specific names of Halipegus occidualis Krull, 1935 and Halipegus eccentricus Thomas, 1939 for two species of hemiurid digeneans known to parasitise ranid frogs and various freshwater pulmonate snails was received from D.F. McAlpine (New Brunswick Museum, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada) on 27 August 2003. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 63: 12-16 (March 2006). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 2006 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 63: 14-15. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 2007 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 7: Bock, Fautin, Krell, Macpherson, Papp, Song and Zhang. Negative votes — 20: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Grygier, Halliday, Kerzhner, Kottelat, Kullander, Lamas, Lim, Mahnert, Mawatari, Ng, Pape, Patterson, Pyle, Rosenberg, Stys and van Tol. Minelli abstained. Commissioners voting against pointed out that usage of the names involved was so limited that to maintain priority would not create significant problems. 130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: occidualis, Halipegus, Stafford, 1905, Zoologischer Anzeiger, 28: 687. projecta, Cercaria, Willey, 1930, Parasitology, 22: 481. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 131 OPINION 2171 (Case 3322) Baetis pentaphlebodes Ujhelyi, 1966 (Insecta, Ephemeroptera): not given precedence over Baetis nexus Navas, 1918 Abstract. The Commission has ruled that priority is maintained for the specific name of Baetis nexus Navas, 1918, a European mayfly (family BAETIDAE), a senior subjective synonym of Baetis pentaphlebodes Ujhelyi, 1966. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Ephemeroptera; BAETIDAE; Baetis nexus; Baetis pentaphlebodes; Hungary; Spain; mayflies. Ruling (1) It is hereby ruled that priority is maintained for the specific name of Baetis nexus Navas, 1918. (2) The name nexus Navas, 1918, as published in the binomen Baetis nexus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 3322 An application to conserve the specific name Baetis pentaphlebodes Ujhelyi, 1966 by giving it precedence over its senior subjective synonym Baetis nexus Navas, 1918 was received from M. Sartori (Museum of Zoology, Palais de Rumine, CH-1014 Lausanne, Switzerland) and T. Soldan (Unstitute of Entomology, Academy of Sciences, CZ — 37005 Ceské Budéjovice, Czech Republic) on 6 May 2004. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 63: 23-27 (March 2006). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On | December 2006 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 63: 24. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 2007 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 9: Bock, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, Halliday, Mawatari, Papp, Rosenberg and Song. Negative votes — 19: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Kerzhner, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Lim, Macpherson, Mahnert, Minelli, Ng, Pape, Patterson, Pyle, Stys, van Tol and Zhang. Voting against, Alonso-Zarazaga, Mahnert, Stys and van Tol did not consider that the species concerned were of adequate importance to justify reversal of precedence. Original reference The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: nexus, Baetis, Navas, 1918, Butlleti de la Institucio Catalana d Historia Natural, 1918: 38-39. 132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 OPINION 2172 (Case 3326) Lachniella tujafilina Del Guercio, 1909 (currently Cinara (Cupressobium) tujafilina; Insecta, Hemiptera, APHIDIDAE): given precedence over Lachnus greeni Schouteden, 1905 (currently Cinara (Cupressobium) greeni) Abstract. The Commission has conserved the usage of the specific name Cinara (Cupressobium) tujafilina (Del Guercio, 1909) for a widespread and economically important species of aphid by giving it precedence over the senior synonym Cinara (Cupressobium) greeni (Schouteden, 1905). Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hemiptera; APHIDIDAE; LACHNINAE; Cinara; Cinara (Cupressobium) tujafilina; Cinara (Cupressobium) greeni; aphids. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the name tujafilina Del Guercio, 1909, as published in the binomen Lachniella tujafilina, is given precedence over the name greeni Schouteden, 1905, as published in the binomen Lachnus greeni, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) tuwjafilina Del Guercio, 1909, as published in the binomen Lachniella twjafilina, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name greeni Schouteden, 1905, as published in the binomen Lachnus greeni, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (b) greeni Schouteden, 1905, as published in the binomen Lachnus greeni, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name tw/afilina Del Guercio, 1909, as published in the binomen Lachniella tujafilina, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. History of Case 3326 An application to conserve the usage of the specific name Lachniella tujafilina Del Guercio, 1909 by giving it precedence over the senior name Lachnus greeni Schouteden, 1905 was received from J.M. Nieto Nafria and N.P. Hidalgo (Departamento de Biologia Animal, Universidad de Leon, Spain) and M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga (Departamento de Biodiversidad y Biologia Evolutiva, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (CSIC), Madrid, Spain) on 2 August 2004. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 63: 28-30 (March 2006). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On | December 2006 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 63: 29. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 2007 the votes were as follows: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 133 Affirmative votes — 22: Bock, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, Halliday, Kerzhner, Kottelat, Krell, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Ng, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Song, Stys, van Tol and Zhang. Negative votes — 5: Kullander, Lim, Minelli, Pape and Pyle. Alonso-Zarazaga abstained. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: greeni, Lachnus, Schouteden, 1905, Spolia Zeylandica, 2: 184. tujafilina, Lachniella, Del Guercio, 1909, Redia, 5: 288. 134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 OPINION 2173 (Case 3299) Staphylinus punctulatus Paykull, 1789 (currently Gyrohypnus punctulatus; Insecta, Coleoptera, STAPHYLINIDAE): Specific name conserved Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name of Staphylinus punctulatus Paykull, 1789 is conserved. The name is a junior primary homonym of Staphylinus punctulatus Goeze, 1777 (currently Othius punctulatus), but the specific names have not been considered as congeneric since 1830. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; STAPHYLINIDAE; Gyrohypnus punctulatus; rove beetles; Palaearctic. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the specific name punctulatus Paykull, 1789, as published in the binomen Staphylinus punctulatus, 1s not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym of punctulatus Goeze, 1777, as published in the binomen Staphylinus punctulatus. (2) The name punctulatus Paykull, 1789, as published in the binomen Staphylinus punctulatus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 3299 An application to conserve the specific name of Staphylinus punctulatus Paykull, 1789 was received from Volker Assing (Gabelsbergerstr. 2, D-30163 Hannover, Germany) on 24 August 2003. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 63: 33-35 (March 2006). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On | December 2006 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 63: 34. At the close of the voting period on | March 2007 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 28: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, Halliday, Kerzhner, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Lim, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Ng, Pape, Papp, Patterson, Pyle, Rosenberg, Song, Stys, van Tol and Zhang. Negative votes — none. Original reference The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: punctulatus, Staphylinus, Paykull, 1789, Monographia Staphylinorum Sueciae, p. 30. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 135 OPINION 2174 (Case 3302) Buprestis sexsignata Say, 1839 (Insecta, Coleoptera): given precedence over Chrysobothris ignipes Gory & Laporte, 1838 and Chrysobothris germari Gory & Laporte, 1838 Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name Buprestis sexsignata Say, 1839 is conserved for a species of jewel beetle (family BUPRESTIDAE) by giving it precedence over its unused senior synonyms Chrysobothris ignipes Gory & Laporte, 1838 and C. germari Gory & Laporte, 1838. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; BUPRESTIDAE; Buprestis sexsignata; Chrysobothris ignipes; Chrysobothris germart; buprestids; jewel beetles. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the specific name sexsignata Say, 1839, as published in the binomen Buprestis sexsignata, 1s given prec- edence over the names ignipes Gory & Laporte, 1838, as published in the binomen Chrysobothris ignipes, and germari Gory & Laporte, 1838, as published in the binomen Chrysobothris germari, whenever Buprestis sexsig- nata Say, 1839 and Chrysobothris ignipes Gory & Laporte 1838 and / or Chrysobothris germari Gory & Laporte, 1838 are considered to be synonyms. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) sexsignata Say, 1839, as published in the binomen Buprestis sexsignata, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the names ignipes Gory & Laporte, 1838, as published in the binomen Chrysobothris ignipes, and germari Gory & Laporte, 1838, as published in the binomen Chrysobothris germari, whenever Buprestis sexsignata Say, 1839 and Chrysobothris ignipes Gory & Laporte 1838 and / or Chrysobothris germari Gory & Laporte, 1838 are considered to be synonyms; (b) ignipes Gory & Laporte, 1838, as published in the binomen Chrysobothris ignipes, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name sexsignata Say, 1839, as published in the binomen Buprestis sexsig- naia, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (c) germari Gory & Laporte, 1838, as published in the binomen Chrysobothris germari, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name sexsignata Say, 1839, as published in the binomen Buprestis sexsig- nata, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. History of Case 3302 An application to conserve the specific name Buprestis sexsignata Say, 1839 for a species of jewel beetle (family BUPRESTIDAE) by giving it precedence over its unused senior synonyms Chrysobothris ignipes Gory & Laporte, 1838 and C. germari Gory & Laporte, 1838 was received from T.C. MacRae (Monsanto Company, Chesterfield, 136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(2) June 2007 Missouri 63017, U.S.A.) on 4 September 2003. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 63: 36-38 (March 2006). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. A supportive comment was published in BZN 63: 201. Decision of the Commission On | December 2006 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 63: 37. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 2007 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 26: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bogutskaya, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, Halliday, Kerzhner, Kottelat, Krell (parts 1, 2a), Kullander, Lamas, Lim, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Ng, Papp, Patterson, Pyle, Rosenberg, Song, Stys, van Tol and Zhang. Negative votes — 3: Bouchet, Krell (parts 2b, c) and Pape. Voting against, Bouchet did not consider that the case for overturning priority had been made. Krell did not favour putting nomina oblita on the Official List. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: germari, Chrysobothris, Gory & Laporte, 1838, Histoire naturelle et iconographie des insectes Coléoptéres. Monographie des buprestides, vol. 2, p. 50. ignipes, Chrysobothris, Gory & Laporte, 1838, Histoire naturelle et iconographie des insectes Coléoptéres. Monographie des buprestides, vol. 2, p. 50. sexsignata, Buprestis, Say, 1839, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, (2)6: 158. Contents — continued On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Lithocolletis oxyacanthae Frey, 1855 (currently Phyllonorycter oxyacanthae; Insecta, Lepidoptera) by giving it precedence over Lithocolletis pomonella Zeller, 1846. G. Baldizzone; J. De Prins & W. De Prins; B. Landry : On the proposed precedence of Ghelodinan rugosa 1 Opell, 1890 (@umenily Maer 0- chelodina rugosa; one ne tae over Chelodina mes ee 1841. S.A. Thomson . 5 SEAR Re ret. se sh Bas APE) Rulings of the Commission SOG oN Nawal tien ke OPINION 2170 (Case 3300). elipears eects Stafford, 1905 and Cercaria projecta Willey, 1930 (Digenea, HEMIURIDAE): priority maintained Sets we OPINION 2171 (Case 3322). Baetis pentaphlebodes Ujhelyi, 1966 (Insecta, Ephemeroptera): not given precedence over Baetis nexus Navas, 1918. OPINION 2172 (Case 3326). Lachniella tujafilina Del Guercio, 1909 (currently Cinara (Cupressobium) tujafilina; Insecta, Hemiptera, APHIDIDAE): given pre- cedence over Lachnus a Schouteden, 1905 See Cinara (Cupressobium) greeni) . AG ei cel NTR a, ae OPINION 2173 (Case 3299). Staninibios nineroiotirg “Raylall 1789 (currently Gyrohypnus punctulatus; Insecta, Coleoptera, STAPHYLINIDAE): ene name conserved . OPINION 2174 (Gare 3302). punree somataaan Si 1839 (lasecta, Coleone): given precedence over Chrysobothris ignipes Gory & Laporte, 1838 and Chryso- bothris germari Gory & Laporte, 1838 . Se 134 135 CONTENTS win, Applications . Pseudocoenia @ Orbieny, 1850 (Cedlecistic: ceioractinien: proposed enikenalin ae usage by the designation of a lectotype for the type species. H. Loser. Termes serratus Froggatt, 1898 (currently Microcerotermes serratus) and Tare serrula Desneux, 1904 (currently Microcerotermes serrula) (Insecta, Isoptera, TERMITINAE): proposed conservation of the specific names. D.T. Jones. Hydroporus discretus Fairmaire & Brisout de Barneville, 1859 (Insecta, Goeapea proposed conservation of the specific name. M.A. Jach, H. Fery, A.N. Nilsson, P.N. Petrov & I. Ribera Hybosorus illigeri Reiche, 1853 daeese, Colona: araae! enematinn yy giving it precedence over Hybosorus roei Westwood, 1845. P.G. Allsopp & T. Branco . Lithocolletis ox ac nairne Eon 1855 canons PayMonanine oxyacanthae; iinceeen Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name by giving it BS over Lithocolletis pomonella Zeller, 1846. P. Triberti 2 Mystus Scopoli, 1777 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): proposed conserved on usage by designation of Bagrus halepensis Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840 as the type species. M. Kottelat & H.H. Ng. : Gobius lagocephalus Pallas, 1770 (currently Sicyopterus lavocephales (Oneichinves Teleostei, ea proposed suppression of the specific name. W.L. Smith & J.S. Sparks . Columba roseogrisea Sundevall, 1857 (oun Siremonenaay roseogrisea; ISS, COLUMBIDAE): proposed conservation. T.M. Donegan . Cornwallius tabatai Tokunaga, 1939 (currently Paleoparadoxia nae Manone Desmostylia): proposed conservation of usage of the specific name by the designation of a neotype. Y. Hasegawa & N. Kohno . Comments , On the proposed eoisewanion a Gieaeneeen Rover! 1899 fad ceieeniaene Sacco, 1897 (Mollusca, Bivalvia, PECTINIDAE). P. Bouchet On the proposed conservation of Obovaria Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca, Bivalven by the designation of Unio retusa Lamarck, 1819 as the type species. D. Campbell . On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Hydroporus discretus Fairmaire & Brisout de Barneville, 1859 (Insecta, Coleoptera). R. Angus; E.J. van Nieukerken; G. Foster; C.H.S. Watts; F. Marnell; H.V. Shaverdo . : : On the proposed conservation of the generic names Gnorimus Le Peletier ue Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828 and Osmoderma Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828 (Insecta, Coleoptera). M.V.L. Barclay : On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Curculio contractus Menten! 1802 (currently Ceutorhynchus contractus; Insecta, Coleoptera). M.V.L. Barclay . On the proposed precedence of the generic name Ataenius Harold, 1867 over Aphodinus Motschulsky, 1862 (Insecta, Coleoptera). Z.T. Stebnicka On the proposed conservation of usage of the name ee lozodes Chevrolat, 1838 (Insecta, Coleoptera). C.L. Bellamy; S. Bily . On the proposed conservation of the subfamilial name ORTHOCLADIINAE iraction 191 I and on the proposed type-species fixation for Orthocladius yan der Wulp, 1874 (Diptera, CHTRONOMIDAE). M. Spies & N.L. Evenhuis; T. Ekrem . aN ees GG 77 79 83 87 90 96 124 Continued on Inside Back Cover Printed in the United Kingdom by Henry Ling Limited, at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, DT] 1HD _ ‘ptember 2007, pp. 137-208 ISSN 0007-5167 The | Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Cae dic oof aoe yy ternation nMIss on 2 Zooloy ical Nomenclature THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 2008 is £160 or US$320 or €280, postage included; individual subscribers for personal use are offered a subscription of £80 or US$160 or €140. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 020 7942 5653) (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) (http://www.iczn.org) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Officers President Vice-President Executive Secretary Members Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga (Spain; Coleoptera) Dr N. G. Bogutskaya (Russia; Ichthyology) Prof P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) Prof D. J. Brothers (South Africa; Hymenoptera) Prof D. G. Fautin (U.S.A.; Cnidaria) Dr M. J. Grygier (Japan; Crustacea) Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari) Prof I. M. Kerzhner (Russia; Heteroptera) Dr M. Kottelat (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Dr F.-T. Krell (U.S.A.; Coleoptera) Dr S. O. Kullander (Sweden; Ichthyology) Prof Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera) Prof S. Lim (Malaysia; Parasitology) Vacant Secretariat Prof D. J. Brothers (South Africa) Dr A. Polaszek (U.K.) Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan; Bryozoa) Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda) Dr P. K. L. Ng (Singapore; Crustacea, Ichthyology) Dr T. Pape (Denmark, Diptera) Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera) Prof D. J. Patterson (U.S.A.; Protista) Dr R. Pyle (U.S.A.; Ichthyology) Dr G. Rosenberg (U.S.A.; Mollusca) Prof D. X. Song (China; Hirudinea) Prof P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) Mr J. van Tol (The Netherlands; Odonata) Dr Z.-Q. Zhang (New Zealand; Acari) Dr A. Polaszek (Executive Secretary and Bulletin Editor) Dr S. Coppard (Development Officer) Mrs S. Morris (Zoologist) Dr S. Nikolaeva (Zoologist) Mr S. Tracey (Scientific Administrator) Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman) Dr P. L. Forey (Secretary and Managing Director) © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2007 SON: . u OCT 24 2007 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) 137 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 64, part 3 (pp. 137-208) 28 September 2007 Notices (1) Applications and correspondence relating to applications to the Commission should be sent to the Executive Secretary at the address given on the inside of the front cover and on the Commission website. English is the official language of the Bulletin. Please take careful note of instructions to authors (present in a one or two page form in each volume) as incorrectly formatted applications will be returned to authors for revision. The Commission’s Secretariat will answer general nomenclatural (as opposed to purely taxonomic) enquiries and assist with the formulation of applications. As far as it can, the Secretariat will check the main nomenclatural references in applications. Correspondence should be sent by e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ where possible. (2) The Commission votes on applications eight months after they have been published, although this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Comments for publication relating to applications (either in support or against, or offering alternative solutions) should be submitted as soon as possible. Comments may be edited. (3) Requests for help and advice on the Code can be made direct to the Commission and other interested parties via the Internet. Membership of the Commission’s Discussion List is free of charge. You can subscribe and find out more about the list at http://hst.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list. (4) The Commission also welcomes the submission of general-interest articles on nomenclatural themes or nomenclatural notes on particular issues. These may deal with taxonomy, but should be mainly nomenclatural in content. Articles and notes should be sent to the Executive Secretary. New applications to the Commission The following new applications have been received since the last issue of the Bulletin (volume 64, part 2, 30 June 2007) went to press. Under Article 82 of the Code, the existing usage of names in the applications is to be maintained until the Commission’s rulings on the applications (the Opinions) have been published. CASE 3420: Buettneria Case, 1922 (Amphibia): proposed conservation. S.G. Lucas, L.F. Rinehart, J.A. Spielmann & A.P. Hunt. CASE 3421: Megalopta ecuadoria Friese, 1926 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of the name over Megalopta centralis Friese, 1926. W.T. Wcislo & S.M. Tierney. CASE 3422: Helops Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Coleoptera, TENEBRIONIDAE): proposed conservation of usage by designation of Tenebrio caeruleus Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species. M. Nabozhenko, P. Bouchard & I. LOobl. 138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 CASE 3423: Chaetocnema Stephens, 1831 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conser- vation of usage by designation of Altica hortensis Geoffroy, 1785 as the type species. V.V. Grebennikov, A.S. Konstantinov & S.W. Lingafelter. CASE 3424: psEupococcin! Cockerell, 1905 (Insecta, Hemiptera): proposed precedence over sPHAEROCOCCINI Cockerell, 1899. N.B. Hardy & P.J. Gullan. CASE 3425: Mordella humeralis Fabricius, 1775 and Anaspis maculata Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence of the specific names over those of Mordella fasciata Forster, 1771 and Mordella melanopa Forster, 1771 respectively. P. Leblanc & B. Levey. CASE 3426: Proposed corrections to the entries on the Official Lists and Indexes for five family-group names, three genus group names and one species group name (Mollusca). D. Kadolsky. CASE 3427: Desmognathus quadramaculatus Holbrook, 1840 (Amphibia, Caudata, PLETHODONTIDAE): proposed conservation of usage of the specific name by the designation of a neotype. J.A. Wooten & L.J. Rissler. CASE 3428: Palaemon rosenbergii De Man, 1879 (currently Macrobrachium rosenbergii; Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed designation of a neotype. D. Wowor & P.K.L. Ng. CASE 3429: CHARILAIDAE Dirsh, 1953 (Insecta, Orthoptera): proposed precedence Over PAMPHAGODIDAE Bolivar, 1916. D.C. Eades & L.S. Deem. CASE 3430: Modiola cinnamomea Lamarck, 1819 (Mollusca): proposed conserva- tion as the type species of Botula Moérch, 1853. K. Kleemann. Call for nominations for new members of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Since the last election of ten new Commissioners in August 2006, three Commissioners have reached the end of their maximum term of service. We express our sincere thanks for 18 years of service to the Commission to Dr W. Bock (U.S.A:: Aves), Dr E. Macpherson (Spain: Crustacea) and Dr V. Mahnert (France: Ichthy- ology). Furthermore, two vacancies remain on the Commission, making a total of five potential positions to be filled. The Commission therefore invites nominations, from any person or institution, of potential candidates for election. The nationalities and specialist fields of the present members of the Commission may be found on the Commission’s Website (www.iczn.org) or on the inside cover of each part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Article 2b of the Commission’s Constitution prescribes that: “The members of the Commission shall be eminent scientists, irrespective of nationality, with a distinguished record in any branch of zoology, who are known to have an interest in zoological nomenclature’. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 | 139 It should be noted that ‘zoology’ here includes palaeontology and the applied biological sciences (medicine, agriculture, etc.) which use zoological names. Nominations made since June 2005 will automatically be taken into account and need not be repeated. Additional nominations, giving the age, nationality and qualifications (by the criteria mentioned above) of each nominee should be sent as soon as possible, either by e-mail to “iczn@nhm.ac.uk” or by post to: Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. 140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature _ General Session of the Commission, Washington, D.C., 9-13 May, 2007, in conjunction with the 29th IUBS General Assembly. Present: Prof. Brothers (President), Commissioners Dr Alonso-Zarazaga, Prof. Bock, Prof. Bouchet, Prof. Fautin, Dr Grygier, Dr Krell, Dr Kullander, Prof. Lamas, Prof. Lim, Prof. Mawatari, Dr Pape, Prof. Patterson, Dr Pyle, Prof. Rosenberg, Mr van Tol and Dr Zhang. Dr Polaszek (Executive Secretary) and Dr Coppard (Development Officer) were present from the ICZN Secretariat. Observers: Dr Agosti (European Association for Zoological Nomenclature - EAZN); Mr Remsen (Global Biodiversity Information Facility — GBIF); Dr Segers (Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences). 1. Apologies for absence had been received from Commissioners Dr Bogutskaya, Dr Halliday, Prof. Kerzhner, Dr Kottelat, Dr Macpherson, Dr Mahnert, Prof. Minelli, Dr Ng, Dr Papp, Prof. Song and Prof. Stys. 2. The Commission noted the Executive Secretary’s Report to IUBS covering the years 2004-2006, presented to the 29th IUBS General Assembly. 3. Impending vacancies for six new Commissioners By August of this year (2007), three Commissioners will have either reached the end of their maximum term of service, or retired: Prof. Bock (U.S.A.: Aves), Dr Macpherson (Spain: Crustacea), and Dr Mahnert (France: Ichthyology). Furthermore, two vacancies remain on the Commission, making a total of six potential positions to be filled. It was noted and agreed that a call for nominations of new Commissioners would be published in the September 2007 issue of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 4. Nominations for new Council members ICZN Council members are each elected for a term of six years (ICZN Bylaw 13(a)). The most recent appointment of an ICZN Council member was in April 2001, and so all terms of office for ICZN Councillors have now lapsed. Nominations for Council members were therefore requested and six nominations were received from Commissioners present at the Session. It was agreed that a request for nominations for new Council members would be sent to all Commissioners not present at the General Session. The date for election of four Council members (i.e. in addition to the incoming President and Vice-President) is here set as 1 November 2007 (Bylaw 11(b)). Under the One-Month rule (Bylaw 13(b)), nominations from Commissioners should reach the Secretariat by 31 August 2007 (n.b. a request for nominations for Council members was sent to all Commissioners prior to 31 July 2007). 5. Election of ICZN President Under ICZN Bylaw 19, Prof. Brothers (as Vice-President) assumed the ICZN Presidency following the resignation of former ICZN President Dr Evenhuis. As Vice-President, Prof Brothers ‘*.....shall become the President and shall serve as President for the remainder of the latter’s term of office”. The current President’s term of office expires on 17 November 2007. Council, once elected on 1 November 2007, will therefore be required under Bylaw 11(b) to propose two nominees for the Office of President. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 . 141 6. Election of ICZN Vice-President Because of Bylaw 19 (see “5” above) the Vice Presidency of ICZN has been vacant since 10 May 2005. Under Bylaw 12, Council, once elected on 1 November 2007, will propose two nominees for the Office of Vice-President. 7. Formation of Committees Under Bylaw 16, the President appoints all ICZN Committees. The following Committees were established, with the following membership. It was agreed that the ICZN Executive Secretary would ask Commissioners not present at the General Session to consider joming the Committees formed. It was proposed that Mr Lynn Raw be asked to form online discussion groups for each committee. 7.1 ICZN 5th Code Committee The following Commissioners (and non-ICZN nominees) agreed to serve on the 5th Code Committee, with the approval of the President: Dr Alonso-Zarazaga; Dr Ballerio (Brescia, Italy); Prof. Bouchet; Prof. Brothers; Prof. Fautin; Dr Kottelat; Dr Krell; Prof. Lamas; Dr Pape; Dr Polaszek; Dr Pyle; Dr Rosenberg; Dr Thompson. Dr Polaszek will solicit the involvement of Commissioners not present at the Washington General Session to serve on the 5th Code Committee. It was proposed that production of the 5th edition of the Code could be based on a “wiki” procedure, with the Commission having a 2/3 majority vote on what would be acceptable. The official language of the next Code was also discussed, with a majority of Commissioners present favouring English-only. The possibility of issuing an interim version of the Code prior to the Sth edition, and incorporating a number of currently proposed amendments, was also discussed. This could be referred to as the “4th Edition; revised printing”. 7.2 ICZN Committee on ZooBank/Lists of available names in zoology The following Commissioners (and non-ICZN nominees) agreed to serve on the ZooBank/Lists Committee: Dr Agosti (EAZN observer); Dr Alonso-Zarazaga; Dr Coppard; Prof. Fautin; Dr Krell; Dr Kullander; Prof. Lim; Dr Pape; Prof. Patterson; Dr Pyle; Mr Remsen (GBIF observer); Dr Rosenberg; Mr van Tol; Dr Zhang. Dr Polaszek will solicit the involvement of Commissioners not present at the Washington General Session to serve on the ZooBank/Lists Committee. The idea of forming taxon specialist groups was proposed by Prof. Bock, and agreed in principle. 7.3 ICZN-BZN Associate Editors Committee It was agreed that all Commissioners would immediately become BZN Associate Editors. A procedure whereby all Commissioners would review the acceptability of Cases proposed prior to any editing by the Secretariat was agreed. The procedure agreed was that three Commissioners would review each Case received and decide on its suitability for processing. It was further agreed that all general enquiries would go to an e-mail Commission discussion list. 8. ZooBank — animal name registration A series of presentations took place in the Baird Auditorium of the Smithsonian Institution on the afternoon of 11 May 14.00-17.00. Dr Alfred Gardner, President of the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature (AAZN), introduced presentations by Prof. David Patterson (ICZN Commissioner), Mr David Remsen 142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 (GBIF) and Dr Rich Pyle (ICZN Commissioner), followed by presentations from Dr Donat Agosti (EAZN) and Prof. Philippe Bouchet (ICZN Commissioner). 9. ICZN Memorandum of Cooperation, and other affiliations It was noted that since the last General Session, ICZN has become an Associate Participant of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (since July 2005) and a member of the Taxonomic Databases Working Group (since September 2006). 120 organisations have now signed the ICZN Memorandum of Cooperation. 10. “Systema Naturae 250” Paris Prof. Jean-Marc Jallon (Université Paris XI) gave a brief introduction to the planned 20th International Congress of Zoology due to take place in Paris from 26-29 August 2008, in which the ICZN symposium “Systema Naturae 250” will play an important role. 11. JUBS-ICZN business It was noted that the following IUBS programmes were closed during the 29th General Assembly: Systematics, Bionomenclature. Following the election of ICZN Executive Secretary to the IUBS Executive Committee, the involvement of ICZN in the 2009 Darwin bicentenary celebrations was proposed and supported. As the ICZN General Session was planned to coincide with the IUBS General Assembly, both Prof. Fautin (Commissioner) and Dr Polaszek (Executive Secretary) participated in IUBS activities. An opportunity was taken on 13 May to ratify Declaration 44 — the amendment to Article 74.7.3. The assembly members present voted unanimously for ratification. This was followed by ratification of all new Commissioners elected since previous IUBS ratification, including the 10 elected in August 2006. Dr Polaszek was elected to the Executive Committee of IUBS follow- ing nominations by Prof. Brothers (ICZN) and Prof. van Lenteren (President, International Organisation for Biological Control). 12. The Code: Higher categories, stems and endings On May 12 Dr Alonso-Zarazaga gave presentations on how higher taxonomic categories could be governed by the Code, and animal name stems and endings. He suggested several amendments to the 4th edition of the Code, to be discussed by the 5th Code Committee. The issue of gender agreement was also discussed, in particular the fact that this aspect of the Code is being almost universally ignored by lepidopterists. 13. Proposed amendments to the current Code Two important amendments to the Code, one concerning the acceptability of electronic publication, the other concerning type specimens, were drafted during the meeting. These proposed amendments are being finalised by Commissioners Dr Rosenberg, Prof. Brothers, Dr Krell, Dr Pape and Dr Pyle, and will be published for comment in December’s Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 14. Conclusion The President thanked all those present during the course of the meeting, and those who had sent discussion papers. The dates for the next ICZN General Session were set as 26-29 August 2008. 143 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 ‘SRUIRT OpIeIoH ‘(pajeas) LivjeMLYA, 9yNsuNYS ‘uosIaned PlIArg ‘(pa}eas) |[a1y UoIs10Y]; ayonog addy ‘JO ura ure 1YSI1 0} JOT -yur I “L007 Av WIT uvsng ‘(QUapIsold ) ‘SuevyZ Suri(d)-1yZ RBLZLILZ-OSUOTY [ANSI ‘(payeas) a[Ag pieyory ‘odeg sewoyy “une suydeq sioyo1g stueq “1opure [My UA * Ios. AIL) ARIA] “BAlaquasoy Arley ‘yoog 1aq[BAA W IL O'*€ ‘uoisuryse jy ‘ayn Nsuy URTUOSY UI ‘UOT WUWOD NZOI ey 144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 Case 3396 Conus jaspideus Gmelin, 1791 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the specific name by designation of a neotype Alan J. Kohn Department of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, U.S.A. (e-mail: kohn@u.washington.edu) Danker L.N. Vink Groot Santa Martha, Curacao, Netherlands Antilles (e-mail: dankervink@carib-online.net) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 75.5 of the Code, is to define and conserve the usage of the specific name of Conus jaspideus Gmelin, 1791 by designating a neotype. C. jaspideus is a marine gastropod mollusc occurring in the tropical Western Atlantic and Caribbean region. The name is in common usage but it is also a source of confusion, for both nomenclatural and biological reasons. The main nomenclatural reason is that the lectotype is unidentifiable. The main biological reason is disagreement as to whether C. jaspideus is a very variable and widely distributed species, or a complex of related species that may have narrower geographic ranges. Replacement of the present unidentifiable name-bearing type by a neotype would solve the first problem and facilitate research to solve the second. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; Conus; Conus jaspideus; neotype: Western Atlantic. 1. Johann Friedrich Gmelin published an updated and considerably expanded 13th edition of Linnaeus’s Systema Naturae (1788-1792). Rather than describing species based mainly on specimens as Linnaeus had done, Gmelin added taxa based on literature accounts that had appeared since Linnaeus’s 12th and last edition (Linnaeus, 1767). Thus the specimens now regarded as types of most species introduced by Gmelin are accessible only as lectotypes and a few holotypes, designated by subsequent authors. In the case of the 37 Conus species introduced by Gmelin, 27 have representations of lectotypes and four have representations of holotypes (Kohn, 1966, 1992). For six species, the illustrations he cited are recognizable individually as of specimens currently preserved in museums, and these have been designated as lectotypes (4) and holotypes (2) (see Kohn, 1992). 2. Many authors have severely criticized Gmelin’s work because of the short- comings caused by the methodology indicated above. These include Maton & Rackett (1804), Lamarck (1810), Bernhard (1816), Swainson (1840), Gill & Coues (1877) and Dodge (1958) (summarized by Kohn, 1992, pp. 39-40). Gmelin’s deficiencies helped motivate Lamarck to shift his work from botany to zoology, and his critique is particularly cogent: “There is in [Gmelin’s] work so much confusion in Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 145 the synonymies, so many defective or insufficient specific characters which seem to be based merely on figures, that a new determination of species, at least covering the invertebrates) is now greatly to be desired for the advancement of zoology’ (Lamarck, 1810, translated by Dodge, 1959). 3. Gmelin (1791, p. 3387) published the name Conus jaspideus with a 7-word diagnosis, a 3-word subdescription, and citations of two previously published figures as indications. Clench (1942) selected the first of these (Martini, 1773, pl. 55, fig. 612) as a representation of the lectotype (‘type figure’) of C. jaspideus Gmelin, even though he admitted that the figure (also reproduced in Kohn, 1992, fig. 87) was ‘almost valueless’ (Clench, 1942, p. 11). 4. Gmelin’s original description and Clench’s representation of the lectotype do not permit assignment of the name C. jaspideus to any single species. Weinkauff (1875, p. 130) pointed this out long ago: “To arrive at a determination [of C. jaspideus] is impossible. No single [species] may be allied to Martin1’s figure’ [translated by Kohn (1992, p. 48)]. Nevertheless the name C. jaspideus has long been applied to a valid species of Conus, C. jaspideus of authors (e.g. Clench, 1942; Abbott, 1958; Kaufmann & Gotting, 1970; Van Mol, 1973; Bandel, 1976; Vokes & Vokes, 1983; Costa, 1994; Diaz & Puyana, 1994; Redfern, 2001; Strong, 2003). As Kohn (1992, p. 48) pointed out, ‘acceptance of [C. jaspideus of authors] as C. jaspideus Gmelin thus appears to be traditional, based on the association of the later species C. pusio Hwass in Bruguiére (1792) with C. jaspideus (Lamarck, 1810, p. 286; Dillwyn, 1817; Deshayes & Milne Edwards, 1845)’. However, C. pusio is now considered a distinct valid species (Vink, 1989; Kohn, 1992). 5. Prior to the addition of Article 75.5 in the present (fourth) edition of the Code, Vink (1991) proposed a neotype for Conus jaspideus in his revisory work The Conidae of the Western Atlantic: Part XV. However, Clench (1942) had earlier designated as lectotype the specimen represented by the figure in Martini (1773, pl. 55, fig. 612) that Gmelin cited in his original description. Clench’s designation is valid under the third edition of the Code (1985, Article 74 (c)) prevailing at the time of Vink’s (1991) publication, as well as under the present fourth edition (1999, Article 74.4). Hence, Vink’s (1991) designation of a neotype cannot supersede the existing lectotype, even in the situation when the type series has not been extant. 6. In accordance with Article 75.3 of the Code, we present the following particulars to indicate the exceptional need for a neotype of Conus jaspideus Gmelin, 1791. (1) The proposed neotype is designated with the express purpose of clarifying both the taxonomic status and the type locality of Conus jaspideus. Several authors have addressed the taxonomic problems surrounding the nominal species, including Clench (1942), Abbott (1958), Walls ({1979]), Vink (1991) and Kohn (1992). While these and all other modern authors who have considered the problem (examples cited in para. 4 above) have concluded that C. jaspideus is a valid species, their concepts of its range of morphological variation, included subspecies and varieties, and geographic distribution vary extremely widely. With respect to type locality, Gmelin (1791) stated that he did not know the provenance of his specimen, so there is no original type locality. Clench (1942) stated Puerto Plata, Santo Domingo, to be the type locality, but he did not claim that this was the locality of the lectotype. 146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 (2) Vink (1991, p. 11) presented a concise statement of the characters that (4 (5 ma — ma CS) differentiate C. jaspideus Gmelin from its closely related congeners, and he focused attention on its white transverse band and granules, characters mentioned in Gmelin’s diagnosis and also in Martin1’s (1773) description of ‘the small granulated jasper with white band’ that Gmelin cited. Vink’s description is largely consistent with those in the subsequent works cited above, e.g. Clench (1942) and Abbott (1958). The proposed neotype (Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, no. 16154) is illustrated by Vink (1991, p. 17, lower left) and two images of it are accessible on The Conus Biodiversity Website (http://biology.burke.washington.edu/ conus/). The shell measures 25x 13.2 mm and was collected off Monos Island, Trinidad, at a depth of 27 m. Kohn (1992) attempted to trace the lectotype of Clench (1942). However, Gmelin (1791) based the many species he described only on earlier published descriptions and figures, and as he is not known to have studied any specimens, no original specimens exist. In most cases Gmelin took the figure citations, or indications, directly from a work by Schréter (1783; see Kohn, 1992). As noted above some of these figures have been subsequently designated representations of lectotypes. Kohn was able to locate in European museums the illustrated specimens of six of the new Conus species that Gmelin (1791) described, but the lectotype of C. jaspideus, a specimen from the collection of Martini (1773, p. 254, pl. 55, fig. 612), was not among them (Kohn, 1992) and its whereabouts remain unknown. ; The size (estimated as 17x8 mm from the illustration in Martini (1773, pl. 55, fig. 612)), and the pale transverse band on the central portion of the last whorl of the representation of the lectotype of Conus jaspideus (see Clench, 1942) are consistent with the concepts of C. jaspideus of the subsequent authors cited above. However, as noted above the representation of the name-bearing type is so poorly rendered that it 1s impossible to identify with any nominal species-group taxon. Moreover, in his description, Martini (1773, p. 254) stated that the specimen had been altered by grinding or polishing. With its present lectotype, the name C. jaspideus should thus be considered a nomen dubium. However, this would threaten stability and universality, because no authors have considered it as a nomen dubium; all that have come to our attention regard it as a valid species. Because Gmelin (1791) did not know where his specimen came from, there is no original type locality of C. jaspideus. Clench (1942) designated Santo Domingo as the type locality, but he based this on the fact that Santo Domingo was one of three islands where Hwass (in Bruguiére, 1792) listed the species as occurring, not because it was the locality of Clench’s lectotype. The locality of the proposed neotype is Monos Island, Trinidad. Although all authors consulted recognize C. jaspideus as a valid species, its geographic range 1s the subject of considerable dispute. Vink (1991) stated the distribution of C. jaspideus s.s. as from off the northern coast of South America south to off the states of Amapa and Ceara, Brazil. For C. jaspideus s.l., 1.e. the superspecies or ‘zoogeographic species’ sensu Mayr & Diamond (2001) or ‘macrospecies’ sensu Brooks & McLennan (2002), the range must be extended Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 147 northward to include the southeastern United States Atlantic coast, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea (Clench, 1942; Walls, [1979]). Establishment of the neotype would facilitate resolution of both taxonomic and geographic problems. (7) The proposed neotype has been deposited in the Muséum d Histoire Naturelle de Genéve, where it has the Catalogue no. 16154. This museum holds one of the most important collections of primary type specimens of Conus, with types of approximately 100 species, including 74 from the 18th century. 7. We therefore now propose that the Commission set aside under its plenary power the existing lectotype of Conus jaspideus Gmelin, 1791 and designate as neotype the specimen in the Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de Genéve (Catalogue no. 16154). 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal species Conus jaspideus Gmelin, 1791 and to designate specimen no. 16154 at Muséum d Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland, as the neotype; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name jaspideus Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Conus jaspideus and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above. Acknowledgements We thank Yves Finet and Claude Ratton (Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) for images of the proposed neotype. This research was supported by NSF Grant 0316338. References Abbott, R.T. 1958. The marine mollusks of Grand Cayman Island, British West Indies. Monographs of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 11: 1-138. Bandel, K. 1976. Spawning, development and ecology of some higher neogastropods from the Caribbean Sea of Colombia (South America). The Veliger, 19: 176-193. Bernhard, H.E. 1816. Gmelin, Pp. 530-532 in Biographie Universelle, Ancienne et Moderne, vol. 17. Michaud Freres, Paris. Brooks, D.R. & McLennan, D.A. 2002. The Nature of Diversity. 668 pp. Chicago. Bruguiére, J.G. 1792. Cone. Encyclopédie Méthodique: Histoire Naturelle des Vers, 1: 586-757. Clench, W.J. 1942. The genus Conus in the western Atlantic. Johnsonia, 1(6): 1-40. Costa, F.H.A. 1994. On the Conus jaspideus complex of the western Atlantic (Gastropoda: Conidae). The Veliger, 37: 204-213. Deshayes, G.P. & Milne Edwards, H. 1845. Histoire des Mollusques. In: Histoire Naturelle des Animaux sans Vertébres, 2nd ed., vol. 11. 665 pp. Bailliere, Paris. Diaz, J.M. & Puyana, M. 1994. Molluscos del Caribe Colombiano. 291 pp. Bogota. Dillwyn, L.C. 1817. 4 Descriptive Catalogue of Recent Shells, vol. 1. 580 pp. London. Dodge, H. 1958. A historical review of the mollusks of Linnaeus. Part 6. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 116: 153-224. Dodge, H. 1959. A historical review of the mollusks of Linnaeus. Part 7. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 118: 207-258. Gill, T. & Coues, E. 1877. Material for a bibliography of North American mammals. Report of the United States Geological (and Geographical) Survey of the Territories, 11: 951-1081. Gmelin, J.F. 1788-1792. Systema Naturae per Regna tria Naturae. 13th ed., vol. 1, part 6, p. 3387. Leipzig. 148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 Kaufmann, R. & Gotting, K.-J. 1970. Prosobranchia aus dem Litoral der karibischen Kiste Kolumbiens. Helgoldnder wissenschaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen, 21: 333-398. Kohn, A.J. 1966. Type specimens and identity of the described species of Conus. III. The species described by Gmelin and Blumenbach in 1791. Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology, 46: 73-100. Kohn, A.J. 1992. A Chronological Taxonomy of Conus, 1758-1840. 315 pp. Washington. Lamarck, J.B.P. 1810. Sur la détermination des espéces. Annales du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, 15: 20-40, 263-286. Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, part 2. Pp. 533-1327. Salvii, Holmiae. Martini, F.H.W. 1773. Neues Systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet, vol. 2. 362 pp. Raspe, Nurnberg. Maton, W.G. & Rackett, T. 1804. An historical account of testaceological writers. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 7: 119-244. Mayr, E. & Diamond, J.M. 2001. The birds of northern Melanesia: Speciation, ecology, and biogeography. 492 pp. Oxford. Redfern, C. 2001. Bahamian Seashells. 280 pp. Boca Raton, Florida. Schréter, J.S. 1783. Einleitung in die Conchylienkenntnis nach Linné, vol. 1. 860 pp. Halle. Strong, E.E. 2003. Refining molluscan characters: morphology, character coding and a phylogeny of the Caenogastropoda. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society of London, 137: 447-554. Swainson, W. 1840. Taxidermy, with the biography of zoologists and notes of their work. Part 2. 392 pp. London. Van Mol, J.-J. 1973. Les Conidae du Surinam. Zoologische Mededelingen, 46: 261-268. Vink, D.L.N. 1989. The Conidae of the western Atlantic. La Conchiglia, 21(246-249): 30-38. Vink, D.L.N. 1991. The Conidae of the western Atlantic. La Conchiglia, 23(261): 10-21. Vokes, H.E. & Vokes, E.H. 1983. Distribution of shallow-water marine Mollusca, Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Middle American Research Institute Publication, 54: 1-183. Walls, J.G. 1979. Cone Shells. 1011 pp. Neptune, New Jersey. Weinkauff, H.C. 1875. Die Gattung Conus. Pp. 125-413 in: Systematisches Conchlyien-Cabinet von Martini und Chemnitz, neue Folge, vol. 4, div. 2. Nurnberg. Acknowledgement of receipt of this publication was published in BZN 63: 221. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 149 Case 3387 Cancer setosus Fabricius, 1798 (currently Pseudograpsus setosus; Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed replacement of a syntype by a neotype Ngan Kee Ng and Peter K.L. Ng Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, 14 Science Drive 4, Singapore 117543, Republic of Singapore (e-mail: dbsngnk@nus.edu.sg) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 75.5 of the Code, is to replace the only known, extremely deteriorated, syntype of Cancer setosus (currently Pseudograpsus setosus) Fabricius, 1798 with a neotype. Cancer setosus Fabricius, 1798 has been accepted by carcinologists as a senior subjective synonym of Grapsus penicilliger Latreille, 1817 and Pseudograpsus barbatus H. Milne Edwards, 1853 for 150 years, and as such it is essential that a recognizable type be available to the scientific community. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Pseudograpsus setosus; neotype; brachyuran crab. 1. This brachyuran crab was first described by Rumphius (1705, p. 26, pl. 10, fig. 2) as Cancer barbatus, from the Indonesian island of Ambon. Although the original description is very brief, the accompanying figure shows the diagnostic long, stiff black setae at the base of the fingers of the male chela clearly identifying this taxon. This species is not to be confused with Cancer barbatus Fabricius, 1793 (currently Homola barbata) in a different family, HOMOLIDAE. 2. Fabricius (1798, p. 339) briefly described Cancer setosus from “Tranquebaria’, India. He made no mention of Cancer barbatus Rumphius, 1705, and did not mention the stiff, black setae at the base of the fingers of the male chela, in his very brief description. 3. Latreille (1803, p. 372) reported on a crab from Tranquebar, referring to it only as ‘Crabe Soyeux’ (Silk Crab), but indicated that it was Cancer setosus Fabricius, 1798 (p. 339). In Cuvier’s (1817) ‘Le Regne Animal’, Latreille (1817a, p. 16, pl. 12, fig. 1) described and illustrated the crab ‘Grapse Porte-Pingeau’ (brush-carrying crab), attributing its original discovery to Rumphius (1705, p. 26, pl. 10, fig. 2). Subsequently, Latreille (1817b, p. 431) applied the binomen ‘Grapsus penicilliger’ to his ‘Grapse Porte-Pingeau’, again referring to Rumphius’s figure, and highlighting the distinctive tufts of black setae at the bases of the fingers of the chela, and indicated that he had examined at least one specimen in the collection of the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (MNHN), Paris. 4. Henri Milne Edwards (1837, p. 82) transferred Grapsus penicilliger Latreille, 1817, to a new genus Pseudograpsus. In a footnote, H. Milne Edwards (1837, p. 82) only listed Rumphius’s (1705) pl. 10, fig. 2 although he did not mention the name 150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 Cancer barbatus. Henri Milne Edwards (1837, p. 82) also listed Grapsus penicilliger Latreille, 1817 (p. 16, pl. 16, figs. 1, 2) and questionably Cancer setosus Fabricius, 1798 (p. 339) as synonyms of Pseudograpsus penicilliger. Like Latreille (1817a, p. 16; 1817b, p. 431), H. Milne Edwards (1837, p. 82) indicated that there were one or more specimens in the MNHN. Several years later, H. Milne Edwards (1853, p. 191) synonymised Cancer setosus Fabricius, 1798 and Grapsus penicilliger Latreille, 1817 with Pseudograpsus barbatus and credited the latter name to Rumphius (1705). However, as Rumphius’s name is pre-Linnaean (Article 3.2 of the Code-Names, acts and information published before 1758), it is nomenclaturally unavailable. Therefore H. Milne Edwards (1853) is the de facto author of Pseudograpsus barbatus, and the name is a junior synonym of both Cancer setosus Fabricius, 1798 and Grapsus penicilliger Latreille, 1817. 5. Grapsus penicilliger and Pseudograpsus barbatus are both based, at least in part, on Rumphius’s (1705, p. 16, pl. 10, fig. 2) work although his material is no longer extant. One of the present authors (NKN) examined the MNHN collections and found one dried, damaged male specimen (MNHN B-13213) labelled as Pseudograpsus barbatus from the ‘Mers d’Asia’, the locality cited by H. Milne Edwards (1837, p. 82) for Grapsus penicilliger. All available information suggests that this specimen is the one examined by Latreille and H. Milne Edwards. Ng et al. (2002, p. 768) designated this MNHN specimen as the lectotype of Grapsus penicilliger Latreille, 1817 and Pseudograpsus barbatus H. Milne Edwards, 1853. 6. H. Milne Edwards (1837, p. 82) originally proposed the genus Pseudograpsus with two species (P. penicilliger H. Milne Edwards and P. pallipes H. Milne Edwards) but designated no type species for the genus. Holthuis (1977, p. 162) designated Grapsus penicilliger Latreille, 1817 as the type species of Pseudograpsus H. Milne Edwards, 1837, but followed the currently accepted concept that Latreille’s species was a junior synonym of Cancer setosus Fabricius, 1798. 7. Fabricius’s (1798, p. 339) description of Cancer setosus was very brief and could in fact be applicable to several species. Although the description was specific about the outer surface of the chela being setose, no mention was made of the precise location or the kind of setae present. Surface setation is not a character unique to Pseudograpsus setosus, or even to members of the genus. Fabricius’s description of Cancer setosus could easily apply to many species of Pseudograpsus, Ptychognathus Stimpson, 1858, Pyxidognathus A. Milne Edwards, 1879, Hemigrapsus Dana, 1851, Eriocheir De Haan, 1835, Neoeriocheir Sakai, 1976, Platyeriocheir Ng, Guo & Ng, 1999, Scutumara Ng & Nakasone, 1993, etc. 8. While the identities of Grapsus penicilliger and Pseudograpsus barbatus are clear, there is considerable doubt about the identity of Cancer setosus. Because Fabricius (1798, p. 339) made no mention of the highly diagnostic stiff, black setae at the base of the fingers of the chela in males, we cannot be certain that Cancer setosus Fabricius, 1798 is actually the senior subjective synonym of Grapsus penicilliger Latreille, 1817. Although this was suggested with doubt by H. Milne Edwards (1837, p. 82), it is now generally accepted by all carcinologists (see review in Ng et al., 2002). The fact that there are no confirmed specimens of any Indian Ocean species of the subfamily VARUNINAE with long, black, stiff setae on the outer surface of the male chela adds additional concern. Heller (1865, p. 52) reported Pseudograpsus barbatus Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 . 151 bees a) Scale bar = 1 cm Fig. 1. Cancer setosus Fabricius, 1798—-remaining pieces of syntype in ZMUC (photograph courtesy of T. Wolff) from the Nicobar Islands and included the records of Rumphius (1705, p. 26, pl. 10, fig. 2) and Latreille (1817, p. 16, pl. 12, fig. 1) of Grapsus penicilliger Latreille, 1817, clearly treating these names as synonyms. There are no records of specimens of Cancer setosus from south-eastern India, the Andaman or Nicobar Islands (see Chopra & Das, 1937; Sethuramalingam & Khan, 1991). Olivia F. Fernando and Antony F. Fernando, from Annamalai University in southern India commented that they are not aware of the existence of this species from that area (Tranquebar) (pers. comm.), and the University Museum, which houses a collection of old Indian specimens, does not have this taxon. Additionally, Alcock (1900) made no mention of Cancer setosus, Grapsus penicilliger or Pseudograpsus barbatus in his synopsis of the Indian fauna. In March 2001, one of the authors (NKN) tried unsuccessfully to collect specimens from Tranquebar and the surrounding areas in Tamil Nadu State. Similarly, interviews with local biologists studying the fauna of the Tranquebar did not suggest the presence of any species of crab which had numerous long, stiff black setae on the chela. 10. Zimsen (1964, p. 650) reported that the only syntype of Cancer setosus present in the Zoological Museum of the University of Copenhagen (ZMUC) consisted only of a few small dried pieces. A photograph taken in the 1960’s of these remains showed 152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 only a few fragments of legs (four leg fragments on the left, and one leg fragment on the right) (see Fig. 1). These fragments have since been rehydrated, and were examined by one of the authors (PK LN). The fragments are in very poor condition, and it was not possible to even determine to what genus they might belong. The only existing type specimen of Cancer setosus is thus of no taxonomic value. 11. Ng et al. (2002, p. 760, figs. 1-4) identified specimens from Taiwan as Pseudograpsus setosus Fabricius, 1798, discussed the problems of the identity of Fabricius’s species in detail and stressed the need for clarification of this matter. In view of the long standing acceptance by carcinologists of the synonymy of Grapsus penicilliger Latreille, 1817 and Pseudograpsus barbatus H. Milne Edwards, 1853 with Cancer setosus Fabricius, 1798, Ng et al. (2002, p. 771) stated that it would be desirable for the Commission to set aside the incomplete syntype in the collection of the Copenhagen Museum as the name-bearing type of Cancer setosus. To this effect, they also proposed a possible neotype for Cancer setosus Fabricius, 1798 from Ambon, the type locality of Grapsus penicilliger Latreille, 1817. We propose that the neotype so designated be the male specimen measuring 40.0 by 35.3 mm in the collection of the Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden (RMNH-D-191), as had been proposed by Ng et al. (2002, p. 771). 12. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to set aside all type fixations for the nominal species setosus Fabricius, 1798, as published in the binomen Cancer setosus, and to designate specimen RMNH-D-191 at the Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden as the neotype; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name setosus Fabricius, 1798, as published in the binomen Cancer setosus and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above. References Alcock, A. 1900. Materials for a carcinological fauna of India. No. 6. The Brachyura Catometopa or Grapsoidea. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 69(2): 279-456. Chopra, B. & Das, K.N. 1937. Further notes on the Crustacea Decapoda in the Indian Museum. IX. On three collections of crabs from Tavoy and Mergui Archipelago. Records of the Indian Museum, 39: 423-434. Dana, J.D. 1851. Conspectus Crustaceanorum quae in Orbis Terrarum circumnavigatione, Carolo Wilkes e Classe Reipublicae Faederatae Duce, lexit et descripsit J.D. Dana. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 5: 247-254, 267-272. Fabricius, J.C. 1798. Supplementum Entomologiae systematicae. 572 pp. Copenhagen. Haan, W. de. 1833-1850. Crustacea. Pp. 1-243. In Siebold, P.F. von (Ed.), Fauna Japonica sive Descriptio animalium, quae in itinere per Japoniam, jussu et auspiciis, superiorum, qui summum in India Batava imperium tenent, suscepto, annis 1823-1830 Collegit, Notis, Observationibus et Adumbrationibus illustravit. Lugduni-Batavorum. Heller, C. 1865. Die Crustaceen. Reise der Oesterreichischen Fregatte Novara um die Erde in den Jahren 1857, 1858, 1859 unter den Befehlen des Commodore B. von Wiillertort-Urbair. Zoologischer, vol. 2(3). 280 pp., 25 pls. Wien. Holthuis, L.B. 1959. Notes on pre-Linnean carcinology (including the study of Xiphora) of the Malay Archipelago. Pp. 63-125 in Wit, H.C.D. de, Rumphius Memorial Volume. Uitgererlj en Drukkerij Hollandia N.V., Baarn. Holthuis, L.B. 1977. The Grapsidae, Gercarcinidae and Palicidae (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura) of the Red Sea. Israel Journal of Zoology, 26: 141-192. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 153 Holthuis, L.B. 1978. A collection of decapod crustacea from Sumba, Lesser Sunda Islands, Indonesia. Zoologische Verhandelingen, 162: 1-55. Kingsley, J.S. 1880. Carcinological notes. No. 4. Synopsis of the Grapsidae. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1880: 187-224. Latreille, P.A. 1803. Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des crustacés et des insectes. 468 pp. De Imprimerie de F. Dufart, Paris. Latreille, P.A. 1817a. Les Crustacés, les Arachnides et les Insectes. In Cuvier, G. (Ed.), Le Régne Animal, vol. 3. xxix, 653 pp. De Imprimerie de A. Belin, Paris. Latreille, P.A. 1817b. Grapsus. P. 431 in: Nouveau Dictionnaire d Histoire naturelle. Ed. 2, vol. 13. Paris. Latreille, P.A. 1825. Plagusie, Encyclopédie méthodique: histoire naturelle des insectes, vol. 10. Pp. 145-148. Paris. Latreille, P.A. 1829. Les crustacés, les arachnides et les insectes, distribués en familles naturelles. Ouvrage format les Tomes 4 et 5 de celui de M. Le Baron Cuvier sur Le Régne Animal. 584 pp. Paris. MacLeay, W.S. 1838. Illustrations of the Annulosa of South Africa; being a Portion of the Objects of Natural History Chiefly Collected During an Expedition into the Interior of South Africa, under the Direction of Dr. Andrew Smith, in the Years 1834, 1835 and 1836; Fitted Out by ‘The Cape of Good Hope Association for Exploring Central Africa’. In: A. Smith, [/lustrations of the Zoology of South Africa; Consisting Chiefly of Figures and Descriptions of the Objects of Natural History Chiefly Collected During an Expedition into the Interior of South Africa, under the Direction of Dr. Andrew Smith, in the Years 1834, 1835 and 1836; Fitted Out by ‘The Cape of Good Hope Association for Exploring Central Africa’, vol. 5, (Invertebrates). 75 pp., 4 pls. London. Milne Edwards, H. 1837. Histoire naturelle des Crustacés, comprenant l’anatomie, la physiologie et la classification de ces animaux, vol. 2. 531 pp., Atlas 32, 42 pls. Librarie Encyclopédique de Roret, Paris. Milne Edwards, H. 1853. Mémoire sur la famille des Ocypodiens. Suite, Annales des Sciences Naturelles. Zoologie et Biologie Animale, 20(3): 163-228. Milne Edwards, H. 1873. Recherches sur la faune carcinologique de la Nouvelle-Calédonie, Deuxieme Partie. Nouv. Arch. Mus. d’Hist. Nat. (Paris), 9: 155-332, pls. 4-18. Milne Edwards, A. 1873-1881. Etudes sur les Xiphosures et les Crustacés de la region Mexicaine. In: Recherches Zoologiques pour servir a l'histoire de la faune del’ Amérique centrale et du Mexique, vol. 5. 368 pp., pls. 1-61. Ng, N.K., Guo, J. & Ng, P.K.L. 1999. On the generic affinities of Eriocheir leptognathus Rathbun, 1913 and Eriocheir formosa Chan, Hung and Yu, 1995, with description of a new genus (Crustacea: Grapsidae: Varuninae). Journal of crustacean biology, 19(1): 154-170. Ng, N.K., Jeng, M.S. & Ng, P.K.L. 2002. On the taxonomy of Pseudograpsus setosus (Fabricius, 1778) (Decapoda, Brachyura, Grapsidae). Crustaceana, 75(6): 759-776. Ng, N.K. & Komai, T. 2000. On the male of Scutwmara enodis Ng & Nakasone, 1993 (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura: Grapsidae). Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 113(1): 48-53. Ng, P.K.L. & Nakasone, Y. 1993. Scutumara enodis, a new genus and species of grapsid crab (Decapoda: Grapsidae) from Okinawa, Ryukyus, Japan. Crustacean Research, 12: 1-6. Rumphius, G.E. 1705. D’Amboinsche Rariteitkamer, behelzende eene beschryvinge van aller- hande zoo weeke als harde Schaalvisschen, te weeten raare Krabben, Kreeften, en diergelyke Zeedieren, als mede allerhande Hoorntjes en Schulpen, die men in d’Amboinsche Zee vindt: Daar beneven zommige Mineraalen, Gesteenten, en soorten van Aarde, die in d’Amboinsche, en zommige omleggende Eilanden gevonden worden, vol. 28. 340 pp, 60 pls. Amsterdam. Sakai, T. 1976. Crabs of Japan and the adjacent seas. Volume | [English Text]: Pp. xxix, 773, figs. 1-379, maps 1-3; volume 2 [Japanese Text]: Pp. 1-461, figs. 1-2; volume 3 [Plates]: Pp. 1-61, pls. 1-251. Kondasha, Tokyo. Sethuramalingam, S. & Ajaml Khan, S. 1991. Brachyuran crabs of Parangipettai Coast. 1—93 pp., 28 pls. Annamalai University, Parangipettai. 154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 Stimpson, W. 1858. Prodromus descriptionis Animalium evertebratorum, quae in expeditione ad Oceanum Pacificum Septentrionalem, a Republica Federata missa, Cadwaladaro Ringgold et Johanne Rodgers Ducibus, observavit et descripsit, pt 5, Crustacea Ocypo- doidea. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 10: 93-111. Zimsen, E. 1964. The type material of J.C. Fabricius. 656 pp., 2 pls. Copenhagen. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 63: 154 Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 155 Case 3389 Heterocarpus gibbosus Bate, 1888 (Crustacea, Decapoda, PANDALIDAE): proposed replacement of the holotype by a neotype Xinzheng Li Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 7 Nanhai Road, Qingdao 266071, China (e-mail: lixzh@ms.qdio.ac.cn) Tin-Yam Chan Institute of Marine Biology, National Taiwan Ocean University, 2 Pei-Ning Road, Keelung 202, Taiwan (e-mail: tychan@mail.ntou.edu.tw) Peter K.L. Ng Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, 10 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 119260 (e-mail: peterng@nus.edu.sg) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 75.5 of the Code, is to replace the poorly preserved holotype of the deep-sea pandalid prawn Heterocarpus gibbosus Bate, 1888, with a recently collected neotype from the type-locality in the Philippines. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Heterocarpus gibbosus; holotype; neotype; Philippines; pandalid prawn. 1. Heterocarpus gibbosus Bate, 1888 has been widely reported from the Indo-West Pacific (Chace, 1985; Crosnier, 1988) and has some commercial value (Holthuis, 1980; Chan & Yu, 1987: Wadley & Evans, 1991). However, in a recent study of material from the South China Sea and Philippines it became apparent that two ‘forms’ of H. gibbosus could be discerned — one with a well developed exopod on the third maxilliped, the other with the exopod reduced. In addition, the carina on the third abdominal somite has different proportions, and the colour of the thoracic appendages in life are distinct — one with distinct red rings and the other without. The second author has examined extensive material assigned to H. gibbosus from other Indo-West Pacific localities such as Taiwan, Fiji and Solomon Islands, and all adult specimens have a well-developed exopod on the third maxilliped. It is clear that the two ‘forms’ represent different species. Both species occur sympatrically in the Philippines, and the differences are constant for the large series of adults we have examined. Additionally, in fresh and recently preserved material, the species with the shorter exopod has the dorsal margin of the basal rostral teeth and the dactyli of the posterior pereiopods coloured deep red. On the other hand, the dorsal margin of the basal rostral teeth and rest of the carapace of the species with the longer exopod are a uniform orangish-red. On the basis of the material we have on hand, there also do not appear to be differences in depth preferences for these two species: the one with a longer exopod was collected between 231 and 888 m, while the one with a short 156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 exopod was obtained from 382 to 888 m. The problem now arises as to which of these two species is the true Heterocarpus gibbosus. 2. Heterocarpus gibbosus was described by Bate (1888, p. 634) on the basis of a single juvenile specimen (carapace length 16 mm, ‘Challenger’ Expedition, station 207, off Tables Island, Philippines, 12°21’N 122°15’E, 700 fathoms [1280 m], 16 January 1875). He did not mention the structure of the exopod on the third maxilliped in his description. Only two figures were provided, one being a lateral view of the shrimp and the other a dorsal view of the telson (Bate, 1888, pl. 112, fig. 2), and neither depicted the form of the exopod of the third maxilliped. 3. When Bate (1888) described H. gibbosus, he did not indicate that the specimen was in a poor condition. His description was relatively detailed and his figures showed a complete specimen; suggesting that at the time of his study the type specimen was in good condition. However, by the time of Calman’s (1939, p. 205) study, the condition of the holotype had deteriorated substantially, forcing him to comment that it ©... is not now in a condition to supply any information’. Chace (1985, p. 42), TO had a colleague re-examine the type specimen for him, added that it “... lacks all trace of rostrum, eyes, antennae, etc., is largely decalcified and, I inane suspect, useless for taxonomic purposes’. We examined the holotype (Natural History Museum, London, catalogue number NHM 1888.22) and confirm what Calman (1939) and Chace (1985) had reported. The specimen is badly damaged, soft and decalcified (including the abdomen), almost the entire rostrum is missing and both the diagnostic third maxillipeds are missing (Fig. 1). The specimens from Bate (1888) were all previously preserved in formalin (P.F. Clark, pers. comm.), so the present holotype of H. gibbosus cannot be used for DNA analysis, even if this technology might shed some light on its identity. For all intents and purposes, the specimen is of no taxonomic value. 4. Some workers (e.g. de Man, 1920; Chace, 1985; Crosnier, 1988) have commented on the variation observed in the form of the rostral crest of “H. gibbosus’ while others (Calman, 1939; Chace, 1985) have questioned its relationship and possible synonymy with the closely allied H. tricarinatus Alcock & Anderson, 1894, described from the Indian Ocean but since reported in the Pacific. One of the reasons for their doubt was that the holotype of H. gibbosus was collected from a depth of 1280 m, far deeper than all recent collections of the species which are from 888 m or less. Heterocarpus tricarinatus, on the other hand, has been collected from depths of more than 1046 m (Chace, 1985; Crosnier, 1988) and we have material from the Philippines (Bohol and Sulu Seas, 1756-2307 m depth) and Taiwan (north-eastern coast, 1138-1187 m depth). This was the primary reason why both Calman (1939) and Chace (1985) had wanted to check the holotype of H. gibbosus and ascertain if it is the same species as the deeper water H. tricarinatus. However, since the holotype specimen is in such poor condition, all they could rely on was Bate’s (1888) original description and figures which do not fit well with those of H. tricarinatus. As a stop-gap solution, most workers (e.g. Calman, 1939; Chace, 1985; Crosnier, 1988) have provisionally recognised the shallower water species as H. gibbosus and the deeper water one as H. tricarinatus. Chace’s (1985, p. 42) comments on this problem are noteworthy: “In view of this regrettable development [the holotype being highly deteriorated], there seems to be no reasonable alternative to the retention of the concepts that have been attributed to the names H. gibbosus and H. tricarinatus in the past’. Our comparisons Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 157 Fig. 1. Heterocarpus gibbosus Bate, 1888 — Holotype (NHM 1888.22) show that there is no doubt that H. tricarinatus and ‘H. gibbosus’ are different taxa. The most obvious and reliable character is the form of the lateral rostral carinae of H. tricarinatus — being sharp over the entire length of the rostrum, whereas in the two species now recognised under ‘H. gibbosus’ the carinae are broadly rounded ridges anterior to the eyes. Both Chace (1985) and Crosnier (1988) concur with regard to this character, and the present material confirms this. Both H. gibbosus and H. tricarinatus occur sympatrically in the Philippines (Chace, 1985; present material), although their depth preferences appear to be different. With the exception of the holotype, all specimens of H. gibbosus have been reported from depths ranging from 231 to 888 m (present data; Chace, 1985; Chan & Yu, 1987). Considering the depth from which the holotype of H. gibbosus was collected (1280 m), it is also possible that the real H. gibbosus is not what is today defined as the species (with the longer third maxilliped exopod) or the new one with the shorter third maxilliped exopod, but represents a completely different taxon which has not been recollected since Bate’s (1888) time. This we will never know, even if we ever get such material, as the holotype of H. gibbosus 1s a juvenile and its condition is very poor. Unless this matter can be resolved, it is not possible to establish a stable taxonomy for these prawns. 5. As discussed in para. 1, what is now called H. gibbosus 1s actually a composite of two distinct species, both of which occur sympatrically in the Philippines, with 158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 Fig. 2. Heterocarpus gibbosus Bate, 1888 — Proposed neotype (NHM 2006.1216) overlapping depth preferences. Since the holotype of H. gibbosus is in such poor condition and lacks all the necessary characters it does not help in resolving which of the two species is the actual species described by Bate (1888). As noted above, H. gibbosus Bate, 1888 has no known synonyms, so one of the two species in the Philippines will need to be described as new. 6. The only solution to this taxonomic problem is to replace the holotype with a fresh type specimen which still possesses the key characters needed to objectively resolve the identity of H. gibbosus Bate, 1888. To this effect, in accordance with Article 75.5 of the Code, we propose the setting aside of the badly damaged holotype and selection of a neotype to objectively fix the identity of H. gibbosus Bate, 1888. The proposed neotype, an ovigerous female (carapace length 30.7 mm, Natural History Museum, London, catalogue number NHM 2006.1216, Bohol Sea, ‘Panglao 2005’ Expedition, station CA2337, 9°31.5°N, 123°41.7E, 336 m depth, 22 May 2005) (Fig. 2) is from the same type locality (Philippines), freshly collected, has accompa- nying colour photographs taken shortly after capture, and provides the opportunity to provide DNA data if the need arises later. It conforms very well with what is today generally recognized as H. gibbosus, i.e. the more widely distributed and better understood species with well-developed exopods on the third maxilliped. The other species was described recently as new by the first author (Li, 2006). The present selection of a neotype maintains taxonomic stability while allowing for new work to be done now and in the future. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to set aside all type fixations for the nominal species gibbosus Bate, 1888, as.published in the binomen Heterocarpus gibbosus, and to Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 159 designate specimen NHM 2006.1216, Bohol Sea, ‘Panglao 2005’ at the Natural History Museum, London as the neotype; — (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name gibbosus Bate, 1888, as published in the binomen Heterocarpus gibbosus and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above. Acknowledgements Sincere thanks are extended to P.F. Clark of the Natural History Museum, London, for sending us on loan the holotype of Heterocarpus gibbosus. This work is partially supported by a grant to the second author from the National Science Council, Taiwan and a grant to the first author from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 30499340). References Alcock, A. & Anderson, A.R. 1894. Natural history notes from H.M. Indian Marine Survey Steamer Investigator, Commander C.F. Oldham, R.N., commanding, Series II, 14: An account of a recent collection of deep sea Crustacea from the Bay of Bengal and Laccadive Sea. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 63(2): 141-185. Bate, C.S. 1888. Report of the Crustacea Macrura collected by the Challenger during the years 1873-1876. Report on the Scientific Results of the Voyage of H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873-1876, vol. 24, part 52. xc, 942 pp., 157 pls. London. Calman, W.T. 1939. Crustacea: Caridea. The John Murray Expedition to the Indian Ocean 1933-1934, Scientific Report, 6(4): Pp. 183-224. British Museum (Natural History), London. Chace, F.A. Jr. 1985. The Caridean Shrimps (Crustacea: Decapoda) of the A/batross Philippine Expedition, 1907-1910, part 3: Families Thalassocarididae and Pandalidae. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 411: 1-143. Chan, T.-Y. & Yu, H.-P. 1987. On the Heterocarpus shrimps (Crustacea: Decapoda: Pandalidae) from Taiwan. Bulletin of the Institute of Zoology, Academia Sinica, 26(1): 53-60. Crosnier, A. 1988. Sur les Heterocarpus (Crustacea, Decapoda, Pandalidae) du sud-ouest de Pocean Indien. Remarques sur d’autres especes ouest-pacifiques du genre et description de quatre taxa nouveaux. Bulletin du Muséum national d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, (4)10: 57-103. Holthuis, L.B. 1980. Shrimps and prawns of the world: an annotated catalogue of species of interest to fisheries. FAO Fisheries Synopsis, vol. 125(1). xvii, 271 pp. [Volume | of FAO Species Catalogue]. Li, X. 2006. Additional pandaloid shrimps from the South China Sea (Crustacea: Decapoda: Caridea), with description of one new species. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Singapore, 54(2): 361-372, figs. 1-7. Man, J.G. de. 1920. The Decapoda of the Siboga Expedition, IV: Families Pasiphaeidae, Stylodactylidae, Hoplophoridae, Nematocarcinidae, Thalassocaridae, Pandalidae, Psalidopodidae, Gnathophyllidae, Processidae, Glyphocrangonidae and Crangonidae. Siboga-Expeditie, vol. 39a3, livr. 87. 318 pp., 25 pls. Wadley, V. & Evans, D. 1991. Crustaceans from the deepwater trawl fisheries of Western Australia. 44 pp. CSIRO Division of Fisheries, Hobart, Australia. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 63: 154 Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 Case 3395 Geophilus linearis C.L. Koch, 1835 and Geophilus sorrentinus Attems, 1903 (currently Stenotaenia linearis and S. sorrentina; Chilopoda): proposed conservation of the specific names Lucio Bonato and Alessandro Minelli University of Padova, Department of Biology, Via Ugo Bassi 58 B, I-35131 Padova, Italy (e-mail: lucio.bonato@unipd.it; alessandro.minelli@unipd.it) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the specific names /inearis C.L. Koch, 1835 and sorrentinus Attems, 1903, both originally published in Geophilus Leach, 1814, for two widespread European species of geophilomorph centipedes currently referred to the genus Stenotaenia C.L. Koch, 1847 of which Geophilus linearis C.L. Koch, 1835 is the type species. Stenotaenia linearis (C.L. Koch, 1835), which is currently in universal and common use, is threatened by the long forgotten subjective synonym Geophilus simplex Gervais, 1835 because of a first-reviser action. by Gervais (1837) which has been practically disregarded since 1918. Stenotaenia sorrentina (Attems, 1903) 1s threat- ened by its putative, subjective synonymy with Geophilus forficularius Fanzago, 1881, a name never used as valid since the year of publication. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Chilopoda; Stenotaenia; Stenotaenia linearis; Geophilus simplex; Stenotaenia sorrentina, Geophilus forficularius; geophilomorph centipedes. 1. Gervais (1835a, p. 9, pl. 133) described Geophilus simplex for some specimens collected in Paris (France). The whereabouts of the original material are unknown. G. simplex has been used as a valid name in further publications by Gervais (1835b, 1837, 1847) and also by other nineteenth-century authors: Newport (1845, 1856), Macé (1886, 1887), Dubois (1887), Gazagnaire (1888) and Cecconi (1898). Since 1900, the name was still used as valid by Berlese (1903) and Bagnall (1918), as well as in two compilations of data on luminous myriapods where pre-1900 citations were simply cited with the original name (Koch, 1927; Harvey, 1952). It has been listed as a species of uncertain identity by Attems (1929) and as a name of dubious validity by Brélemann (1930). We are not aware of any other use besides those listed here. 2. C.L. Koch (1835, tab. 1) described Geophilus linearis for a specimen collected in Regensburg (Germany). We believe that the holotype is not in existence: no specimen recognisable as such is present in the bulk of Koch’s collection at the Natural History Museum, London (A. Minelli, pers. obs.), nor in the Museum ftir Naturkunde, Berlin, where other specimens from Koch’s collection are preserved (Moritz & Fischer, 1979). This species has been most often referred either to Geophilus Leach, 1814 or Clinopodes C.L. Koch, 1847, less frequently to Stenotaenia C.L. Koch, 1847 or Onychopodogaster Verhoeff, 1902, which is a junior synonym of the former (see Verhoeff, 1902; Bonato & Minelli, in press). A recent taxonomic revision (Bonato & Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 161 Minelli, in press) has shown that G. Jinearis and other related taxa should be referred to a genus, distinct from both Geophilus and Clinopodes, for which the oldest available name is Stenotaenia. G. linearis is one of the two nominal species originally introduced by Koch (1847) in Stenotaenia; it was fixed as its type species by Pocock (1890, p. 66). 3. Identity between Geophilus simplex Gervais, 1835 and Geophilus linearis C.L. Koch, 1835 was first suggested by Gervais (1837, p. 52) and subsequently adopted by most authors; it was registered with doubt only by Latzel (1880) and Brade-Birks (1934), whereas it was never explicitly rejected. 4. As both names were published in the same year and information is not available to determine the actual dates of publication more precisely, Gervais’ (1837) selection of Geophilus simplex Gervais, 1835 as the valid name should be accepted according to the principle of the First Reviser (Article 24.2 of the Code). However, using G. simplex would threaten stability and universality, for the following reasons. 5. Geophilus simplex Gervais, 1835 has been used as a valid name, as far as we know, only in 15 papers, no later than 1918 in faunistic and taxonomic papers, no later than 1930 as dubiously valid, and no later than 1952 in a summary of older literature on bioluminescence. Conversely, Geophilus linearis C.L. Koch, 1835 has been used as the valid name for the same taxon by most authors in the 20th century, in more than 230 publications dealing with faunistics, taxonomy, ecology, physiology and anatomy. Furthermore, G. linearis (see para. 2 above) is the type species of Stenotaenia C.L. Koch, 1847, a genus currently including 15 valid species (Bonato & Minelli, in press). Even though G. simplex has been used as a valid name at least 4 times after 1899 and therefore one of the two conditions for the reversal of precedence is not met (Article 23.9.1.1 of the Code), the other condition is fully met (Article 23.9.1.2 of the Code) as G. linearis has been used as valid in more than 25 works, published by more than 10 authors in the last 50 years and encompassing a span of more than 10 years (e.g. Attems, 1959; Kanellis, 1959; Lewis, 1962; Eason, 1964; Horstmann, 1968; Matic & Darabantu, 1969; Matic, 1972; Wirmli, 1972; Kaczmarek, 1980; Rosenberg, 1982; Andersson, 1983; Muinelli & Iovane, 1987; Barber & Keay, 1988; Klinger, 1992; Kos, 1992, 1996; Minelli, 1992; Berg, 1995; Foddai et al., 1995; Stoev, 1997, 2004; Wytwer, 1997; Barber, 2000; Lesniewska, 2000; Zapparoli, 2002; Simaiakis et al., 2004). To maintain stability, it is proposed to suppress Geophilus simplex Gervais, 1835. 6. Fanzago (188la, p. 378) described Geophilus forficularius for several specimens of both sexes collected near Sassari (Sardinia). The only additional publication where this name was used as valid was Fanzago (1881b). All subsequent authors ignored it, including Attems (1929) in his monograph on world Geophilomorpha and Foddai et al. (1995) in their checklist of Italian myriapods. 7. Attems (1903, p. 228) described Geophilus sorrentinus for a specimen collected in Monte Faito, Campania region (Italy). The holotype is preserved in the collections of the Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna (see Lewis, 1994). G. sorrentinus has been used as a valid name by Attems (1929, 1947, 1959), Verhoeff (1943), Manfredi (1956, 1957) and Foddai et al. (1995). Following his study of the holotype, Lewis (1994) suggested that G. sorrentinus should be regarded as a junior synonym of G. /inearis, but this was based on a broad concept of this latter species. Instead, a recent 162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 comprehensive taxonomic study provided morphological and biogeographical evidence for treating Geophilus sorrentinus Attems, 1903 and Geophilus linearis C.L. Koch, 1835 as distinct species (Bonato & Minelli, in press). Furthermore, Geophilus linearis abbreviatus Verhoeff, 1925, which was described by Verhoeff (1925) for two specimens from different localities (Corpo di Cava, near Monte Faito, Campania region; Ferrania, Liguria region), was recognised as a junior synonym of G. sorrentinus (Bonato & Minelli, in press). 8. Geophilus forficularius Fanzago, 1881 was regarded as a synonym of Geophilus vesuvianus Newport, 1845 (currently Henia vesuviana (Newport, 1845)) by Berlese (1903), who did not provide arguments for this synonymy. Minelli (1983) suggested instead a possible synonymy with Geophilus carpophagus Leach, 1815. More recently, Bonato & Minelli (in press) have provided detailed arguments in favour of a synonymy between Geophilus forficularius Fanzago, 1881 and Geophilus sorrentinus Attems, 1903. 9. While there is no reason to dispute, or to reverse, the priority of Geophilus sorrentinus Attems, 1903 over Geophilus linearis abbreviatus Verhoeff, 1925, using the senior name Geophilus forficularius Fanzago, 1881 as the valid name for this taxon would threaten stability and universality, for the following reasons. 10. The identity of Geophilus forficularius Fanzago, 1881 is only incompletely established, because no type material is known to exist and the original description is incomplete, whereas the identity of Geophilus sorrentinus Attems, 1903 is well known as the holotype is still extant and has been redescribed and illustrated adequately (Lewis, 1994). Furthermore, G. forficularius is an almost neglected name, as it was cited as a valid name only in 2 papers by the original author, both in 1881, whereas G. sorrentinus has been used as valid in 8 papers (9 including Bonato & Minelli, in press), even in recent times (1995), including major taxonomic and faunistic publications. As G. forficularius has not been used as the valid name after 1899, one of the two conditions for the reversal of precedence is met (Article 23.9.1 of the Code). In order to maintain stability it is proposed to suppress Geophilus forficularius Fanzago, 1881. 11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to suppress the following specific names for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (a) simplex Gervais, 1835, as published in the binomen Geophilus simplex; (b) forficularius Fanzago, 1881, as published in the binomen Geophilus forficularius; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) linearis C.L. Koch, 1835, as published in the binomen Geophilus linearis (specific name of the type species of Stenotaenia C.L. Koch, 1847); (b) sorrentinus Attems, 1903, as published in the binomen Geophilus sorrentinus; to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) simplex Gervais, 1835, as published in the binomen Geophilus simplex and as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (3 wm Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 | 163 (b) forficularius Fanzago, 1881, as published in the binomen Geophilus forficu- larius and as suppressed in (1)(b) above. References Andersson, G. 1983. The chilopod fauna in the vicinity of Géteborg—a comparison between collecting results obtained in the 1920s and the 1970s. Acta Entomologica Fennica, 42: 9-14. Attems, C. 1903. Synopsis der Geophiliden. Zoologische Jahrbticher. Abteilung fiir Systematik, Geographie und Biologie der Tiere, 18: 155-302. Attems, C. 1929. Myriapoda I: Geophilomorpha. Das Tierreich 52. 388 pp. De Gruyter, Berlin. Attems, C. 1947. Neue Geophilomorpha des Wiener Museums. Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien, 55: 50-149. Attems, C. 1959. Die Myriopoden der Hohlen der Balkanhalbinsel. Nach dem Material der “Biospeleologica balcanica”’. Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien, 63: 281—406. Bagnall, R.S. 1918. Records on some new British diplopods and pauropods, with a preliminary check list of the British “Myriapoda”’. Journal of Zoological Research, 3: 87-93. Barber, A.D. 2000. Centipedes collected in west Cornwall at Easter 1998. Bulletin of the British Myriapod Group, 16: 38-42. Barber, A.D. & Keay, A.N. 1988. Provisional Atlas of the Centipedes of the British Isles. v, 127 pp. Biological Records Centre, Monks Wood Experimental Station, Huntingdon. Berg, M.P. 1995. Preliminary Atlas of the Centipedes of the Netherlands. Report D95008. 59 pp. Vrije Universiteit, Department of Ecology and Ecotoxicology, Amsterdam. Berlese, A. 1903. Myriapoda, Acari, Scorpiones hucusque in Italia reperta. Tipografia del Seminario, Padova. Bonato, L. & Minelli, A. In press. Stenotaenia C.L. Koch, 1847, a hitherto unrecognised lineage of Western Palaearctic centipedes with unusual diversity in body size and segment number (Chilopoda: Geophilidae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. Brade-Birks, S.G. 1934. Notes on Myriapoda XXXV. Nomenclatural sources. Journal of the South-Eastern Agricultural College at Wye, 34: 197-203. Brélemann, H.-W. 1930. Elements d’une Faune des Myriapodes de France. Chilopodes. 415 pp. Imprimerie Toulousaine, Toulouse. Cecconi, G. 1898. Contributo alla fauna Vallombrosana. Bollettino della Societa Entomologica Italiana, 30: 145-224. Dubois, R. 1887. Note sur les Myriapodes lumineux (Réponse a M. Macé). Comptes rendus des Séances de la Société de Biologie et des ses Filiales, 4: 6—7. Eason, E.H. 1964. Centipedes of the British Isles. x, 294 pp. F. Warne & Co., London, New York. Fanzago, F. 188la. Ein neuer italienischer Geophilus. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 4: 378-379. Fanzago, F. 1881b. I miriapodi del Sassarese (Parte descrittiva. Fasc. I°). 15 pp. Tip. Azuni, Sassari. Foddai, D., Minelli, A., Scheller, U. & Zapparoli, M. 1995. Chilopoda, Diplopoda, Pauropoda, Symphyla, in Minelli, A., Ruffo, S. & La Posta, S. (Eds.), Checklist delle specie della fauna italiana, vol. 32, 35 pp. Calderini, Bologna. Gazagnaire, J. 1888. La phosphorescence chez les Myriopodes. Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France, 13: 182-186. Gervais, P. 1835a. Note sur les myriapodes du genre Géophile, Geophilus, Leach, et description de trois espéces nouvelles. Magasin de Zoologie, 9(133): 1-12. Gervais, P. 1835b. Géophile. Geophilus. Leach. Addition a la note, cl. IX, pl. 133, sur les Géophiles. Magasin de Zoologie, 9(137): 1-3. Gervais, P. 1837. Etudes pour servir a histoire naturelle de Myriapodes. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, (2)7: 35-61. Gervais, P. 1847. Myriapodes, in Walckenaer, C.A. de & Gervais, P. (Eds.), Histoire naturelle des Insectes. Aptéres. Mémoires du Muséum national d Histoire naturelle, vol. 4. Pp. 1-57, 210-623. Libraire Encyclopédique de Roret, Paris. 164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 Harvey, E.N. 1952. Bioluminescence. xvi, 649 pp. Academic Press, New York. Horstmann, E. 1968. Die Spermatozoen von Geophilus linearis Koch (Chilopoda). Zeitschrift fiir Zellforschung und Mikroskopische Anatomie, 89: 410-429. Kaczmarek, J. 1980. Pareczniki Chilopoda. Pp. 1-43 in: Katalog Fauny Polski, vol. 14(4). Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa. Kanellis, A. 1959. Die Chilopodenfauna Griechenlands. Scientific Annals of the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics, University of Thessaloniki, 1: 1-56. Klinger, K. 1992. Diplopods and chilopods of conventional and alternative (biodynamic) fields in Hesse (FRG). Berichte des naturwissenschaftlich-medizinischen Vereins in Innsbruck, suppl., 10: 243-250. Koch, A. 1927. Studien an leuchtenden Tieren. 1. Das Leuchten der Myriapoden. Zeitschrift fiir Morphologie und Okologie der Tiere, 8: 241-270. Koch, C.L. 1835. Deutschlands Crustaceen, Myriapoden und Arachniden, in Herrich-Schaffer, G.A.W. (Ed.), Deutschlands Insecten, Heft 136 [without pagination]. Pustet, Regensburg. Koch, C.L. 1847. System der Myriapoden, in Herrich-Schaffer, G.A.W. (Ed.), Kritische Revision der Insectenfauna Deutschlands, vol. 3. 270 pp. Pustet, Regensburg. Kos, I. 1992. A review of the taxonomy, geographical distribution and ecology of the centipedes of Yugoslavia (Myriapoda, Chilopoda). Berichte des naturwissenschaftlich- medizinischen Vereins in Innsbruck, suppl., 10: 353-360. Kos, I. 1996. Centipedes (Chilopoda) of some forest communities in Slovenia. Mémoires du Muséum national d’ Histoire naturelle, 169: 635-646. Latzel, R. 1880. Die Myriopoden der Osterreichisch-Ungarischen Monarchie. 1. Die Chilopoden. xv, 227 pp. J.C. Fischer, Wien. Lesniewska, M. 2000. Pareczniki (Chilopoda) Bieszczadow. Monografie Bieszczadzkie, 7: 111-121. Lewis, J.G.E. 1962. The ecology, distribution and taxonomy of the centipedes found on the shore in the Plymouth area. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the U.K., 42: 655-664. Lewis, J.G.E. 1994. On the true identity of Geophilus sorrentinus Attems (Chilopoda: Geophilomorpha). Bulletin of the British Myriapod Group, 10: 39-42. Macé. 1886. Sur la phosphorescence des géophiles. Comptes rendus hebdomadaires de Séances de l’Academie des Sciences, 103: 1273-1274. Macé. 1887. Les glandes préanales et la phosphorescence des géophiles. Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des Séances de la Société de Biologie, 4: 37-39. Manfredi, P. 1956. I Miriapodi della Campania. Atti della Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali, 95(1): 5-26. Manfredi, P. 1957. I Miriapodi del Monte Pollino (Calabria) e considerazioni intorno ai Miriapodi dell’Italia Meridionale. Annuario dell’Istituto e Museo di. Zoologia dell’ Universita di Napoli, 9(2): 1-43. Matic, Z. 1972. Clasa Chilopoda, Subclasa Epimorpha. Fauna Republicii Socialiste Romania, vol. 6(2). 224 pp. Academia Republicii Socialiste Romania, Bucuresti. Matic, Z. & Darabantu, C. 1969. Contributo alla conoscenza dei Chilopodi delle isole Ponziane (Mare Tirreno). Fragmenta entomologica, 6(2): 69-85. Minelli, A. 1983. Note critiche sui Chilopodi della Sardegna. Lavori della Societa Italiana di Biogeografia, 8(1980): 401-416. Minelli, A. 1992. The centipedes of North-Eastern Italy (Trentino-Alto Adige, Veneto, Friuli-Venezia Giulia) (Chilopoda). Gortania, Atti del Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale, 13(1991): 157-193. Minelli, A. & Tovane, E. 1987. Habitat preferences and taxocenoses of Italian centipedes (Chilopoda). Bollettino del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Venezia, 37(1986): 7-34. Newport, G. 1845. Monograph of the Class Myriapoda, Order Chilopoda; with observations on the general arrangement of the Articulata. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 19(1844): 265-302, 349-439. Newport, G. 1856. Catalogue of the Myriapoda in the collection of the British Museum. Part 1. Chilopoda. 96 pp. Taylor & Francis, London. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 165 Pocock, R.I. 1890. Contribution to our knowledge of the Chilopoda of Liguria. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova, (2)9: 59-68. Rosenberg, J. 1982. Coxal organs in Geophilomorpha (Chilopoda). Organization and fine structure of the transporting epi-helium. Zoomorphology, 100: 107-120. Simaiakis, S., Minelli, A. & Mylonas, M. 2004. The centipede fauna (Chilopoda) of Crete and its satellite islands (Greece, Eastern Mediterranean). Israel Journal of Zoology, 50: 367-418. Stoev, P. 1997. A check-list of the centipedes of the Balkan peninsula with some taxonomic notes and a complete bibliography (Chilopoda). Entomologica Scandinavica, suppl., 51: 87-105. Stoev, P. 2004. The myriapods (Chilopoda, Diplopoda) of the Eastern Rhodopes (Bulgaria and Greece). Pp. 207-220 in Beron, P. & Popov, A. (Eds.), Biodiversity of Bulgaria, 2. Biodiversity of Eastern Rhodopes ( Bulgaria and Greece). Pensoft & National Museum of Natural History, Sofia. Verhoeff, K.W. 1902. Uber einige palaarktische Geophiliden. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 25: 557-561. Verhoeff, K.W. 1925. Mediterrane Chilopoden und Notiz zur Periodomorphose der Juliden. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 64: 63-80. Verhoeff, K.W. 1943. Neuer Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Chilopoden der Insel Ischia. Zoolo- gischer Anzeiger, 142: 62-83. Wiirmli, M. 1972. Chilopoda. Catalogus Faunae Austriae, 11a: 1-16. Wytwer, J. 1997. Eutracheata-Tchawkodyszne. XXVIII. Chilopoda-Pareczniki. Checklist of Animals of Poland, 4: 265-267. Zapparoli, M. 2002. Catalogue of the centipedes from Greece. Fragmenta Entomologica, 34: 1-146. Acknowledgement of receipt of this publication was published in BZN 63: 221. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 Case 3403 Mecistocephalus Newport, 1843 and Pachymerium Koch, 1847 (Chilopoda): proposed conservation of current usage by designation of Mecistocephalus punctifrons Newport, 1843 as the type species of Mecistocephalus Newport, 1843 Lucio Bonato and Alessandro Minelli Department of Biology, University of Padova, Via Ugo Bassi 58 B, I-35131 Padova, Italy (e-mail: lucio.bonato@unipd.it; alessandro.minelli@unipd.it) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 70.2 of the Code, is to conserve Mecistocephalus punctifrons Newport, 1843 as the type species of the genus Mecistocephalus Newport, 1843, following current universal use; this requires suppression of the earlier but long forgotten valid designation of Geophilus ferru- gineus Koch, 1835 as the type species of this genus. Accepting G. ferrugineus as the type species of Mecistocephalus would threaten the current, universal use of both names Mecistocephalus Newport, 1843 and Pachymerium Koch, 1847 for two well- established genera of centipedes. These genera have long been recognised as very distinct and included in different families; both have a wide geographical distribution and encompass more than 120 and 20 valid species respectively. The name Mecisto- cephalus, as currently applied, 1s threatened by Lamnonyx Cook, 1896, which has not been used as valid in taxonomic and faunistic literature since 1945. The name Pachymerium, as currently applied, is threatened by Mecistocephalus, which is currently and universally applied to a different genus. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; type species; Chilopoda; Mecistocephalus; Pachymerium; Geophilus ferrugineus; Mecistocephalus punctifrons; geophilomorph centipedes. 1. The name Mecistocephalus was introduced by Newport (1843a, p. 178) as a new genus including five species, but no type species was then designated. The originally included species are Geophilus ferrugineus Koch, 1835, Geophilus maxillaris Gervais, 1837, Mecistocephalus guildingii Newport, 1843, Mecistocephalus punctifrons Newport, 1843 and Mecistocephalus punctilabium Newport, 1843. The first valid designation of a type species for this genus, as recently discussed by Jeekel (2005), was by Cook (1896a, p. 61) who designated Geophilus attenuatus Say, 1821 as the type species of Mecistocephalus and recognised Geophilus ferrugineus Koch, 1835 as a synonym of Geophilus attenuatus Say, 1821. It follows that Cook (1896a, p. 61) validly designated the originally included species G. ferrugineus as the type species of Mecistocephalus (Article 69.2.2 of the Code — Eligibility of species for type fixation). However, the validity of Cook’s action was disregarded or ignored by most authors, with the only exception of Silvestri (1919) who, in order to definitely clarify the identity of the type species of Mecistocephalus, fixed it as Geophilus ferrugineus Koch, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 _ 167 1835. In the meantime, Cook (1896b, p. 74) had indicated Clinopodes carniolensis Koch, 1847 as the type species of Mecistocephalus, but this designation is invalid as C. carniolensis is not among the species originally included in Mecistocephalus (Article 67.2 of the Code — Species eligible for type fixation (originally included nominal species)). Instead, Pocock (1898, p. 63) fixed Mecistocephalus punctifrons Newport, 1843 as the type species of Mecistocephalus, stating that this latter species had been ‘practically’ selected previously as the type species by H.C. Wood and F. Meinert in their influential publications (Wood, 1862, 1865; Meinert, 1870). Most subsequent authors accepted Mecistocephalus punctifrons as the type species of Mecistocephalus either explicitly (e.g. Chamberlin, 1914; Attems, 1929; Crabill, 1957) or in practice. A different opinion was advanced by Brolemann (1930, p. 81), who indicated Geophilus maxillaris Gervais, 1837 as the type species of Mecistocephalus. 2. The name Mecistocephalus has been applied by most authors to a well- recognised genus which encompasses, together with many subsequently described species, only three of the originally included species (Geophilus maxillaris, Mecistocephalus guildingii and Mecistocephalus punctifrons), whereas both Geophilus ferrugineus and Mecistocephalus punctilabium are universally treated as non- congeneric with Mecistocephalus. This largely prevailing use is due to the fact that almost all authors disregarded the validity of Cook’s action and circumscribed the genus Mecistocephalus as if based upon Mecistocephalus punctifrons or Geophilus maxillaris. Only Silvestri (1919), consequent to fixing Geophilus ferrugineus as the type species of Mecistocephalus, refrained from adopting Mecistocephalus for the genus considered above, but his action was not followed by most subsequent authors. Previous to its restriction to what eventually became its modern usage, the name Mecistocephalus was applied for a while in accordance with Newport’s original broader concept, thereby encompassing species now definitely regarded as belonging to different genera and families. This usage is limited to the following papers, mainly published in the 19th century: Newport (1843a, 1843b, 1844, 1845, 1856), Wood (1862, 1865, 1867), Saussure & Humbert (1872), Selivanov (1881), Karsch (1884), Meinert (1886), Haase (1887), McNeill (1887a, 1887b), Bollman (1893a), Cook (1896a, 1896b, 1904), Verhoeff (1896), Silvestri (1899, 1919) and Attems (1900, 1903). At present, the genus currently referred to as Mecistocephalus is well-established and unambiguously circumscribed; it includes more than 120 valid species many of which are among the most common geophilomorph centipedes in many tropical and subtropical regions of the world. It has been cited under the name Mecistocephalus in at least 150 papers, including all major taxonomic and faunistic publications (e.g. Haase, 1887; Chamberlin, 1920a, 1920b; Attems, 1929, 1947; Brolemann, 1930; Takakuwa, 1940; Crabill, 1959, 1970; Lawrence, 1960; Foddai et al., 2000; Bonato et al., 2003: Bonato & Minelli, 2004). 3. Lamnonyx Cook, 1896 is the senior available genus-group name for the genus currently called Mecistocephalus, based on its current circumscription. Lamnonyx was introduced by Cook (1896a, p. 61) as a new genus to include eleven nominal species. Cook (1896a) indicated Lamnonyx leonensis Cook, 1896 as the type species of Lamnonyx, but his designation is invalid because L. /eonensis was not available at the time and therefore was not eligible as type species (Article 67.2.1 of the Code); indeed, L. /eonensis was described in a different paper (Cook, 1896c) published later than Cook (1896a), as demonstrated by Jeekel (2005). Mecistocephalus punctifrons 168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 Newport, 1843 was validly fixed as the type species of Lamnonyx by Attems (1903, p. 211) (cf. Jeekel, 2005). In the taxonomic and faunistic literature, the use of Lamnonyx as the valid name for the genus currently called Mecistocephalus or for a part of it was limited to the following papers, the most recent of which is dated 1945: Cook (1896a, b, c), Pocock (1896, 1897), Verhoeff (1902-1925, 1925a, b, 1945), Attems (1903, 1907, 1909a, b, c, d, 1910a, b, 1911a, b, 1912, 1914a, b, 1915, 1917), Silvestri (1904, 1919, 1924), Brélemann (1907, 1909, 1926), Ribaut (1907, 1912, 1914, 1915, 1922, 1923), Chamberlin (1914) and Schubart (1934). As far as we know, the only use of Lamnonyx as valid in a paper more recent than 1945 was in a quite obscure paper reporting on caryological investigations (Mittal & Dipta, 1977). 4. Pachymerium Koch, 1847 was introduced by C.L. Koch (1847, p. 85) for a single species Geophilus ferrugineus Koch, 1835, which is the type species of Pachymerium by monotypy. 5. The name Pachymerium has been applied by most authors to a well-recognised genus of centipedes and is currently used consistently and universally as the valid name for this genus, disregarding the fact that it is a junior objective synonym of Mecistocephalus based on both having the same type species. At present, the genus currently called Pachymerium includes more than 20 valid species and is widespread in the world. It has been cited under the name Pachymerium in at least 300 papers, including most comprehensive taxonomic and faunistic publications (e.g. Koch, 1847; Verhoeff, 1902-1925, 1934; Attems, 1926, 1928, 1929, 1947; Folkmanova, 1928: Brolemann, 1930; Takakuwa, 1940; Lawrence, 1960; Eason, 1964; Matic, 1972: Wiirmli, 1972; Kaczmarek, 1979; Barber & Keay, 1988: Foddai et al., 1995, 2000; Stoev, 2002; Zapparoli, 2002) as well as some papers on anatomy, ecology and molecular biology (e.g. Palmén & Rantala, 1954; Schildknecht et al., 1968; Bastianello et al., 2002). 6. The family-group name MECISTOCEPHALIDAE Bollman, 1893 was introduced by Bollman (1893b, p. 166) as a subfamily of GEOPHILIDAE, based on the genus Mecistocephalus. The name was first used at the family rank in 1908 by Verhoeff (1902-1925, p. 271). The name MECISTOCEPHALIDAE has been applied by most authors to a universally recognised and unambiguously circumscribed family which does not include Geophilus ferrugineus Koch, 1835. A junior family-group name available for this family is DICELLOPHILIDAE Cook, 1896, which was introduced by Cook (1896a) for a new family based on Dicellophilus Cook, 1896, which is currently universally recognised as a member of the same family as Mecistocephalus. Use of the family-group name DICELLOPHILIDAE as the valid name for this family was very limited (e.g. Cook, 1896a, 1896b; Silvestri, 1919), although it has been recently resurrected as a subfamily of MECISTOCEPHALIDAE (Bonato et al., 2003). 7. Accepting Geophilus ferrugineus. Koch, 1835 as the type species of Mecisto- cephalus would threaten universality and stability because of the following implications: (i) the valid name for the well-established genus universally called Mecistocephalus would be Lamnonyx, thus requiring new combinations for more than one hundred species now in Mecistocephalus; (11) the valid name for the well-established genus universally called Pachymerium would be Mecistocephalus, thus requiring new combinations for some 20 species; (1i1) the valid name for the well-established family universally called MECISTOCEPHALIDAE Bollman, 1893 would be DICELLOPHILIDAE Cook, 1896. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 169 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Mecistocephalus Newport, 1843 before the designation by Pocock (1898) of Mecistocephalus punctifrons Newport, 1843 as the type species; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Mecistocephalus Newport, 1843 (gender: masculine), type species Mecisto- cephalus punctifrons Newport, 1843, as ruled in (1) above; (b) Pachymerium Koch, 1847 (gender: masculine), type species Geophilus ferrugineus Koch, 1835, by monotypy; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) punctifrons Newport, 1843, as published in the binomen Mecistocephalus punctifrons (specific name of the type species of Mecistocephalus Newport, 1843); (b) ferrugineus Koch, 1835, as published in the binomen Geophilus ferrugineus (specific name of the type species of Pachymerium Koch, 1847). References Attems, C. 1900. Uber die Farbung von Glomeris und Beschreibung neuer oder wenig bekannter palaarktischer Myriopoden. Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, 66: 297-320. Attems, C. 1903. Synopsis der Geophiliden. Zoologische Jahrbiicher, Abteilung ftir Systematik, Geographie und Biologie der Tiere, 18: 155-302. Attems, C. 1907. Javanische Myriopoden gesammelt von Direktor K. Kraepelin im Jahre 1903. Jahrbuch der Hamburgischen Wissenschaftlichen Anstalten, 24: 77-142. Attems, C. 1909a. Athiopische Myriopoden. Zoologische Jahrbticher, Abteilung fiir Systematik, 27: 391-418. Attems, C. 1909b. Die Myriopoden der Vega-Expedition. Arkiv for Zoologi, 5(3): 1-84. Attems, C. 1909c. Myriopoda. Pp. 1-64 in Sjéstedt, Y. (Ed.), Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Schwedischen Zoologischen Expedition nach dem Kilimandjaro, dem Meru und den umgebenden Massaisteppen Deutsch-Ostafrikas 1905-1906, vol. 19. Palmquists, Stockholm. y Attems, C. 1909d. Myriopoden aus Agypten und dem Sudan. Pp. 1-6 in Jagerskidld, L.A. (Ed.), Results of the Swedish Zoological Expedition to Egypt 1901, vol. 3(22). Attems, C. 1910a. Ergebnisse der mit Subvention aus der Erbschaft Treit] unternommenen zoologischen Forschungsreise Dr. Franz Werner’s nach dem aegyptischen Sudan und Nord-Uganda: XVI. Myriopoden. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Classe, Wien, 119(1): 355-360. Attems, C. 1910b. Myriopoden von Madagascar, den Comoren und den Inseln Ostafrikas. Pp. 73-115 in Voeltzkow, A. (Ed.), Reise in Ostafrika, 3. Schweizerbart’sche (Nagele & Sproessner), Stuttgart. Attems, C. 191la. Myriopoda exkl. Scolopendridae. Pp. 145-204 in Michaelsen, W. & Hartmeyer, R. (Eds.), Die Fauna Stidwest-Australiens, vol. 3(6). G. Fischer, Jena. Attems, C. 1911b. Reise von Dr. J. Carl im noérdlichen Central-Afrikanischen Seengebiet: Chilopoden. Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 19(11): 271-273. Attems, C. 1912. Myriopoden. Pp. 297-299. Wissenschafitliche Ergebnisse der deutschen Zentral-Afrika-Expedition 1907-1908, 4(10). Klinkhardt & Biermann, Leipzig. Attems, C. 1914a. Die indo-australischen Myriopoden. Archiv ftir Naturgeschichte, 80A(4): 1-398. Attems, C. 1914b. Zur Fauna von Nord-Neuguinea. Nach den Sammlungen von Dr. P.N. van Kampen und K. Gjellerup aus den Jahren 1910 und 1911. Myriopoden. Zoologische Jahrbticher, Abteilung fiir Systematik, 37: 378-384. 170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 Attems, C. 1915. Myriopoden von Ceram und Waigeu. Bijdragen tot de Dierkunde, 20(1): 1-12. Attems, C. 1917. Myriopoden von Neu-Guinea gesammelt wahrend der Expedition 1903. Pp. 567-587 in: Nova Guinea: Résultats de l'expédition scientifique néerlandaise a la Nouvelle-Guinée, vol. 5. Brill, Leiden. Attems, C. 1926. Chilopoda. Pp. 239-402 in Kiikenthal, W. & Krumbach, T. (Eds.), Handbuch der Zoologie, 4 (1). De Gruyter, Berlin, Leipzig. Attems, C. 1928. The Myriapoda of South Africa. Annals of the South African Museum, 26: 1-431. Attems, C. 1929. Myriapoda I: Geophilomorpha. Das Tierreich, vol. 52. 388 pp. De Gruyter, Berlin. Attems, C. 1947. Neue Geophilomorpha des Wiener Museums. Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien, 55: 50-149. Barber, A.D. & Keay, A.N. 1988. Provisional Atlas of the Centipedes of the British Isles. v, 127 pp. Biological Records Centre, Natural Environment Research Council, Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Monks Wood Experimental Station, Huntingdon. Bastianello, A., Ronco, M., Burato, P.A. & Mineili, A. 2002. Hox gene sequences from the geophilomorph centipede Pachymeriuwm ferrugineum (C.L. Koch, 1835) (Chilopoda: Geophilomorpha: Geophilidae): implications for the evolution of the Hox class genes of arthropods. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 22: 155-161. Bollman, C.H. 1893a. A catalogue of the known Myriapoda of North America, north of Mexico. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 46: 117-130. Bollman, C.H. 1893b. Classification of the Syngnatha. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 46: 163-167. Bonato, L., Foddai, D. & Minelli, A. 2003. Evolutionary trends and patterns in centipede segment number based on a cladistic analysis of Mecistocephalidae (Chilopoda: Geophilomorpha). Systematic Entomology, 28: 539-579. Bonato, L. & Minelli, A. 2004. The centipede genus Mecistocephalus Newport 1843 in the Indian Peninsula (Chilopoda Geophilomorpha Mecistocephalidae). Tropical Zoology, 17: 15-63. Broélemann, H.-W. 1907. Mecistauchenus, nouveau genre de Géophilide (Myriap.). Bulletin de la Société entomologique de France, 1907: 282-283. Brélemann, H.-W. 1909. A propos d’un systéme des géophilomorphes. Archives de Zoologie Expérimentale et Générale, (5)3: 303-340. Brélemann, H.-W. 1926. Myriapodes recueillis en Afrique occ, frangaise par |’ Administrateur en Chef L. Duboseq. Archives de Zoologie expérimentale et générale, 65: 1-159. Brélemann, H.-W. 1930. Elements d'une faune des myriapodes de France. Chilopodes. xx, 404 pp. Imprimerie Toulousaine, Toulouse. Chamberlin, R.V. 1914. Notes on chilopods from the East Indies. Entomological News, 25: 385-392. Chamberlin, R.V. 1920a. On chilopods of the family Mecistocephalidae. Canadian Entomolo- gist, 52: 184-189. Chamberlin, R.V. 1920b. The Myriopoda of the Australian region. Bulletin of the Museum of comparative Zooology, 64(1): 1-269. Cook, O.F. 1896a. On Geophilus attenuatus Say, of the class Chilopoda. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 18: 59-62. Cook, O.F. 1896b. An arrangement of the Geophilidae, a family of Chilopoda. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 18: 63-75. Cook, O.F. 1896c. Geophiloidea from Liberia and Togo. Brandtia, 8: 35-40. Cook, O.F. 1904. Myriapoda of northwestern North America. Harriman Alaska Expedition, 8: 70-77. Crabill, R.E. 1957. On the Newport chilopod genera. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 47(10): 343-345. Crabill, R.E. 1959. Notes on Mecistocephalus in the Americas with a redescription of Mecistocephalus guildingiti Newport (Chilopoda: Geophilomorpha: Mecistocephalidae). Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 49: 188-192. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007. 171 Crabill, R.E. 1970. Concerning mecistocephalid morphology and the true identity of the type-species of Mecistocephalus. Journal of Natural History, 4: 231—237. Eason, E.H. 1964. Centipedes of the British Isles. x, 294 pp. F. Warne & Co., London, New York. Foddai, D., Minelli, A., Scheller, U. & Zapparoli, M. 1995. Chilopoda, Diplopoda, Pauropoda, Symphyla. Pp. 1-35 in Minelli, A., Ruffo, S. & La Posta, S. (Eds.), Checklist delle specie della fauna italiana, vol. 32. Calderini, Bologna. Foddai, D., Pereira, L.A. & Minelli, A. 2000. A catalogue of the geophilomorph centipedes (Chilopoda) from Central and South America including Mexico. Amazoniana, 16: 59-185. Folkmanova, B. 1928. Chilopoda Republiky Ceskoslovenské. Dil I. Fauna et Flora Cechoslovenica v Praze, 3: 1-131. Haase, E. 1887. Die Indisch-Australischen Myriopoden. I. Chilopoden. Abhandlungen und Berichte des Zoologischen und Antropologisch-Ethnographischen Museums zu Dresden, 4(5): 1-118. Jeekel, C.A.W. 2005. Nomenclator generum et familiarum Chilopodorum: a list of the genus and family-group names in the Class Chilopoda from the 10th edition of Linnaeus, 1758, to the end of 1957. Myriapod Memoranda, Supplement, 1: 1-130. Kaczmarek, J. 1979. Pareczniki (Chilopoda) Polski. Uniwersytet Imiena Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, Seria Zoologica, 9: 1-98. Karsch, F. 1884. Myriapoda. Pp. 55-59 in Greef, R. (Ed.), Ueber die Fauna der Guinea-Inseln S. Thomé und Rolas. Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft zur Beférderung der gesamten Naturwissenschaften zu Marburg, vol. 2. Koch, C.L. 1847. System der Myriapoden. Jn Herrich-Schaffer, G.A.W. (Ed.), Kritische Revision der Insectenfauna Deutschlands, vol. 3. 270 pp. Pustet, Regensburg. Lawrence, R.F. 1960. Myriapodes Chilopodes. In: Faune de Madagascar, vol. 12. 124 pp. Institut de Recherche Scientifique Tananarive-Tsimbazaza, Tananarive. McNeill, J. 1887a. Description of twelve new species of Myriapoda chiefly from Indiana. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 10: 328-334. MeNeill, J. 1887b. List of the Myriapods found in Escambia County, Florida, with description of six new species. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 10: 323-327. Matic, Z. 1972. Clasa Chilopoda, Subclasa Epimorpha. Fauna Republicii Socialiste Romania, vol. 6(2). 224 pp. Academia Republicii Socialiste Romania, Bucarest. Meinert, F. 1870. Myriapoda Musaei Hauniensis: bidrag til Myriapodernes morphologi og systematik. Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift, (3)7: 1-128. Meinert, F. 1886. Myriapoda Musei Cantabrigiensis. Part I. Chilopoda. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 23: 161—233. Mittal, O.P. & Dipta, S. 1977. Chromosomes of five species of centipedes (Myriapoda: Chilopoda). Chromosome Information Service, 23: 22-23. Newport, G. 1843a. On some new genera of the class Myriapoda. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 10: 177-181. Newport, G. 1843b. On some new genera of the class Myriapoda. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 11: 498-502. Newport, G. 1844. A list of the species of Myriapoda, order Chilopoda, contained in the Cabinets of the British Museum, with synoptic descriptions of forty-seven new species. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (1)13: 94-101. Newport, G. 1845. Monograph of the class Myriapoda, order Chilopoda; with observations on the general arrangement of the Articulata. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 19: 265-302, 349-439. Newport, G. 1856. Catalogue of the Myriapoda in the Collection of the British Museum. Part 1. Chilopoda. 96 pp. Taylor & Francis, London. Palmén, E. & Rantala, M. 1954. On the life-history and ecology of Pachymerium ferrugineum (C. L. Koch) (Chilopoda Geophilidae). Annales Zoologici Societatis Zoologicae-Botanicae Fennicae, 16(3): 1-44. Pocock, R.I. 1896. Report upon the scorpions, spiders, centipedes, and millipedes obtained by Mr. and Mrs. E. Lort Phillips in the Goolis Mountains inland of Berbera, N. Somaliland. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (6)18: 178-189. 172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 Pocock, R.I. 1897. Solifugae, Scorpiones, Chilopoda, and Diplopoda. Pp. 392-407 in Donaldson Smith, A. (Ed.), Through unknown African countries. Greenwood Press, New York. Pocock, R.I. 1898. Report on the centipedes and millipedes obtained by Dr A. Willey in the Loyalty Islands, New Britain, and elsewhere. Pp. 59-74 in Willey, A. (Ed.), Zoological results based on material from New Britain, New Guinea, Loyalty Isles and elsewhere, vol. 1. University Press, Cambridge. , Ribaut, H. 1907. Voyage de M. Maurice de Rothschild en Ethiopie et dans l’Afrique Orientale (1904-1906): Myriopodes. Annales de la Société entomologique de France, 76: 499-514. Ribaut, H. 1912. Chilopodes (Voyage de M. le Dr. Merton aux iles Kei et Aru). Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, 34: 283-287. Ribaut, H. 1914. Myriapodes I Chilopoda. Pp. 3-35 in: Voyage de Ch. Alluaud et R. Jeannel en Afrique Orientale (1911-1912), résultats scientifiques. Librairie A. Schulz, Paris. Ribaut, H. 1915. Notostigmophora, Scolopendromorpha, Geophilomorpha (Myriopodes) (premiere série). Archives de Zoologie expérimentale et générale, 55(6): 323-346. Ribaut, H. 1922. Myriapodes. Pp. 129-154 in: Voyage de M. le Baron Maurice de Rothschild en Ethiopie et en Afrique Orientale Anglaise. Résultats scientifiques, vol. 1. Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris. i Ribaut, H. 1923. Chilopodes de la Nouvelle-Calédonie et des [les Loyalty. Pp. 1-79 in Sarasin, F. & Roux, J. (Eds.), Nova Calédonia, Zoologie, vol. 3(1). C.W. Kreidel’s Verlag, Berlin, Weisbaden. \ Saussure, H. & Humbert, A. 1872. Etudes sur les Myriapodes. Pp. 1-207 in Milne Edwards, M. (Ed.), Mission scientifique au Mexique et dans I’ Amérique centrale. Recherches zoologiques, vol. 6(2). Mémoires du Muséum national d Histoire naturelle. Paris. Schildknecht, H., Maschwitz, V. & Krauss, D. 1968. Blauséure im Wehrsekret des Erdlaufers Pachymerium ferrugineum. XXXV. Mitteilung tber Arthropoden-Abwehrstoffe. Naturwissenschaften, 5: 230.- Schubart, O. 1934. Myriapoda. Tabulae Biologicae, 4: 77-134. Junk, Amsterdam. Selivanoy, A. 1881. Geophilidae Museya Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk. Mémoires de l’ Académie Impériale des Sciences de St. Petersbourg, 40: 1-27. Silvestri, F. 1899. Contribucion al estudio de los quilopodos chilenos. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, 3: 141-152 Silvestri, F. 1904. Myriopoda. Fauna Hawaiiensis, 3: 323-338. Silvestri, F. 1919. Contributions to a knowledge of the Chilopoda Geophilomorpha of India. Records of the Indian Museum, 16: 45-107. Silvestri, F. 1924. Myriapoda from the Siyju Cave, Garo Hills, Assam. Records of the Indian Museum, 26: 71-79. Stoey, P. 2002. A catalogue and key to the centipedes (Chilopoda) of Bulgaria. 103 pp. Pensoft, Sofia. Takakuwa, Y. 1940. Geophilomorpha. Fauna Nipponica, 9(8:1): 1-156. Verhoeff, C. 1896. Geophiliden und Scolopendriden aus Portugal und Tabelle europdischer Geophilus-Arten. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 19: 74-79, 81-89. Verhoeff, K.W. 1902-1925. Chilopoda, in Bronn, H.G. (Ed.), Klassen und Ordnungen des Tierreiches, 5(2). Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Leipzig. Verhoeff, K.W. 1925a. Mediterrane Chilopoden und Notiz zur Periodomorphose der Juliden. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 64: 63-80. Verhoeff, K.W. 1925b. Results of Dr. E. Mjéberg’s Swedish Scientific Expeditions to Australia 1910-1913. 39: Chilopoda. Arkiv for Zoologi, 17(3): 1-62. Verhoeff, K.W. 1934. Diplopoda, Symphyla, Pauropoda, Chilopoda. Pp. 1-120 in Brohmer, P., Ehrmann, P. & Ulmer, G. (Eds.), Die Tierwelt Mitteleuropas, 2(3). Quelle & Meyer, Leipzig. Verhoeff, K.W. 1945. Asya hayvanlari ve zoogeografiyasi hakkinda. Asiatische Beitrage VIII. Istanbul Universitesi Fen Fakiiltesi Mecmuasi B, 9(1944) (5): 1-41. Wood, H.C. 1862. On the Chilopoda of North America with a catalogue of all the specimens in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, (2)5 (1): 5-52. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 _ 173 Wood, H.C. 1865. The Myriapoda of North America. Transactions of the American Philo- sophical Society, (N.S.), 13: 137-247. Wood, H.C. 1867. Notes on a collection of Californian Myriapoda with the descriptions of a new eastern species. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, [1867]: 127-130. Wiirmli, M. 1972. Chilopoda. Catalogus Faunae Austriae, 11a: 1-16. Zapparoli, M. 2002. Catalogue of the centipedes from Greece. Fragmenta Entomologica, 34: 1-146. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 64: 2. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 Case 3392 Hemerobius elegans Stephens, 1836 (currently Sympherobius elegans) and Hemerobius elegans Guérin-Meéneville, 1844 (currently Vieira elegans) (Insecta, Neuroptera): proposed conservation of the specific names" John D. Oswald Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2475, U.S.A. (e-mail: j-oswald@tamu.edu) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.5 of the Code, is to conserve the specific names Hemerobius elegans Stephens, 1836 (currently Symphero- bius elegans) (HEMEROBIIDAE) and Hemerobius elegans Guérin-Meéneville, 1844 (currently Vieira elegans) (CHRYSOPIDAE). Although Hemerobius elegans Stephens, 1836 and Hemerobius elegans Guérin-Meéneville, 1844 are primary homonyms, they were treated congenerically only for the seven-year period from 1844 to 1851, after which the junior name was removed from Hemerobius. The senior homonym is a European brown lacewing; the junior homonym is a Neotropical green lacewing. Both names are in current use. It is proposed that Hemerobius elegans Guérin- Meéneville, 1844 be conserved by ruling that it is not invalid by reason of being a junior homonym of Hemerobius elegans Stephens, 1836. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; CHRYSOPIDAE; HEMEROBIIDAE; Vieira elegans; Sympherobius elegans; green lacewings; brown lacewings; Costa Rica; Suriname; Brazil; Europe. 1. Stephens (1836, p. 113) described Hemerobius elegans, a brown lacewing, from England, although the name had been used earlier in an unavailable context by Stephens (1829, p. 312). The species was transferred to Sympherobius Banks, 1904 by Banks (1905, p. 40), where it is placed today. It has also been treated briefly in the genera Mucropalpus Rambur, 1842 by Schoch (1885, p. 20) and Eurobius Kriger, 1922 by Kruger (1922, p. 171), neither placement of which gained wide acceptance. Sympherobius elegans is currently known from at least 29 countries across Europe (Aspock et al., 2001, p. 149). The genus Sympherobius is currently classified as belonging to the subfamily syMPHEROBIINAE (HEMEROBIIDAE) (Aspock et al., 2001, pp. 145-147). 2. Guérin-Meéneville (1844, p. 388) described Hemerobius elegans, a green lacewing, from Brazil (‘Rio-Janeiro’). It was transferred to the genus Chrysopa Leach in Brewster, 1815 by Schneider (1851, p. 134), to Nodita Navas, 1916 by Navas (1928, p. 125), to Berchmansus Navas, 1913(b) by Banks (1944, p. 29, as ‘Berkmansus’ (sic)), and subsequently to Vieira Navas, 1913(a) by Tauber (2007, p. 123). This is a rare species that is currently known from Costa Rica, Suriname and southeastern Brazil. The genus Vieira, with type species Leucochrysa leschenaulti Navas, 1911, was placed by Adams (1978, .p. 211) in the tribe LEUCOCHRYSINI (CHRYSOPIDAE, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 175 CHRYSOPINAE), but has recently been transferred to the tribe BELONOPTERYGINI (CHRYSOPIDAE, CHRYSOPINAE) by Tauber (2007, p. 123). 3. Sympherobius elegans (Stephens, 1836) is a well-established name for a common European brown lacewing. Aspock et al. (1980, p. 228; 2001, p. 149) list more than 120 literature citations for this name, by more than 50 authors, during the period 1957 to 2001. Vieira elegans (Guérin-Méneville, 1844) is a rare species with few citations in the literature. The following six post-1956 references have been identified that cite the species-group name e/egans Gueérin-Meneville, 1844 as a valid name (all combinations in Berchmansus except as noted): Penny, 1977, p. 15; Brooks & Barnard, 1990, p. 244; Penny, 2002, p. 190; Tauber et al., 2006, p. 221; Tauber, 2006; Tauber, 2007 (in Vieira). 4. Although Hemerobius elegans Stephens, 1836 and Hemerobius elegans Guérin- Méeneville, 1844 are primary homonyms, they were congeneric in Hemerobius for only the short period from 1844 to 1851, when the latter species was removed to the genus Chrysopa. Because the two species are currently placed in different families, there seems little possibility that the two species will ever be treated in the future as congeneric. The junior homonym Vieira elegans (Guérin-Meéneville) has no available synonyms, and therefore cannot be replaced with a pre-existing name. Nomen- clatural stability in this case would be best achieved by conserving both names in their present usages, rather than by requiring the proposal of a new replacement name for the junior homonym. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to rule that the name e/egans Guérin-Meéneville, 1844, as published in the binomen Hemerobius elegans, is not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym of e/egans Stephens, 1836, as published in the binomen Hemerobius elegans; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) elegans Stephens, 1836, as published in the binomen Hemerobius elegans; (b) elegans Guérin-Meéneville, 1844, as published in the binomen Hemerobius elegans, with the endorsement that it is not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym of elegans Stephens, 1836, as published in the binomen Hemerobius elegans, as ruled in (1). Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following colleagues for reviewing earlier versions of the manuscript of this proposal and for supporting its intent: Norman D. Penny, Catherine A. Tauber, Enrique V. Gonzalez Olazo, and Carmen Reguilon. References Adams, P.A. 1978. Zoogeography of New World Chrysopidae, a progress report. Folia Entomologica Mexicana, 39140: 210-211. [BotN #1302] Aspock, H., Aspéck, U. & Holzel, H. 1980. Die Neuropteren Europas, vol. 1. 495 pp. Goecke and Evers, Krefeld. [BotN #1112] Aspock, H., Hélzel, H. & Aspéck, U. 2001. Kommentierter Katalog der Neuropterida (Insecta: Raphidioptera, Megaloptera, Neuroptera) der Westpalaarktis. Denisia, 2: 1-606. [BotN #9847] 176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 Banks, N. 1904. A list of neuropteroid insects, exclusive of Odonata, from the vicinity of Washington, D.C. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 6: 201-217. [BotN #23] Banks, N. 1905. A revision of the Nearctic Hemerobiidae. Transactions of the American Entomological Society, 32: 21-51. [BotN #31] Banks, N. 1944. Neuroptera of northern South America. Part III. Chrysopidae. Boletin de Entomologia Venezolana, 3: 1-34. [BotN #116] Brooks, S.J. & Barnard, P.C. 1990. The green lacewings of the world: a generic review (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Bulletin of the British Museum of Natural History, Entomol- ogy, 59: 117-286. [BotN #6991] Guérin-Méneville, F.E. 1829-1838. Iconographie du régne animal de G. Cuvier, ou représentation d aprés nature de l'une des espéces les plus remarquables, et souvent non encore figurées, de chaque genre d’animaux. Insectes. 576 pp. Paris. [BotN #2707] Kriiger, L. 1922. Hemerobiidae. Beitrage zu einer Monographie der Neuropteren-Familie der Hemerobiiden. Stettiner Entomologische Zeitung, 83: 138-172. [BotN #3476] Leach, W.E. 1815. Entomology. Pp. 57-172 in Brewster, D. (Ed.), Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, vol. 9, pt. 1. Edinburgh. [BotN #3657] Navas, L. 1911. Chrysopides nouveaux (Ins. Neur.). Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles, 35(2): 266-282. [BotN #525] Navas, L. 1913a. Crisopidos sudamericanos. Brotéria (Zoologica), 11: 73-104, 149-168. [BotN #569] Navas, L. 1913b. Les Chrysopides (Ins. Névr.) du Musée de Londres [Ia]. Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles, 37(2): 292-330. [BotN #572] Navas, L. 1916. Neurdpteros Sudamericanos. Tercera [III] serie. Neuropteros del Brasil recogidos por el R.P. Joaquin da Silva Tavares S.J. Brotéria (Zoologica), 14: 14-35. [BotN #657] Navas, L. 1928. Insectos del Museo de Hamburgo. Primera [I] serie. Boletin de la Sociedad Entomologica de Espana, 11: 59-67, 90-100, 121-138 [Errata, 11: 165]. [BotN #838] Penny, N.D. 1977. Lista de Megaloptera, Neuroptera e Raphidioptera do México, América Central, ilhas Caraibas e América do Sul. Acta Amazonica, 7(4)(Suplemento): 1-61. [BotN #5098] Penny, N.D. 2002. Family Chrysopidae. Pp. 187-227 (text), 301-373 (figures) in Penny, N.D. (Ed.), A Guide to the Lacewings (Neuroptera) of Costa Rica. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, (4)53: 161-457. [BotN #10232] Rambur, [J.JP. 1842. Histoire Naturelle des Insectes, Névroptéres. [xviii], 534 pp. Librairie encyclopédique de Roret. Fain et Thunot, Paris. [BotN #5314] Schneider, W.G. [as: G.T.]. 1851. Symbolae ad monographiam generis Chrysopae, Leach. 178 pp. Apud Ferdinandum Hirt, Vratislaviae. [BotN #5579] Schoch, G. 1885. Neuroptera Helvetiae, analytisch bearbeitet als Grundlage einer Neuropteren fauna der Schwiez. Fauna Insectorum Helvetiae. 94 pp. Schaffhausen. [BotN #5582] Stephens, J.F. 1829. A systematic catalogue of British insects: being an attempt to arrange all the hitherto discovered indigenous insects in accordance with their natural affinities ..., vol. 1. [xxxvi], 416 pp. London. [BotN #5862] Stephens, J.F. 1836. Ilustrations of British entomology; or, a synopsis of indigenous insects: containing their generic and specific distinctions; with an account of their metamorphoses, times of appearance, localities, food, economy ... Mandibulata, vol. 6. 240 pp. Baldwin & Cradock, London. [BotN #5863] Tauber, C.A. 2006. A new species of Berchmansus (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) and nomen- clatural notes on B. elegans (Guérin-Méneville). Journal of the Entomological Society of Washington, 108: 830-841. [BotN #11856] Tauber, C.A., Tauber, M.J. & Albuquerque, G.S. 2006. Berchmansus elegans (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae): larval and adult characteristics and new tribal affiliation. European Journal of Entomology, 103: 221-231. [BotN #11792] Tauber, C.A. 2007. Review of Berchmansus and Vieira and description of two new species of Leucochrysa (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 100: 110-138. [BotN #11900] Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 177 (For more complete bibliographical and dating information, and links to pdfs of some works, see the cited reference numbers for the Bibliography of the Neuropterida [BotN] at http://insects.tamu.edu/research/neuropterida/neur_bibliography/bibhome. html [Accessed in May, 2007)). Acknowledgement of receipt of this publication was published in BZN 64: 154. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 Case 3388 Buprestis angustula MWliger, 1803 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence of the specific name over that of Buprestis pavida Fabricius, 1793 E. Jendek Institute of Zoology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dubrayska cesta 9, SK 842 06 Bratislava, Slovakia (e-mail: jendek@stonline.sk) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name Agrilus angustulus (Illiger, 1803) for a widely distributed species of jewel beetle (family BUPRESTIDAE) by giving it precedence over its unused senior synonym Agrilus pavidus (Fabricius, 1793). Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; BUPRESTIDAE; Agrilus angustulus; Agrilus pavidus; buprestids; jewel beetles; Europe; Asia. 1. Illiger (1803, p. 240) established the name Buprestis angustula for a species of jewel beetle (family BUPRESTIDAE) from Portugal. Buprestis angustula has been placed in Agrilus Curtis, 1825 since Dejean (1833, p. 83). The species is common throughout Europe and Asia, and notes about its distribution and biology have been made by many authors including Faldermann (1839, p. 75); Marseul (1857, p. 92); Kiesenwetter (1857, p. 133); Thomson (1864, p. 30); Gemminger & Harold (1869, p. 1436); Saunders (1870, p. 3; 1871, p. 120); Kerremans (1892, p. 246; 1903, p. 275): Obenberger (1926, p. 654; 1936, p. 942); Théry (1942, p. 159); Schaefer (1949, p. 368): Horion (1955, p. 82); Lompe (1979, p. 235); Cobos (1986, p. 230); Curletti (1994, p. 152); Molino Olmedo (1998, p. 29); Bily (2002, p. 11); Verdugo Paéz (2005, p. 203). The karyotype of Agrilus angustulus (Illiger, 1803) was examined by Karagyan, Kuznetsova & Lachowska (2004, p. 155) and mitochondrial DNA by Bernhard, Fritzsch, Glockner & Wurst (2005, p. 601). Zach (1994, p. 249) included this species among very serious physiological pests of oaks and also among the vectors of agriloid type of tracheomycoses. Bily (2002, p. 11) considered it to be the most common European species of the genus Agrilus. 2. Fabricius (1793, p. 214) established the nominal species Buprestis pavida without a statement of the type locality. The name B. pavida was used by Fabricius (1796, p. 27; 1797, p. 52; 1801, p. 213); Herbst (1801, p. 263); Iliger (1803, p. 240) and Schonherr (1817, p. 259). B. pavida has been placed in Agrilus Curtis, 1825 since Gory & Laporte (1837, p. 53). The combination Agrilus pavidus has been cited as a valid species name by Saunders (1870, p. 24; 1871, p. 119) and Kerremans (1892, p. 267; 1903, p. 288). Zimsen (1964, p. 156) mentioned two syntypes of B. pavida preserved in Fabricius’s collection in Copenhagen. Kiesenwetter (1857, p. 135) considered B. pavida Fabricius, 1793 to be a dubious name: ‘Bupr. pavida Fabr. ... ist eine nicht zu entrathselnde Art, die nicht weiter in Betracht gezogen werden kann’ and the citation of Agrilus pavidus sensu Gory & Laporte (1837, p. 53) to be a misidentification of Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 179 A. angustulus (Mliger, 1803). The misidentified name A. pavidus sensu Gory & Laporte was frequently erroneously used in the synonymy of A. angustulus (Illiger, 1803), including Gemminger & Harold (1869, p. 1436), Saunders (1871, p. 120); Kerremans (1892, p. 246; 1903, p. 275); Obenberger (1935, p. 50); Cobos (1986, p. 315); Curletti (1994, p. 152); Brechtel & Kostenbader (2002, p. 211); Bily (2002, p. 11). Obenberger in his world catalogue (1936, p. 946) confused the name pavidus Fabricius with the misidentification pavidus sensu Gory & Laporte which was the reason that the name A. pavidus (Fabricius) was overlooked. 3. I have examined two syntypes of A. pavidus (Fabricius, 1793) preserved in the Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen, Denmark and found them con- specific with A. angustulus (Iliger, 1803). Agrilus angustulus (Illiger, 1803) is a junior subjective synonym of A. pavidus (Fabricius, 1793). This latter name has not been used as valid since Kerremans (1903) and the name Buprestis angustula Mliger has been widely used for more than 200 years (see Abeille de Perrin, 1897; Alexandrovitch et al., 1996). A list of 181 references demonstrating the usage of Buprestis angustula is held by the Secretariat. However, the name A. pavidus (Fabricius, 1793) does not meet the requirements of Article 23.9.1.1 of the Code. This precludes the automatic reversal of precedence under the provisions of Article 23.9.2. Therefore this case is submitted to the Commission under Article 23.9.3. 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to give the specific name angustula Illiger, 1803, as published in the binomen Buprestis angustula, precedence over the name pavida Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Buprestis pavida, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) angustula Uliger, 1803, as published in the binomen Buprestis angustula, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name pavida Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Buprestis pavida, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (b) pavida Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Buprestis pavida, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name angustula Illiger, 1803, as published in the binomen Buprestis angustula, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. References Abeille de Perrin, E. 1897. Notes sur les Buprestides paléarctiques (Suite). Revue d’ Entomologie, 16: 1-33. Alexandrovitch, O.R., Lopatin, I.K., Pisanenko, A.D., Tsinkevitch, V.A. & Snitko, S.M. 1996. Katalog zhestkokrylykh (Coleoptera, Insecta) Belarusi. 103 pp. Fond fundamental’nykh issledovanii respubliki Belarus’, Minsk. Bernhard, D., Fritzsch, G., Gléckner, P. & Wurst, C. 2005. Molecular insights into speciation in the Agrilus viridis-complex and the genus Trachys (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). European Journal of Entomology, 102: 599-605. Bily, S. 2002. Summary of the bionomy of the Buprestid beetles of Central Europe (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Acta Entomologica Musaei Nationalis Pragae, Supplement, 10: 1-104. Brechtel, F. & Kostenbader, H. 2002. Die Pracht- und Hirschkdfer Baden-Wiirttembergs. 632 pp. Verlag E. Ulmer, Stuttgart. 180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 Cobos, A. 1986. Fauna iberica de coleopteros Buprestidae. 364 pp. Imp. Aguirre, Madrid. Curletti, G. 1994. I Buprestidi d'Italia. Catalogo tassonomico, sinonimico, biologico, geonemico. Monografie di Natura Bresciana, 19: 1-318. Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1833. Catalogue des Coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean, livraison 1. (Section 1-12). Pp. 1-96. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris. Fabricius, J.C. 1793. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta. Secundum classes, ordines, genera, species adjectis synonimis, locis, observationibus, descriptionibus, vol. 1, part 2. 538 pp. C.G. Proft, Hafniae. Fabricius, J.C. 1796. Index alphabeticus in J.C. Fabricii Entomologiam systematicam, emenda- tam et auctam, ordines, genera, et species continens. 175 pp. Proft & Storch, Hafniae. Fabricius, J.C. 1797. Epitome entomologiae fabricianae sive Nomenclator Entomologicus emendatus sistens Fabriciani Systematis cum Linneano comparationem. xvi, 224 pp. J.G. Feind, Lipsiae. Fabricius, J.C. 1801. Systema Eleutheratorum secundum ordines, genera, species: adiectis synonymis, locis, observationibus, descriptionibus, vol. 2. 687 pp. Impensis bibliopoli academici novi, Kiliae. Faldermann, F. 1839. Fauna entomologica Trans-Caucasica. Coleoptera. Pars III. Catalogus systematicus omnium Coleopterorum, quum recentiorum, tum antea vulgatorum, quae in utraque naturam scrutantium expeditione, Imperatoris Augustissimi jussu in provincias imperli Russici transcaucasias suspecta, reperta sunt. Nouveaux Mémoires de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 6: 1-306. Gemminger, M. & Harold, E. von. 1869. Catalogus coleopterorum hucusque descriptorum synonymicus et systematicus. Tom. 5 (Buprestidae, Trixagidae, Monommidae, Eucnemi- dae, Elateridae, Cebrionidae). Pp. 1347-1608. Sumptu E.H. Gummi, Monachi. Gory, H.L. & Laporte de Castelnau, F.L. 1837. Histoire naturelle et iconographie des insectes coléoptéeres, publiée par monographies séparées. Suite aux buprestides. Tome II, Livraisons 12-16 (genera: Colobogaster, Chrysobothris, Agrilus). Genera paged separately. P. Duméenil, Paris. Herbst, J.F.W. 1801. Natursystem aller bekannten in- und ausldndischen Insekten: als eine Fortsetzung der Biiffonschen Naturgeschichte. Der Kafer, vol. 9. 344 pp. Buchhandlung des Geh. Commerzien-Raths Bauti, Berlin. Horion, A. 1955. Faunistik der mitteleuropaischen Kafer. Sternoxia (Buprestidae), Fossipedes, Macrodactylia, Brachymera. Entomologische Arbeiten aus dem Museum G. Frey, 4: 1-xxi, 1-280. Illiger, J.C.W. 1803. Verzeichniss der in Portugall einheimischen Kafer. Erste Lieferung. Magazin ftir Insektenkunde, Braunschweig, 2: 186-258. Karagyan, G., Kuznetsova, V.G. & Lachowska, D. 2004. New cytogenetic data on Armenian buprestids (Coleoptera, Buprestidae) with a discussion of karyotype variation within the family. Folia Biologica, 52: 151-158. ; Kerremans, C. 1892. Catalogue synonymique des Buprestides decrits de 1758 a 1890. Séance du 5 septembre 1891. Mémoires de la Société Entomologique de Belgique, 1: 1-304. Kerremans, C. 1903. Coleoptera Serricornia. Fam. Buprestidae, Fasc. 12b, 12c, 12d. Pp. 49-338 in Wytsman, P. (Ed.), Genera Insectorum. Verteneuil & Desmet, Bruxelles. Kiesenwetter, H. von. 1857. Buprestidae, Eucnemidae. Pp. 1-176 in Erichson, W.F., Schaum, H., Kraatz, G. & Kiesenwetter, H. von (Eds.), Naturgeschichte der Insecten Deutschlands, Erste Abtheilung, vol. 4. Nicolaische Verlagsbuchhandlung, Berlin. Marseul, S.M. de. 1857. Catalogue des Coléoptéres d'Europe. xvi, 200 pp. Paris. Molino Olmedo, F. 1998. Descripcion de la larva de Agrilus angustulus (Illiger, 1803) (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Description of the larva of Agrilus angustulus (liger, 1803) (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Zoologica Baetica, 9: 29-34. Lompe, A. 1979. 10. Tribus: Agrilini. Pp. 230-243 in Freude, H., Harde, K.W. & Lohse, G.A. (Eds.), Die Kafer Mitteleuropas, vol. 6, Diversicornia. Goecke & Evers Verlag, Krefeld. Obenberger, J. 1926. Buprestidae. Col. 620-663 in Winkler, A. (Ed.), Catalogus Coleopterorum regionis palaearcticae. Parts 5-6. A. Winkler, Wien. Obenberger, J. 1935. Catalogue raisonné des Buprestides de Bulgarie. III Partie. Bulletin des Institutions Royales d'Histoire Naturelle a Sofia, 8: 23-96. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 181 Obenberger, J. 1936. Buprestidae V. Pp. 935-1246 in Junk, W. & Schenkling, S. (Eds.), Coleopterorum Catalogus, vol. 13, pars 152. W. Junk, Verlag fiir Naturwissenschaften, ‘s-Gravenhage. Saunders, E. 1870. Catalogue of the species contained in the genus Buprestis of Linnaeus, previous to its subdivision by Eschscholtz in 1829, referring each to its present genus. 37 pp. John van Voorst, London. Saunders, E. 1871. Catalogus Buprestidarum Synonymicus et Systematicus. 171 pp. E.W. Janson, London. Schaefer, L. 1949. Les Buprestides de France. Tableaux analytiques des Coléoptéres de la faune franco-rhénane. France, Rhénanie, Belgique, Hollande, Valais, Corse. Famille LVI (Miscellanea Entomologica, Supplément). 511 pp. Editions Scientifiques du Cabinet Entomologique E. Le Moult, Paris. Schonherr, C.J. 1817. Synonymia Insectorum, oder Versuch einer Synonymie aller bisher bekannten Insecten nach Fabricii Systema Eleutheratorum etc. geordnet. Eleutherata oder Kafer, vol. 1(3). Hispa - Molorchus. xi, 506 pp. Em. Bruzelius, Uppsala. Théry, A. 1942. Coléoptéres Buprestides. In: Faune de France, vol. 41. 223 pp. P. Lechevalier, Paris. Thomson, C.G. 1864. Skandinaviens Coleoptera, synoptiskt bearbetade, vol. 6. 385 pp. Tryckt uti lundbergska boktryckeriet, Lund. Verdugo Paéz, A. 2005. Fauna de Buprestidae de la peninsula Ibérica y Baleares (Coleoptera). 350 pp. Argania edition, Barcelona. Zach, P. 1994. Floeo- a xylofagne chrobaky v dubovych lapakoch na lesostepnom stanoviSti. (Phloeo- and xylophagous beetles (Coleoptera) in oak traps on forest steppe biotopes). Lesnicky Gasopis, 40: 249-257. Zimsen, E. 1964. The type material of I.C. Fabricius. Munksgaard, Copenhagen. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 63: 154. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) 182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 Case 3390 Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 (Aves): proposed conservation of usage by designation of a neotype Walter J. Bock Department of Biological Sciences, 1212 Amsterdam Avenue, PB, 2431 Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, U.S.A. (e-mail: wb4@columbia.edu) Paul Buhler (deceased) Institute of Zoology, University of Stuttgart-Hohenheim, D-7000 Stuttgart 70, Germany Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 75.5 of the Code, is to preserve stability and universality of usage of the name Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 by setting aside the existing holotype and designating a neotype. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Archaeopteryx lithographica; neotype; Solnhofen; Aves; Jurassic. 1. Several earlier applications (Swinton, 1960, BZN 17: 224-226; Ostrom, 1972, BZN 29: 30-31; Eisenmann, 1974, BZN 31: 114-115) have been submitted to the Commission to conserve the binomen Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 (p. 679). The decisions of the Commission (Opinion 607, 1961, BZN 18: 260-261; Opinion 1070, 1977, BZN 33: 165-166) (a) conserved the generic name Archaeopteryx von Meyer, 1861 and the specific name /ithographica von Meyer, 1861, as published in the binomen Archaeopteryx lithographica, and placed them on the Official Lists (Opinion 607) and (b) conserved the specific name crassipes von Meyer, 1857, as published in the binomen Pterodactylus crassipes, and placed it on the Official List with the provision that it is not to be given precedence over /ithographica von Meyer, 1861, as published in the binomen Archaeopteryx lithographica, by any taxonomist who believes that both specific names apply to the same taxon (Opinion 1070). A number of generic and specific names had been suppressed and placed on the Official Index in Opinion 607. 2. In spite of the comment by Eisenmann (1974) who proposed that the type of the name Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 be fixed as a specimen of a feathered skeleton (BMNH 37001) at the Natural History Museum, London (NHM), the Commission did not take any action on fixing the type of this name, because they believed mistakenly that the London specimen was the type, although no published statement exists supporting their decision. 3. Buhler & Bock (2002) claimed that the type specimen (the holotype) to which the name Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 is attached is the original feather impression studied by von Meyer and now housed in the Museum ftir Naturkunde der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Bereich Palaontologisches Museum (main slab) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 183 and in the Bayerischen Staatssammlung fiir Palaontologie und historische Geologie in Miinchen (counter slab), and not the NHM specimen of a feathered skeleton {(BMNH 37001) as believed by many workers (BZN 29: 30; BZN 31: 114). When von Meyer described and named the original fossil feather, he had only heard about the newly discovered feathered skeleton (the present-day London specimen) (Meyer, 1961, p. 678), had not seen it and did not include this specimen in a ‘type-series’ for the name. The London specimen is the best known and most frequently cited specimen of this species (see Buhler & Bock (2002) for references). It should be noted that the name Archaeopteryx macrura Owen, 1864 used by Stephan (1987) for the taxon containing the London, Teyler and Maxberg specimens is invalid as the Commission suppressed the specific name Archaeopteryx macrura (Opinion 607, August, 1961, BZN 18: 260-261). Furthermore, it is most questionable whether one could demonstrate that the original feather impression and the London feathered skeleton belong to the same genus. Moreover some of the other specimens of this fossil, such as a well-preserved Berlin specimen (HMN 1880/81), have been placed in other species or genera while the London specimen is not associated with any valid name other than Archaeopteryx lithographica. 4. The name Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 is conserved but it is a nomen dubium because it is not possible to determine whether the type specimen (the original feather impression) belongs to any of the generic or specific taxa of fossil birds recognized from the Solnhofen limestones. Bihler & Bock (2002) agree with those workers who advocate only a single species of ancient feathered bird from the Solnhofen limestones, although some workers recognize up to three genera and species. The number of species recognized is not relevant to the question of whether the feather impressions can be assigned to a known specific taxon according to Stephan (1987, p. 110) who recognized three genera of birds from the Solnhofen limestones and argued that the taxon represented by the name Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 cannot be identified with any of the species he recognized; he restricted this name to the feather impression. Therefore, although the name Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 has been conserved, it cannot be used for any of the avian fossils from the Solnhofen limestones except for the feather impression. 5. If the feathered skeletons from Solnhofen are recognized as a single species, the current valid name for that species would be Archaeornis crassipes (von Meyer, 1857). Archaeornis Petronievics, 1917 is the oldest available generic name for these birds and Pterodactylus crassipes von Meyer, 1857 is the oldest available specific name. The type specimen to which the name Pterodactylus crassipes is attached 1s housed in the palaeontological collections of the Teyler’s Stichting, Haarlem, The Netherlands (Nos. 6928 and 6929). If these fossils of feathered skeletons are recognized as belonging to several different generic and specific taxa of ancient birds, the correct names for them would depend on the arrangement of the specimens into these taxa. 6. We argue that following the rules of zoological nomenclature for the taxa represented by the feathered skeletons from the Solnhofen limestones would lead to great confusion, instability and lack of universality, and would violate directly the basic object of the Code ‘to promote stability and universality in the scientific names of animals’ as stated in the second paragraph of the Preamble. 184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 7. Therefore to preserve stability and universality in use of the name Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861, we propose that the Commission sets aside the holotype of Archaeopteryx lithographica in the Berlin and Minchen Museums and designates specimen BMNH 37001 in the NHM as the neotype. 8. If this proposal is accepted by the Commission, the original feather impressions would lack a scientific name. However, we urge that these specimens, possessing mainly historical value, continue to be designated by the name Archaeopteryx lithographica as they have been for the past 130 years. Nothing would be gained by an insistence on the formal application of the rules of zoological nomenclature to deprive the two original slabs showing the feather impressions representing the original specimens of one of the most important fossils in the history of vertebrate paleontology of their well-established designation of Archaeopteryx lithographica. 9. If these proposals are accepted, then the currently valid name for the taxon represented by the feathered skeletons from the Solnhofen limestones would be Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 as defined by specimen BMNH 37001. This action would unite formal zoological nomenclatural decisions with the generally accepted usage by zoologists and paleontologists for the past 130 years. 10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal species Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 and to designate specimen BMNH 37001 at the NHM as the neotype for the name; (2) to emend the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for the name J/ithographica von Meyer, 1861, as published in the bomen Archaeop- teryx lithographica, to record that it is defined by the neotype designated in (1) above. References Biihler, P. & Bock, W.J. 2002. Zur Archaeopteryx-Nomenklatur: Missverstandnisse und Lésung. Journal fiir Ornithologie: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ornithologen-Gesellschaft, 143(3): 269-286. Meyer, H. von. 1857. Beitrage zur naheren Kenntniss fossiler Reptilien. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geologie und Paldontologie, 1857: 532-543. Petronievics, B. 1917. Fussnote in Petronievics, B. & Woodward, A.S. 1917. On the pectoral and pelvic arches of the British Museum specimen of Archaeopteryx. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1917: 1-6. Stephan, B. 1987. Urvdgel - Archaeopteryviformes, 3rd Edition (Die Neue Brehm-Biicherei, 465). 216 pp. Ziemsen Verlag, Wittenberg Lutherstadt. Acknowledgement of receipt of this publication was published in BZN 63: 154. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 185 Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of Cardium egmontianum Shuttleworth, 1856 (currently Trachycardium egmontianum; Mollusca, Bivalvia) (Case 3341; see BZN 64: 12-14) Richard C. Willan Museum & Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, G.P.O. Box 4646, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia 0820 This proposal represents the only pathway to achieve nomenclatural stability and geographical sense in this instance and so I strongly endorse the request to the Commission. The Application could have been bolstered by an historical observation relating to Reeve’s Conchological Iconica, in which the original error occurred. I have come to appreciate this problem from my own research on marine bivalves. Reeve was so busy at the height of the “Golden Age’ of conchology in the mid-nineteenth century receiving shells from all over the world and publishing attractive monographs for his subscribers on a regular basis that he committed numerous unintentional errors like this one. His illustration of a specimen of Cardium egmontianum with the incorrect locality of Mindanao, Philippines, from where two other specimens of a different but somewhat similar, large, brown speckled species of cardiid genuinely originated, was a rather typical result of the frenetic pace at which he must have been working. The late Mr Vidal must have also realised this was the cause of the mistake and had a desire for some nomenclatural stability in a group of marine bivalves where the genera and species are still taxonomically unstable, hence his selection of one of the specimens from the Philippines as the lectotype of Cardium mindanense. That selection (Vidal, 1998) should certainly be validated by the Commission as both technically correct and thoroughly justified, whereas the earlier designation by Voskuil & Onverwagt (1992) of another syntype as ‘holotype’ is invalid under Article 74.5 of the Code. Comment on the proposed conservation of Termes serratus Froggatt, 1898 (currently Microcerotermes serratus) and Termes serrula Desneux, 1904 (currently Microcerotermes serrula) (Insecta, Isoptera, TERMITINAE) (Case 3385; see BZN 64: 83-86) Yves Roisin and Jacques M. Pasteels Behavioural & Evolutionary Ecology — CP 160/12, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Avenue F.D. Roosevelt 50, B— 1050 Brussels, Belgium (e-mail: yroisin@ulb.ac.be) When we discovered the unjustified replacement of Termes serratus Haviland and conservation of Termes serratus Froggatt by Desneux (1904), we recommended the strict application of the Principle of Priority instead of applying to the Commission to conserve the junior names (Roisin & Pasteels, 2000). To reach this decision, we followed the guidelines of Article 79(c) of the 3rd Edition of the Code (current at the time of submission), stating that a prima facie case that stability is threatened would 186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 be made by the Commission if the junior name had been applied to a particular taxon as its presumably valid name by at least 5 different authors and in at least 10 publications during the immediately preceding 50 years. We did not find 10 citations of Microcerotermes serratus (Froggatt) in the period 1950-1999; Jones himself (BZN 64: 83-86) lists only seven records of this name during this period, one of which is in a purely nomenclatural work (Watson et al., 1998). As to Microcerotermes serrula (Desneux), this name was even less frequently used: four records in the same period, according to Jones (BZN 64: 83-86). In addition, for both species, citations appeared almost exclusively in faunistic inven- tories or identification guides. Neither species has been the subject of any biological study of importance. Saying they are well-known (Jones, BZN 64: 84, para. 7) is an overstatement. Considering both the Code’s guidelines and our personal feeling, we estimated that the current usage of both junior names was so low that the strict application of priority rules would neither cause substantial confusion nor be a threat to nomenclatural stability, and that asking the Commission to use its plenary power to overturn priority would not be justified in this case. In the Fourth Edition of the Code, although the guidelines of former Article 79(c) have disappeared, a procedure has been set up to allow the automatic rejection of senior synonyms or homonyms. However, the conditions are very strict (Article 23.9.1): the senior name must not have been used as valid since 1899 (23.9.1.1) and the junior name must have been used as valid in at least 25 works in the last 50 years (Article 23.9.1.2 — additional conditions apply). In this case, the first condition is not satisfied since Microcerotermés serratus (Haviland) was used as valid by Holmgren, 1911 and Roisin & Pasteels, 2000, and the recent usage of either Microcerotermes serratus (Froggatt) or Microcerotermes serrula (Desneux) is far below that required to meet the second condition (see above). Jones’s present application (BZN 64: 83-86) not only requires the re-examination of the case per se, that is, whether or not the correction of the unjustified replacement of Termes serratus Haviland by Desneux (1904) threatens stability. It also requires that the Commission dismiss our own decision relative to this case, which was published in a broadly distributed, peer-reviewed international journal (Roisin & Pasteels, 2000). As a general rule, we believe (1) that authors, as we did, should generally attempt to resolve nomenclatural problems according to the principles of the Code and avoid applying to the Commission if not absolutely necessary (after all, this is what the Code stands for), and (2) that the Commission should not overturn authors’ recent decisions unless these decisions are demonstrably foolish, because this would be a definite source of considerable confusion. In the present case, we believe our decision cannot be deemed foolish since we precisely followed the Commission’s own guidelines. After 2000, Jones himself and his co-workers of the Termite Research Group of the Natural History Museum (Jones & Prasetyo, 2002; Gathorne-Hardy, 2004) used Microcerotermes serrula (Desneux) as valid, ignoring Roisin & Pasteels’s (2000) decision. The reason for doing so is not explicitely stated. It is likely that our work (Roisin & Pasteels, 2000) was merely overlooked, since Jones & Prasetyo (2002) similarly used the invalid Microcerotermes dubius (Haviland), also rejected by us, and did not apply to the Commission sooner. Now, Jones (BZN 64: 83, para. 3) cites his own and his co-workers’ post-2000 works (Jones & Prasetyo, 2002; Gathorne-Hardy, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 187 2004) as evidence that Microcerotermes serrula (Desneux) 1s now ‘widely accepted and used extensively’. It should be noted that this name should not be considered as published in Jones et al. (2003), since it only appears in an electronic supplement, explicitly excluded by Article 9.8. This sounds like circular reasoning. Furthermore, Jones’s application raises an ethical issue, since it is not independent from his own and his co-workers’ interests: a positive decision of the Commission in this case would constitute an endorsement of their post-2000 use of invalid names, which otherwise could not be justified. In conclusion, we believe: (1) that because the involved names were so infrequently used, our corrections (Roisin & Pasteels, 2000) did not result in ‘considerable confusion and nomenclatural instability’ (as stated by Jones: BZN 64: 83, abstract); (2) that because our explicit, published decision was correct and consistent with the Commission’s guidelines, it should be upheld for the sake of nomenclatural stability; and (3) that to counter nomenclatural anarchy and discourage negligence, the Commission should refrain from endorsing a posteriori an erroneous use of names by the applicant or his co-workers. We therefore recommend that Jones’s application be rejected. Comment on the proposed fixation of the feminine gender of the genus and the form of derivation of family-group names based on Trachys Fabricius, 1801 (Insecta, Coleoptera) (Case 3335; see BZN 63: 172-176, 273-274; 64: 64-66) Miguel A. Alonso-Zarazaga Depto. de Biodiversidad y Biologia Evolutiva, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (CSIC), Cl. José Gutiérrez Abascal, 2, E-28006 Madrid, Spain (e-mail: zarazaga@mncn.csic.es) I disagree with the proposal to fix the gender of the genus Trachys Fabricius, 1801 as feminine and agree with the opposing comments made by Bellamy, MacRae, Rifkind and Wescott. However, in my opinion, some additional points need to be made. In the case of the genus Trachys Fabricius, 1801, a quick look at any Classical Greek dictionary will show that the word trachys is the nominative singular form of an adjective having three different forms: masculine trachys, feminine tracheia, and neuter ¢rachy and meaning “rough’’. According to Article 30.1.2, the Fabrician genus is masculine, since there is no negation of Latin or Greek in Fabricius’s work for this genus, which could be the only exception admitted, according to Article 30.1.4.1. The authors of the case apparently discard any resort to Article 30.1.4.2, since there is no possibility of considering the Greek word trachys as of common or variable gender: it is clearly masculine. The word trachys belongs to a peculiar kind of Greek adjective: it is a very short class of adjectives ending in masculine in -ys (not in -achys as MacRae and Rifkind say), but very frequent in zoological genus-group names. Of the 29 regular members and the three irregular members, 14 in their “‘pure” state are used as genera (Amblys, Bathys, Brachys, Brithys, Drimys, Elachys, Eurys, Ithys, 188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 Ocys, Pachys, Prays, Tachys, Thrasys and Trachys), and 20 as the final element in compounds (only 12 have never been used as such). The total number of genus-group names is 430. Bellamy’s, Macrae’s and Rifkind’s mention of genera having the same ending and the same problem is thus very short. If such an exception of the rules is allowed, what will happen with these genera? Should we apply the same gender and the same stem to these? If not, what are the consequences to our need for simple rules of nomenclature for the scientific community? I agree that Fabricius used feminine endings for adjectival species names in combination with Trachys in the original description. The authors want to see in this a particular wish of Fabricius. I consider they ignore the most obvious explanation: Fabricius carried the feminine gender of Buprestis to his new genus, by mistake (B. minuta, B. pygmaea and B. nana were among the combined species in his treatment), my opinion being here in agreement with Wescott’s. But see also below for another explanation. For substantiation of their argument that most uses listed by them are feminine (para. 3 of the application), the authors give a list of references using Trachys as feminine or masculine, including several catalogues. Curiously enough, in no part of Article 30, can the reader find that “‘prevailing usage” could be invoked to reverse the rules there included. In this respect, Article 30 is solid. This “prevailing usage” can be invoked for reversal of precedence and other instances, but not here. Should authors who accurately follow the rules of the Code be ignored because there are many more authors who don’t follow the rules? The Glossary of the Code states that prevailing usage must be understood as that “adopted by at least a substantial majority of the most recent authors’. I cannot see a substantial majority following usage as feminine among recent authors, 1.e., those publishing in the 20th century, which, according to the authors (para. 3) were: Kerremans, Thery, Jakobson, Schaefer, Obenberger, Kurosawa, Descarpentries, Villiers, Rikhter, Alexeev, Bily, Burakovski and Bellamy (13) versus Bedel, Théry, Schaefer, Horion, Harde, Bily, Cobos, Curletti, Kohler, Klausnitzer, Arnaiz Ruiz (11) using masculine. As anyone can see, some authors seem to be hesitant about gender use, including one of the authors of the proposal. It is rather evident that the latter followed the rules of the then extant Code, while the former did not. To reinforce their argument, the authors state that “we should accept ‘Trachys’ as a non-standard name’’, because “he used a feminine genitive Trachydis” (my italics) (para. 1.2). The first statement is a subjective appreciation, grounded only on others’ opinions (e.g. Harold, 1870) and not on facts. In fact, Fabricius’s Systema Eleuthera- torum is written in acceptable Latin, and all the genera originally described there are perfect Latin or Greek words. However, genitive formation is very important to ascertain the stem for family-group name derivation. I cannot support Bellamy’s statement that the genitive of trachys is trachyos. The reasons are as follows: Greek adjectives ending in -ys belong to a wider class of nouns and adjectives. Buck & Petersen (1944) distinguish two kinds of Greek adjectives or substantives having a -y- stem: 1. The first one (with masculine form ending in —ys and neuter form ending in -y) make their genitive singular in -yos, -e0s or -eos. In this class, there are adjectives (of the type trachys) and substantives, either masculine (bdtrys “bunch of grapes”, présbys “old man’’, ichthys “‘fish”), feminine (chélys “tortoise”, ixys “waist”, ophrys Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 189 “eyebrow ) or neuter (péy “flock”, sinépy “mustard” and the Homeric versions of gony “knee” and dory “spear’’); the number of words is this class is very high. 2. The second class is composed of about 13 elements (some of which also have an alternative declension following the first class) that make their genitive singular in -ydos. It includes only two adjectives (sygklys “washed together by the waves (metaphorically))” and épélys “‘incomer, stranger” and its derivatives, both invari- able), together with feminine (dagys “wax doll”, chlamys “short mantle”, emys “freshwater tortoise”, pélamys “young tuna’), common (synélys “companion” and other substantivised derivatives of -é/ys and sygk/ys) and masculine (pal/mys “Lydian king”, also a proper male name) substantives. Latin dictionaries (I have used the classical one by Lewis & Short (1980)) give a few words ending in —ys in the nominative singular. All these words are of Greek origin (cf. Liddell & Scott, 1996) and usually retain the Greek declension, including the genitive. Only four words have been found in Latin literature ending in -ys and having an ending in -ydis: aclys (“small javelin”), chlamys (“military cloak”), emys (“freshwater tortoise”) and pelamys (“young tuna’’). All four are feminine in gender and belong to the 3rd Latin imparisyllabic declension, although usually they retain the Greek transliterated declension, or, in the case of chlamys, adopt a preferred Latin structure, chlamyda, -ae (1st Latin declension). This ending -ydis is a Latin adaptation of the original Greek 3rd declension genitive for dental stems -ydos. It is clear that the argument presented by Bily & Kuban that the genitive ending -ydis is feminine is false, as it can be originally in Greek a part of the masculine, feminine or common paradigm (as —ydos) and that only chance is responsible for the only three Greek words of this class passing into Latin being feminine (and belonging to the subclass having a smaller number of representatives). In fact, 3rd Latin declension for non-Greek words includes exactly the same genders (apart from neuter): masculine, feminine or common. Probably this fact again led Fabricius to consider mistakenly that in Latin, trachys should follow the declension paradigm of the other three Greek words known to be introduced into Latin, namely, chlamys, emys and pelamys, while the correct genitive form should have been trachéos. However, the ending -ydis cannot reveal anything about gender in a word unless you check the nominative in a dictionary, except that the word should keep the original Greek gender. The genitive form of adjectives of the trachys form is trachéos (Buck & Petersen, 1944, p. 19) and not trachyos as stated by Bellamy, the ending —yos belonging only to nouns of the same class. However, what is its stem for forming family-group names? The first problem is the meaning of the word stem, which is different in its philological and zoological concepts. While the latter is clearly diagnosed in the Glossary of the Code as “that part (or the whole) of the name of the type genus to which is added a family-group suffix” and its correlated genitive ending as “the letters at the end of the genitive case of a Latin or Greek generic name which are deleted [Article 29.3] to form a stem, before adding a suffix to form a family-group name’, the fact is that we still do not know which letters should be deleted as an “ending”. Or, to say it clearly, we are not aware that the zoological concept of stem does not coincide with the philological concept of stem, and from there the different interpretations start. To limit myself to the word in question, the word in genitive shows a root (trach), a root suffix (e) (present in all cases except nominative, 190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 accusative and vocative singular) and a genitive case ending (0s). However the philological stem is still trachy- (the group of words having a y as the final letter of the stem share peculiar morphological traits in their declension) while the Glossary of the Code defines as zoological stem trache-. It is clear that the next Code should address this disparity in criteria. The same premises must be taken into consideration when treating other genera derived from the same class of adjectives, and, conse- quently, of genera ending in —ys listed above. Bily & Kuban are inconsistent in recognising a genitive Trachydis and not a stem Trachyd- in this case, following Article 29.3.1, as Reitter (1911) did, probably following Article 4 of the Rég/es then in force. Since the Glossary is mandatory, I propose here the following amendment to the application: The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to rule that, for zoological purposes, the stem of the genus Trachys is Trache-, according to the mandatory dispositions of the Glossary; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Trachys Fabricius, 1801 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Westwood (1838) Buprestis minuta Linnaeus, 1758; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name minuta Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Buprestis minuta (specific name of the type species of Trachys Fabricius, 1801); (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name TRACHEIDAE Laporte, 1835 (type genus Trachys Fabricius, 1801), a corrected original spelling, according to (1) above; (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the following names, as incorrectly derived from Trachys Fabricius, 1801: (a) TRACHISIDAE Laporte, 1835 (an incorrect original spelling); (b) TRACHYINAE Gavoy, 1897; (c) TRACHYDINI Reitter, 1911; (d) TRACHYINI Kerremans, 1893; (e€) TRACHYNINI Kraatz, 1869. As a final reflection, I would like to say that the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature has clear rules about the interpretation of the gender of genus-group names in the dispositions of Article 30. Evidently, perfecting the Code is possible, but zoologists should aim at perfecting their activities as well. Perhaps one of the virtues lacking in many of us is subjection to rules. The Code is made for helping us in our everyday work, not to causing a loss of time and effort in fighting against it. The rule that this application tries to circumvent has been in force since 1905, so several generations of zoologists have had enough time to learn it and put it into practice. Departing from the rules is dangerous if we want to keep stability, because the exceptions create doubts, and insecurity is the seed of instability. If you find a genus Trachys, that according to the Code and the Greek dictionary is masculine, being used as a feminine genus, you can think either that it is a mistake and treat it as masculine or you realise that there could be some ruling of the Commission admitting this exception and look for it. In the second case, you lose your time and confidence in the simple rules of the Code, so that you cannot be sure they will work in all cases. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 191 Acknowledgements I wish to thank here my good colleague and friend, Dr. J.A. Berenguer Sanchez, of the Instituto de Filologia (CSIC), Madrid, for his help and support during the preparation of this article. Additional references Buck, C.D. & Petersen, W. 1944. A reverse index of Greek nouns and adjectives arranged by terminations with brief historical introductions. xvii, 765 pp. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Lewis, C.T. & Short, C. 1980. A Latin Dictionary. Founded on Andrews’ edition of Freund's Latin dictionary. Revised, enlarged, and in great part rewritten. xvi, 2019 pp. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Liddell, H.G. & Scott, R. 1996. A Greek-English Lexicon. New (9th) edition revised and augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones with the assistance of Roderick McKenzie and with the co-operation of many scholars. With a supplement. xlvii, 2111 pp. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Comments on the proposed precedence of Buprestis angustula Mliger, 1803 (Insecta, Coleoptera) over Buprestis pavida Fabricius, 1793 (Case 3388; see BZN 64: 178-181) (1) C.L. Bellamy Plant Pest Diagnostics Branch, California Department of Food & Agriculture, 3294 Meadowview Road, Sacramento, California 95832, U.S.A. (e-mail: cbellamy@cdfa.ca.gov) Although the ‘priority purists’ will disagree, I am in complete agreement and support Dr Jendek’s application (Case 3388) to the Commission asking that they recognize Agrilus angustulus (Illiger, 1803) as having precedence over Agrilus pavidus (Fabricius, 1793) when these names are considered synonyms for the reasons stated. (2) Gianfranco Curletti Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Parco Cascina Vigna Via S. Francesco di Sales 188, 10022 Carmagnola, TO Italy (e-mail: giancurletti@tiscalinet.it) I write to register my support for the proposed precedence of Buprestis angustula Illiger, 1803 (Insecta, Coleoptera) over Buprestis pavida Fabricius, 1793, as the matters of the case are presented thoroughly and completely. (3) Svatopluk Bily Department of Entomology, National Museum, Kunratice 1, 14800 Praha 4, Czech Republic (e-mail: sv.bily@jelly.cz) I support the application by Dr E. Jendek concerning the proposed precedence of the specific name Agrilus angustulus (Iliger, 1803) over Agrilus pavidus (Fabricius, 1793) because the former name has been used for two centuries for the most common 192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 European Agrilus species both in taxonomic and bionomical publications. This very common species is one of the potential vectors of serious diseases of oaks and change of the name would be confusing for all workers in forestry and applied entomology since they are usually not familiar with the taxonomy and nomenclature. As explained in the application by Dr E. Jendek, the synonymy and wrong interpretation of both names is rather complicated and the conservation of the name A. angustulus (illiger, 1803) is the best solution of this case. The main goal of the Code and the Commission 1s stability of the nomenclature, so it is undesirable to dig up an unused name even it is older. Comment on the proposed conservation of Columba roseogrisea Sundevall, 1857 (currently Streptopelia roseogrisea; Aves, COLUMBIDAE) (Case 3380; see BZN 64: 108-112) Paul Salaman International Programs Director, American Bird Conservancy, P.O. Box 249, The Plains, VA 20198, U.S.A. (e-mail: psalaman@abcbirds.org) I am the first author of two checklists of the birds of Colombia (Salaman et al., 2001; 2007). In the second checklist, we treated Streptopelia risoria as an introduced species. The name for such introduced populations has been an issue for ornitholo- gists for some time. Various different names have been used, as discussed in Case 3380. I fully support Thomas Donegan’s suggestion that the same approach be adopted for Streptopelia as for other domestic/wild species name pairs in mammals and other groups, in order to promote stability and universality. Additional references Salaman, P., Cuadros, T., Jaramillo, J.G. & Weber, W.H. 2001. Lista de chequeo de las aves de Colombia. 116 pp. Sociedad Antioquena de Ornitologia, Medellin. Salaman, P., Donegan, T. & Caro, D. 2007. Listado de Avifauna Colombiana 2007. Conser- vacion Colombiana Suplemento (Marzo 2007). 85 pp. Fundacion ProAves, Bogota, Colombia. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 193 OPINION 2175 (Case 3315) Eudendrium tenellum Allman, 1877 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): proposed designation of a neotype not accepted Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the type material of the widely distributed marine hydroid Eudendrium tenellum Allman, 1877 should not be replaced by a neotype. The original material still exists and provides sufficient data to allow E. tenellum to be tentatively synonymised with E. capillare Alder, 1856. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hydrozoa; EUDENDRIIDAE; Eudendrium; Eudendrium tenellum; Eudendrium capillare; hydroids. Ruling (1) It is hereby ruled that previous type fixations for the nominal species Eudendrium tenellum Allman, 1877 are maintained. (2) The name tenellum Allman, 1877, as published in the binomen Eudendrium tenellum, as defined by Allman’s type material deposited in the collection of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University (a jar labelled “MCZ 50235; colony without gonophores, U.S.A., off Florida, off Double-Head Shot Key, Gulf Stream Expedition, 23°57'30”N, 80°29°15”W, alcohol preserved, 10.11.1869, 862 m, leg. L.F. de Pourtalés, det. G.J. Allman, holotype, with no hydranths’), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 3315 An application to conserve the specific name of Eudendrium tenellum Allman, 1877 in its accustomed usage by designation of a neotype was received from A.C. Marques (Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Biociéncias, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil) and W.Vervoort (Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands) on 1 March 2004. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 63: 8-11 (March 2006). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. An opposing comment was published in BZN 63: 197-198, to which the first author replied in 63: 198-199. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 2007 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 63: 10. At the close of the voting period on | June 2007 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 3: Brothers, Halliday and Ng. Negative votes— 24: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Fautin, Grygier, Kerzhner, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Lim, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Pape, Papp, Patterson, Pyle, Rosenberg, Song, Stys, van Tol and Zhang. Commissioners voting against were concerned that the original type material was still extant, whereas the proposed neotype was from a biogeographically very distant area. 194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 Original reference The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: tenellum, Eudendrium, Allman, 1877, Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, 5(2): 8. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 195 OPINION 2176 (Case 3319) Helix papillaris Miller, 1774 (currently Papillifera papillaris; Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific name not conserved Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name of Helix papillaris Miller, 1774 for a pulmonate gastropod (family CLAUSILIIDAE) from southern Europe should not be conserved by the suppression of its senior subjective synonym Turbo bidens Linnaeus, 1758. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mollusca; Gastropoda; CLAUSILIIDAE; Helix papillaris; Turbo bidens; southern Europe. Ruling (1) It is hereby ruled that the specific name papillaris Miller, 1774, as published in the binomen Helix papillaris, is not conserved. (2) The name bidens Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Turbo bidens, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 3319 An application to conserve the specific name of Helix papillaris Muller, 1774 was received from F. Giusti and G. Manganelli (Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali, Universita di Siena, I-53100 Siena, Italy) on 17 May 2004. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 62: 130-133 (September 2005). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. Opposing comments were published in BZN 63: 46-47, and comments in support in BZN 63: 47 and 130-131. A response by the authors of the case was published in BZN 63: 199-200. Decision of the Commission On | March 2007 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 62: 132. At the close of the voting period on | June 2007 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 13: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bouchet, Brothers, Grygier, Halliday, Krell, Lamas, Mawatari, Minelli, Ng, Papp, Rosenberg and Stys. Negative votes — 14: Bogutskaya, Fautin, Kerzhner, Kottelat, Kullander, Lim, Macpherson, Mahnert, Pape, Patterson, Pyle, Song, van Tol and Zhang. Original reference The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: bidens, Turbo, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 767. 196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 OPINION 2177 (Case 3331) Castianeira fulvipes Simon, 1896 (Arachnida, Araneae): precedence over Cambalida coriacea Simon, 1909 maintained Abstract. The Commission has ruled that precedence is maintained for Castianeira fulvipes Simon, 1896 over the junior synonym Cambalida coriacea Simon, 1909 for a species of spider from Africa. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; CLUBIONIDAE; MICARIINAE; Castianeira fulvipes: Cambalida coriacea; Afrotropical Region; spiders. Ruling (1) It is hereby ruled that precedence is maintained for Castianeira fulvipes Simon, 1896 over-the junior subjective synonym Cambalida coriacea Simon, 1909. (2) The name fulvipes Simon, 1896, as published in the binomen Castianeira fulvipes, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 3331 An application to conserve the specific name of Cambalida coriacea Simon, 1909 by the suppression of its senior subjective synonym Castianeira fulvipes Simon, 1896 was received from C.R. Haddad (Department of Zoology & Entomology, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa) on 27 September 2004. After correspon- dence the case was published in BZN 63: 17-19 (March 2006). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. A comment proposing an alternative solution avoiding conservation of Cambalida coriacea Simon, 1909 was published in BZN 63: 201. Decision of the Commission On | March 2007 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 63: 18. At the close of the voting period on | June 2007 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — none. Negative votes — 27: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, Halliday, Kerzhner, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Lim, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Ng, Pape, Papp, Patterson, Pyle, Rosenberg, Song, Stys, van Tol and Zhang. Commissioners voting against did not consider that current usage of the junior synonym was adequately established to justify its conservation and favoured regular application of the Code. Original reference The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: fulvipes, Castianeira, Simon, 1896, Annales de la Société entomologique de Belgique, 40: 406. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 197 OPINION 2178 (Case 3346) Misumena nepenthicola (currently Henriksenia nepenthicola; Arachnida, Araneae, THOMISIDAE): proposed attribution of authorship to Pocock (1898) not approved Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the proposed attribution of authorship of the nepenthicolous thomisid spider Miswmena nepenthicola to Pocock (1898) is not approved. The name M. nepenthicola (currently Henriksenia nepenthicola) 1s com- monly but incorrectly attributed to Pocock, and is threatened by the available but not widely used name Misumenops nepenthicola Bristowe, 1930 and by its primary homonym Misumenops nepenthicola Fage, 1928, used for a different spider species from Singapore. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Arachnida; Araneae; MISUMENINI; Misumena; Misumenops; Henriksenia; Henriksenia nepenthicola; Borneo; Singapore; crab spiders; Nepenthes pitchers. Ruling (1) It is hereby ruled that the proposed attribution of the name Misumena nepenthicola to Pocock (1898) 1s not approved. (2) No names are placed on the Official Lists or Indexes in this ruling. History of Case 3346 An application to attribute the name Misumena nepenthicola to Pocock (1898) was received from Pekka T. Lehtinen (Centre for Biodiversity, University of Turku, Turku, FIN-20014, Finland) on 15 April 2005. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 63: 102-105 (June 2006). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 2007 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 63: 103. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 2007 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 10: Fautin, Grygier, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Ng, Papp, Patterson, Pyle and Song. Negative votes — 16: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Halliday, Kerzhner, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Lim, Minelli, Pape, Rosenberg, Stys and van Tol. Zhang abstained. Commissioners voting against considered that the implications of approval of the proposal were unclear, and that the application was premature. No names were placed on the Official Lists or Indexes. 198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 OPINION 2179 (Case 3344) Pseudorthocladius Goetghebuer, 1943 and Mesosmittia Brundin, 1956 (Insecta, Diptera, CHIRONOMIDAE): generic names conserved Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the generic names Pseudorthocladius Goetghebuer, 1943 and Mesosmittia Brundin, 1956 for two widespread genera of non-biting midges are conserved by the suppression of Pseudorthocladius Edwards, 1932. Pseudorthocladius Edwards, 1932 is a senior homonym of Pseudorthocladius Goetghebuer, 1943, but has not been used for the last 50 years, being replaced with Mesosmittia Brundin, 1956. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; CHIRONOMIDAE; Pseudorthocladius; Meso- smittia; Pseudorthocladius curtistylus; Mesosmittia flexuella; non-biting midges. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the name Pseudorthocladius Edwards, 1932 is suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: E (a) Pseudorthocladius Goetghebuer, 1943 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation Psectrocladius curtistylus Goetghebuer, 1921; (b) Mesosmittia Brundin, 1956 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation and monotypy Spaniotoma (Orthocladius) flexuella Edwards, 1929. The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) curtistylus Goetghebuer, 1921, as published in the binomen Psectro- cladius curtistylus (specific name of the type species of Pseudorthocladius Goetghebuer, 1943); (b) flexuella Edwards, 1929, as published in the binomen Spaniotoma (Orthocladius) flexuella (specific name of the type species of Mesosmittia Brundin, 1956). The name Pseudorthocladius Edwards, 1932, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. — eS) = (4 — History of Case 3344 An application to conserve the generic names Pseudorthocladius Goetghebuer, 1943 and Mesosmittia Brundin, 1956 for two widespread genera of non-biting midges by the suppression of Pseudorthocladius Edwards, 1932 was received from Martin Spies (Zoologische Staatssammlung Miinchen, D-81247 Miinchen, Germany on 12 April 2005. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 63: 122-126 (June 2006). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 199 Decision of the Commission On 1 March 2007 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 63: 124. At the close of the voting period on | June 2007 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 23: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, Halliday, Kerzhner, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Ng, Pape, Papp, Patterson, Pyle, Song, van Tol and Zhang. Negative votes — 4: Kottelat, Lim, Rosenberg and Stys. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: curtistylus, Psectrocladius, Goetghebuer, 1921, Mémoires du Musée royal d’histoire naturelle de Belgique, 8(4): 101. flexuella, Spaniotoma ( Orthocladius), Edwards, 1929, Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London, 77: 349. Mesosmittia Brundin, 1956, Reports from the Institute of Freshwater Research, Drottningholm, 37: 163. Pseudorthocladius Edwards, 1932, The Entomologist, 65: 141. Pseudorthocladius Goetghebuer, 1943, Die Fliegen der palaearktischen Region, vol. 3, p. 93. 200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 OPINION 2180 (Case 3334) Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, PrERIDAE): given precedence over Colias hyale sareptensis Alphéraky, 1875, Colias hyale alba Rihl, 1893 and Colias hyale meridionalis Krulikowsky, 1903 Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the name a/facariensis Ribbe, 1905, which is in widespread use for a butterfly species of the genus Co/ias Fabricius, 1807 (family PIERIDAE), 1s conserved by giving it precedence over three little used senior subjective synonyms, Colias hyale sareptensis Alphéraky, 1875, Colias hyale alba Ruhl, 1893 and Colias hyale meridionalis Krulikowsky, 1903. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lepidoptera; PIERIDAE; Colias alfacariensis; Colias sareptensis; Colias alba; Colias meridionalis; Europe; Russia; Iran. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the name alfacariensis (3 — — Ribbe, 1905, as published in the trinomen Colias hyale alfacariensis, is given precedence over the names sareptensis Alphéraky, 1875, as published in the trinomen Colias hyale ‘sareptensis, and alba Ruthl, 1893, as published in the trinomen Colias hyale alba, and meridionalis Krulikowsky, 1903, as published in the trinomen Colias hyale meridionalis, whenever it and any of the other three are considered to be synonyms. The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) sareptensis Alphéraky, 1875, as published in the trinomen Colias hyale sareptensis, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905, as published in the trinomen Colias hyale alfacariensis, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (b) alba Rithl, 1893, as published in the trinomen Colias hyale alba, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905, as published in the trinomen Colias hyale alfacariensis, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (c) meridionalis Krulikowsky, 1903, as published in the trinomen Colias hyale meridionalis, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905, as published in the trinomen Colias hyale alfacariensis, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. The entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905, as published in the trinomen Colias hyale alfacariensis, is hereby emended to record that it is to be given precedence over sareptensis Alphéraky, 1875, as published in the trinomen Colias hyale sareptensis, alba Ruhl, 1893, as published in the trinomen Colias hyale alba, and meridionalis Krulikowsky, 1903, as published in the trinomen Colias hyale meridionalis, whenever it and any of the other three names are considered to be synonyms. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 201 History of Case 3334 An application to give the name Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 precedence over the senior subjective synonyms, Colias hyale sareptensis Alphéraky, 1875, Colias hyale alba Ruhl, 1893 and Colias hyale meridionalis Krulikowsky, 1903 was received from J. Grieshuber (Singham 42, 94086 Bad Griesbach, Germany), R. Worthy (10 The Hill, Church Hill, Caterham, Surrey CR3 6SD, U.K.) and G. Lamas (Museo de Historia Natural, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima-14, Peru) on 11 January 2005. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 63: 106-113 (June 2006). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On | March 2007 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 63: 111-112. At the close of the voting period on | June 2007 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bogutskaya, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, Halliday, Kerzhner, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Ng, Papp, Patterson, Pyle, Rosenberg, Song, Stys and Zhang. Negative votes — 4: Bouchet, Lim, Pape and van Tol. Lamas abstained. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on, or emended on, an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: alba, Colias hyale, Ruhl, 1893, Die palaearktischen Grossschmetterlinge und ihre Naturges- chichte. 1. Band Tagfalter, p. 156. alfacariensis, Colias hyale, Ribbe, 1905, Societas Entomologica, 20(18): 137. meridionalis, Colias hyale, Krulikowsky, 1903, Revue Russe d’Entomologie, 3(5): 302. sareptensis, Colias hyale, Alphéraky, 1875, Trudy Russkago Entomologicheskago obshchestva, 8: 153-154. 202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 OPINION 2181 (Case 3342) Phalaena croesella Scopoli, 1763 (currently Adela croesella; Insecta, Lepidoptera): usage conserved by designation of a neotype Abstract. The Commission has conserved the usage of the specific name of Phalaena croesella Scopoli, 1763 (currently Adela croesella) for a common European fairy moth (family ADELIDAE) by designating a neotype. All type fixations for Phalaena croesella Scopoli, 1763 have been set aside and a neotype designated. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; ADELIDAE; Phalaena; Adela; Adela croesella; Nemophora degeerella; fairy moth; Europe. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that all previous type fixations for the nominal species croesella Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Phalaena croesella, are set aside and the specimen in the Natural History Museum, London, bearing two labels: 5x 7mm, black ink ‘Croat.fia] | Man[n]; .8x10mm, black ink and print ‘Zeller Coll. | Walsingham | Collection | 1910-427’ is designated as the neotype. (2) The name croesella Seopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Phalaena croesella and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 3342 An application to conserve the usage of the specific name Phalaena croesella Scopoh, 1763 (currently Adela croesella) by designating a neotype was received from Mikhail V. Kozlov (Section of Ecology, University of Turku, Finland) on 7 March 2005. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 63: 118-121 (June 2006). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On | March 2007 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 63: 120. At the close of the voting period on | June 2007 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 23: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Halliday, Kerzhner, Krell, Lamas, Lim, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Ng, Pape, Papp, Patterson, Pyle, Rosenberg, Song, Stys and van Tol. Negative votes — 4: Grygier, Kottelat, Kullander and Zhang. Original reference The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: croesella, Phalaena, Scopoli, 1763, Entomologia Carniolica exhibens insecta Carnioliae indigena et distributa in ordines, genera, species, varietates. Methodo Linnaeana, p. 251. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 203 OPINION 2182 (Case 3348) Palamopus E. Hitchcock, 1845 (Ichnotaxa, Reptilia?): conserved Abstract. The Commission has conserved the name of the supposed reptilian ichnogenus Palamopus E. Hitchcock, 1845 of Triassic — Jurassic age. Palamopus 1s sometimes considered to be a junior objective synonym of Sauroidichnites E. Hitchcock, 1837, but Palamopus is currently in use and the Commission has ruled that Sauroidichnites is not to be treated as a senior synonym of Palamopus. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; ichnotaxa; Reptilia; Ornithichnites; Sauroidich- nites; Palamopus; Palamopus palmatus; tetrapod footprints; Triassic; Jurassic. Ruling (1) It is hereby ruled that the name Sauroidichnites E. Hitchcock, 1837 is a nomen oblitum and not to be treated as a senior synonym of Palamopus E. Hitchcock, 1845. (2) The name Palamopus E. Hitchcock, 1845 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Ornithichnites palmatus E. Hitchcock, 1836, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name palmatus E. Hitchcock, 1836, as published in the binomen Orni- thichnites palmatus (specific name of the type species of Palamopus Hitchcock, 1845) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Palamopus Hitchcock, 1848 (a junior homonym of Palamopus Hitchcock, 1845) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of Case 3348 An application to conserve the name Palamopus Hitchcock, 1845 was received from Emma C. Rainforth (School of Theoretical and Applied Science, Ramapo College of New Jersey, Mahwah, NJ 07430, U.S.A.) on 15 April 2005. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 62: 237-239 (December 2005). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. A supportive comment was published in BZN 63: 49-50. An amendment to the author’s proposal was published in BZN 63: 131-133, to which the author of the case replied in BZN 63: 202-204. Decision of the Commission On | March 2007 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 62: 238, together with the amendment published in BZN 63: 133. At the close of the voting period on | June 2007 the votes for the combined proposals were as follows: Affirmative votes — 19: Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Halliday, Kerzhner, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Lim, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Pape, Papp, Patterson, Pyle and Song. 204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 Negative votes — 7: Alonso-Zarazaga, Grygier, Kottelat, Ng, Rosenberg, Stys and van Tol. Zhang abstained. Commissioners voting against the original proposal and its amendment favoured following priority. Original references The following are the original reference to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Palamopus E. Hitchcock, 1845, Proceedings of the American Association of Geologists and Naturalists, 6: 24. Palamopus E. Hitchcock, 1848, American Academy of Arts and Sciences Memoir (new series), ap ZiT. palmatus, Ornithichnites, E. Hitchcock, 1836, American Journal of Science (series 1), 29: 324. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 205 OPINION 2183 (Case 3204) Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 (currently Genetta maculata; Mammalia, Carnivora): specific name not conserved Abstract. It is hereby ruled that the specific name of Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 (currently Genetta maculata; family VIVERRIDAE) for a species of African genet (a placental carnivore) is not conserved. The name is a junior primary homonym of Viverra maculata Kerr, 1792 (currently Dasyurus maculatus), which is used for a marsupial mammal commonly known as the tiger quoll (family DASYURIDAE). Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Carnivora; VIVERRIDAE; Genetta maculata; Dasyurus maculatus; rusty-spotted genet; Africa. Ruling (1) It is hereby ruled that the specific name maculata Gray, 1830, as published in the binomen Viverra maculata, is not conserved. (2) The name maculata Gray, 1830, as published in the binomen Viverra maculata, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology (a junior homonym of Viverra maculata Kerr, 1792). History of Case 3204 An application to conserve the specific name of Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 was received from P. Gaubert, M. Tranier and G. Veron (Muséum National d Histoire Naturelle, F-75005 Paris, France), D. Kock (Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, D-60325 Frankfurt am Main, Germany), A.E. Dunham (State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794, U.S.A.), P.J. Taylor (Durban Natural Science Museum, Durban 4000, Republic of South Africa), C. Stuart and T. Stuart (African-Arabian Wildlife Research Centre, Loxton 6985, Republic of South Africa) and W.C. Wozencraft (Division of Natural Sciences, Bethel College, Mishawaka, IN 46545, U.S.A.) on 8 May 2001. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 45-47 (March 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. Opposing comments were published in BZN 61: 119-122 and 257-260, to which two of the authors of the case replied in BZN 62: 242-244. Decision of the Commission On | September 2006 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 46. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2006 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 18; Negative votes — 10. In accordance with Article 12 of the Constitution, the proposals were resubmitted to the Commission on | March 2007. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 2007 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 11: Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Grygier, Halliday, Kerzhner, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Papp and Zhang. 206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 Negative votes — 15: Alonso-Zarazaga, Fautin, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Lim, Macpherson, Ng, Pape, Patterson, Pyle, Rosenberg, Song and van Tol. Stys abstained. Original reference The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: maculata, Viverra, Gray, 1830, Spicilegia Zoologica, p. 9. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 207 OPINION 2184 (Case 3373) Ateles geoffroyi (Mammalia, Primates): authorship attributed to Kuhl, 1820 Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the common but incorrect attribution of the name of the spider monkey Afe/es geoffroyi to Kuhl (1820) is validated. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Ateles; Ateles geoffroyi; Kuhl; Nicaragua; spider monkey. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the specific name of Ateles geoffroyi is available from Kuhl (1820). (2) The name geoffroyi Kuhl, 1820, as published in the combination ‘Afteles Geoffroy. mihi species inedita’ and ruled in (1) above to be Ateles geoffroyi, 1s hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 3373 An application to validate the common but incorrect attribution of the name Ateles geoffroyi to Kuhl (1820) was received from Colin Groves and Justin J.H. Hines (School of Archaeology & Anthropology, Australian National University, Canberra, A.C.T. 0200, Australia) and Paulina D. Jenkins (Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.) on 20 December 2004. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 63: 127-129 (June 2006). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On | March 2007 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 63: 128. At the close of the voting period on | June 2007 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 19: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Halliday, Kerzhner, Kottelat, Lamas, Lim, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Ng, Pape, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Song and van Tol. Negative votes — 8: Bogutskaya, Grygier, Krell, Kullander, Minelli, Pyle, Stys and Zhang. Original reference The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: geoffroyi, Ateles, Kuhl, 1820, Beitrége zur Zoologie und vergleichenden Anatomie, p. 26. 208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(3) September 2007 Official Correction: TUBULANIDAE Birger, 1904 (1874) (Nemertea) A Case was received from Hiroshi Kajihara (Division of Biological Sciences, Graduate School of Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060-0810, Japan) to amend the entry on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology for TUBULANIDAE Birger, 1905 (1874) to record that its correct publication date is 1904 (1874). The history of the Case and a list of publications using the correct date (1904) are held by the Secretariat. In accordance with Article 80.4 of the Code the Commission can publish an Official Correction without further vote as it does not negate Opinion 1486 (BZN 45: 157-158; 1988) or its consequences. The entry on the Official List should read ‘TUBULANIDAE Birger, 1904 (1874), in: Nemertini Das Tierreich, Lief. 20, p. 10 (type genus: Tubulanus Renier, [1804]), under Article 40.2 of the Code a name having precedence over, but taking the date of, its senior subjective synonym CARINELLIDAE MclInstosh, 1874 (type genus: Carinella Johnston, 1833) (Nemertea). Op. 1486’. The reason for the error was that the original source of the name was apparently overlooked. References Birger, O. 1904. Nemertini. Das Tierreich, Lief. 20. 151 pp. Verlag R. Friedlander & Sohn, Berlin. Birger, O. 1905. Nemertini, Lfg. 23-26. Bronn’s Thier-Reich, vol. 4 Suppl. Contents — continued OPINION 2177 (Case 3331). Castianeira fulvipes Simon, 1896 (Arachnida, ee precedence over Cambalida coriacea Simon, 1909 maintained . a OPINION 2178 (Case 3346). Misumena nepenthicola (currently Henriksenia nepen- thicola; Arachnida, Araneae, THOMISIDAE): proposed attribution of authorship to Pocock (1898) not approved . OPINION 2179 (Case 3344). Pseudor Rioelecioes Goetghebuer, 1943 ona Mesosminin Brundin, 1956 (Insecta, Diptera, CHTRONOMIDAE): generic names conserved . OPINION 2180 (Case 3334). Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, PIERIDAE): given precedence over Colias hyale sareptensis Alphéraky, 1875, Colias hyale alba Ruhl, 1893 and Colias hyale meridionalis Krulikowsky, 1903 . : OPINION 2181 (Case 3342). Phalaena croesella Scopoli, 1763 (currently Adela croesella; Insecta, Lepidoptera): usage conserved by designation of a neotype. OPINION 2182 (Case 3348). ee E. Hitchcock, 1845 (Ichnotaxa, Reptilia?): conserved. . . SNH Sees) x ten RAE ne ee RL eaten ane eo eR OPINION 2183 (Gs 3204). Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 (currently Genetta maculata; Mammalia, Carnivora): specific name not conserved . OPINION 2184 (Case 3373). Ateles Sear (Mammalia, Us authorship attributed to Kuhl, 1820 . F Le Soh Official Correction TUBULANIDAE Birger, 1904 (1874) (Nemertea) . 208 CONTENTS INSTITUTION LIBRARIES Notices . en ~ I ‘nn Call for nominations for new members oe fhe lntenaaiene Commeccan on Zoological Nomenclature . ; : General Session of the Gonmiieions HESitnys om. DC. 9- 3 May, 2 2007, an conjunction with the 29th IUBS General Assembly . : ae Applications Conus jaspideus Gmelin, 1791 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the specific name by designation of a neotype. A.J. Kohn & D.L.N. Vink Cancer setosus Fabricius, 1798 (currently Pseudograpsus setosus; Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed sa of a SURES by a neotype. N.K. Ng & P.K.L. INE SS Heterocarpus ‘uhawe Bate, 1988 (Cusnex Decapoda, PANDALIDAB): qraaaee? replacement of the holotype by a neotype. X. Li, T.-Y. Chan & P.K.L. Ng Geophilus linearis C.L. Koch, 1835 and Geophilus sorrentinus Attems, 1903 (currently Stenotaenia linearis and S. sorrentina; Chilopoda): proposed conservation of the specific names. L. Bonato & A. Minelli Mecistocephalus Newport, 1843 and Pachymerium Rear 1847 ‘(Chilopoda): ae posed conservation of current usage by designation of Mecistocephalus punctifrons Newport, 1843 as the type species of Mecistocephalus Newport, 1843. L. Bonato & A. Minelli. Hemerobius elegans Stephens) 1836 omens Sy sae eae ceca) andl omer ins elegans Guérin-Méneville, 1844 (currently Vieira elegans) (Insecta, Neuroptera): proposed conservation of the specific names. J.D. Oswald . Buprestis angustula Mliger, 1803 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed peeetene a the specific name over that of Buprestis pavida Fabricius, 1793. E. Jendek Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 (Aves): proposed conservation of usage by designation of a neotype. W.J. Bock & P. Buhler Comments On the proposed conservation of usage of Cardium egmontianum Shuttleworth, 1856 (currently Trachycardium egmontianum; Mollusca, Bivalvia). R.C. Willan On the proposed conservation of Termes serratus Froggatt, 1898 (currently Micro- cerotermes serratus) and Termes serrula Desneux, 1904 (currently Microcerotermes serrula) (Insecta, Isoptera, TERMITINAE). Y. Roisin & J.M. Pasteels . : On the proposed fixation of the feminine gender of the genus and the form 5 derivation of family-group names based on Trachys (Insecta, Coleoptera). M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga . On the proposed sieeetones of Pape Fipriole tices 1803 (isso, Coleoptera) over Buprestis pavida Fabricius, 1793. C.L. Bellamy; G. Curletti; Bily. On the proposed conservation of Columba roseogrisea Sundeyall, 1857 (currently Streptopelia roseogrisea; Aves, COLUMBIDAE). P. Salaman. Rulings of the Commission OPINION 2175 (Case 3315). Eudendrium tenellum Allman, 1877 (Cnidaria, Hydro- zoa): proposed designation of a neotype not accepted . : OPINION 2176 (Case 3319). Helix papillaris Miller, 1774 (rer Papilifer papillaris; Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific name not conserved : Page 137 137 138 140 144 149 155 160 166 185 185 187 19] 192 193 195 Continued on Inside Back Cover Printed in the United Kingdom by Henry Ling Limited, at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, DT] 1HD TR ee oR The ; Bulletin Zoological Nomenclature ne NAT; 2 “o> on b Solgea Nomenclature a SOT * THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 2008 is £160 or US$320 or €280, postage included; individual subscribers for personal use are offered a subscription of £80 or US$160 or €140. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 020 7942 5653) (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) (http://www.iczn.org) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Officers President Vice-President Executive Secretary Vacant Members Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga (Spain; Coleoptera) Dr N. G. Bogutskaya (Russia; Ichthyology) Prof P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) Prof D. J. Brothers (South Africa; Hymenoptera) Prof D. G. Fautin (U.S. A.; Cnidaria) Dr M. J. Grygier (Japan; Crustacea) Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari) Prof I. M. Kerzhner (Russia; Heteroptera) Dr M. Kottelat (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Dr F.-T. Krell (U.S.A.; Coleoptera) Dr S. O. Kullander (Sweden; Ichthyology) Prof Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera) Prof S$. Lim (Malaysia; Parasitology) Secretariat Prof D. J. Brothers (South Africa) Dr A. Polaszek (U.K) Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan; Bryozoa) Prof A. Minelli (/taly; Myriapoda) Dr P. K. L. Ng (Singapore; Crustacea, Ichthyology) Dr T. Pape (Denmark; Diptera) Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera) Prof D. J. Patterson (U.S.A.; Protista) Dr R. Pyle (U.S.A.; Ichthyology) Dr G. Rosenberg (U.S. A.; Mollusca) Prof D. X. Song (China; Hirudinea) Prof P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) Mr J. van Tol (The Netherlands; Odonata) Dr Z.-Q. Zhang (New Zealand; Acari) Dr A. Polaszek (Executive Secretary and Bulletin Editor) Dr S. Coppard (Development Officer) Mrs S. Morris (Zoologist) Dr S. Nikolaeva (Zoologist) Mr S. Tracey (Scientific Administrator) Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman) Dr P. L. Forey (Secretary and Managing Director) © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2007 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) DecemBe BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 64, part 4 (pp. 209-286) 20 December 2007 Notices (1) Applications and correspondence relating to applications to the Commission should be sent to the Executive Secretary at the address given on the inside of the front cover and on the Commission website. English is the official language of the Bulletin. Please take careful note of instructions to authors (present in a one or two page form in each volume) as incorrectly formatted applications will be returned to authors for revision. The Commission’s Secretariat will answer general nomenclatural (as opposed to purely taxonomic) enquiries and assist with the formulation of applications. As far as it can, the Secretariat will check the main nomenclatural references in applications. Correspondence should be sent by e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ where possible. (2) The Commission votes on applications eight months after they have been published, although this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Comments for publication relating to applications (either in support or against, or offering alternative solutions) should be submitted as soon as possible. Comments may be edited. (3) Requests for help and advice on the Code can be made direct to the Commission and other interested parties via the Internet. Membership of the Commission’s Discussion List is free of charge. You can subscribe and find out more about the list at http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list. (4) The Commission also welcomes the submission of general-interest articles on nomenclatural themes or nomenclatural notes on particular issues. These may deal with taxonomy, but should be mainly nomenclatural in content. Articles and notes should be sent to the Executive Secretary. New applications to the Commission The following new applications have been received since the last issue of the Bulletin (volume 64, part 3, 30 September 2007) went to press. Under Article 82 of the Code, the existing usage of names in the applications is to be maintained until the Commission’s rulings on the applications (the Opinions) have been published. CASE 3431: Procynosuchus Broom, 1937 (Therapsida, Cynodontia): proposed precedence over Cyrbasiodon Broom, 1931 and Parathrinaxodon Parrington, 1936. C.F. Kammerer & F. Abdala. CASE 3432: Homo antquus Ferguson, 1984 (Mammalia, HOMINIDAE): proposed precedence over “Homo antquus Adloff, 1908” and others. W.W. Ferguson. CASE 3433: Eudendrium carneum Clarke, 1882 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): proposed conservation of usage of the specific name, and precedence over Eudendrium exiguum Allman, 1877 and Eudendrium cochleatum Allman, 1877. A.C. Marques. 210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 CASE 3434: Scleropauropus Silvestri, 1902 (Myriapoda, Pauropoda): proposed conservation of usage by replacement of the holotype of the type species Scleropau- ropus hastifer Silvestri, 1902 with a neotype, and replacement of the holotype of Scleropauropus lyrifer (Remy 1936) by designation of a neotype. U. Scheller & A. Minelli. CASE 3435: Bagauda Bergroth, 1903 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed precedence over Pleias Kirkaldy, 1901. D. Réde1. CASE 3436: Pachynematus Konow, 1890 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of the generic name by suppression of the name Epitactus Forster, 1854. A.D. Liston. CASE 3437: Vipera latastei Bosca, 1878 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conserva- tion of the spelling of the specific name over Vipera latasti Bosca, 1878. X. Santos, J.C. Brito & M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga. CASE 3438: Crassolabium Yeates, 1967 and Thonus Thorne, 1974 (Nematoda, QUDSIANEMATIDAE): proposed reversal of precedence. R. Pena-Santiago & M. Ciobanu. CASE 3439: Xantholinus gracilis Sperk, 1835 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of prevailing usage by designation of a neotype. J. Frisch & L.H. Herman. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 211 INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Financial Report for the year 2006 The main work of the commission during the year was on applications from zoologists in 22 countries to resolve problems of zoological nomenclature. These were published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, together with Opinions (rulings) made by the Commission on other cases. Further applications were under consideration. Advice was given by the Commission’s Secretariat in response to a large number of enquiries on matters of nomenclature from zoologists worldwide. Mr Steve Tracey was appointed during the year as Scientific Administrator, replacing Mr Jeremy D.D. Smith, who continues to work for the Secretariat as a part-time consultant to digitise all of the Official Lists and Indexes. Total income received by the Trust consisted of £31,286 for all publications produced by the Commission, £51,586 from Appeal and general donations, £9,618 in bank interest and investment income, and £6,263 capital gain on the sale of investments, bringing the total income for the year to £98,753. Expenditure in 2006 was £91,805 on salaries and fees of the Secretariat of the Commission, £6,069 on ZooBank travel and the Appeal (excluding salaries), £9,035 for printing the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and for the distribution of all publications, and £2,438 for office expenses and depreciation of office equipment, bringing the total expenditure to £109,347. The Secretariat of the Commission was again housed in The Natural History Museum, London, whom we thank for their continuing support. The Trust wishes to express its thanks to all the donors listed below who have contributed to the continuation of its work during the year for the international zoological and palaeontological community. Donations were received from: American Association for Zoological Nomenclature An anonymous donor Canadian Society of Zoologists Friends of the Natural History Museum, London Gatsby Charitable Foundation Ichthyological Society of Japan Internationaler Entomologischer Verein Dr J. Taverne Taylor and Francis Ltd (for ZooBank) Dr F.C. Thompson Wellcome Trust P.L. Forey, Secretary and Managing Director 212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2006 Income SALE OF PUBLICATIONS Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature International Code of Zoological Nomenclature Royalties on International Code Official Lists and Indexes APPEAL FUND, GRANTS AND DONATIONS INTEREST RECEIVED INVESTMENT INCOME CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF INVESTMENTS Expenditure SALARIES, NATIONAL INSURANCE AND FEES OFFICE EXPENSES £27,326 1,924 1,500 536 31,286 PRINTING OF BULLETIN AND DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLICATIONS . APPEAL EXPENDITURE INCLUDING TRAVEL DEPRECIATION OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT DEFICIT FOR THE YEAR CARRIED TO BALANCE SHEET 51,586 968 8,650 6,263 98,753 91,805 1,664 9,035 6,069 774 109,347 £10,594 w Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 21 Case 3362 Phreatamoeba balamuthi Chavez, Balamuth & Gong, 1986 (currently Mastigamoeba balamuthi; Protista, Pelobiontida): proposed conservation of the specific name Giselle Walker University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, U.K. (e-mail: gw265@cam.ac.uk) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name Phreatamoeba balamuthi Chavez, Balamuth & Gong, 1986 (currently Mastigamoeba balamuthi) for a free-living, polymorphic amoeba. The name Mastigamoeba balamuthi is widely used and almost universally accepted, but is threatened by its senior subjective synonym Mastigamoeba longifilum Stokes, 1886. No name-bearing types have been fixed for either species in the original publications. Lectotypes based on illustrations are designated here for Mastigamoeba longifilum Stokes, 1886, and Mastigamoeba balamuthi (Chavez, Balamuth & Gong, 1986). In order to maintain the stable usage of M. balamuthi, it is proposed to conserve the specific name M. balamuthi (Chavez, Balamuth & Gong, 1986) by suppressing M. longifilum Stokes, 1886. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Protista; Pelobiontida; Mastigamoeba; Phreatamoeba; Mastigamoeba balamuthi; Mastigamoeba_ longifilum; pelobiont; mastigamoebid; flagellated amoeba. 1. Mastigamoeba longifilum Stokes, 1886 (p. 562) was originally described from North America as a flagellated amoeba with hyaline, lobate pseudopodia, individuals being 10-25 microns long. Its circumscription was later extended (Calaway & Lackey, 1962) to being 10-35 microns long. At the time of the description of Mastigamoeba longifilum in 1886 the genus Mastigamoeba Schulze, 1875 contained amoeboid, flagellated species with hyaline lobate pseudopodia which were different from the long, filose pseudopodia of Cercomonas Dujardin, 1841. The description in 1897 of the genus Mastigella Frenzel, 1897 to contain species where the nucleus is detached from the flagellum, had the effect of narrowing the circumscription of Mastigamoeba to contain species where the nucleus is attached to the base of the flagellum. Mastigamoeba longifilum remained placed in the genus on the basis of its description, which clearly shows an organelle (inferred to be the nucleus) at the base of the flagellum. 2. Mastigamoeba longifilum Stokes, 1886 was not differentiated from other species of Mastigamoeba at the time of its description; however it is the first recognisable described species of Mastigamoeba with the characteristics of the genus but no other distinguishing features. It lacks the refringent bodies on the outside of the cell that define the type species, WM. aspera Schulze, 1875; the bulk of its nucleus is not removed from the base of its flagellum, as is the case in M. simplex Kent, 1880. Mastigamoeba 214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 longifilum was treated as a valid species by Stokes (1886, 1888), Goldschmidt (1907), Lemmermann (1914), Lackey (1923), Calaway & Lackey (1962), Skuja (1964) and Larsen & Patterson (1990). 3. For many free-living protists types have never been fixed because observations are often made on ephemeral samples or because fixation does not preserve diagnostic features. Larsen and Patterson (1990) discussed this problem and advo- cated the use of specimens represented by uninterpreted images (photographs) as type material, an approach that is consistent with Article 73.1.4 of the Code (Designation of an illustration of a single specimen as a holotype). Using recommendation 73F and _ Article 74.4 of the Code, a syntype figured by Stokes (1886, fig. 1) is designated here as the lectotype of Mastigamoeba longifilum Stokes, 1886. This figure shows the flagellated amoeba, lacking other distinguishing features, which is recognisable as M. longifilum Stokes, 1886. 4. Chavez, Balamuth & Gong, 1986 (p. 398) established the taxon Phreatamoeba balamuthi gen. n., sp. n. as the type species of Phreatamoeba by monotypy and original designation. Phreatamoeba balamuthi Chavez, Balamuth & Gong, 1986 (currently Mastigamoeba balamuthi) was described as polymorphic and pleomorphic, with a dominant multinucleate amoeboid stage, and uninucleate amoeboid flagellated and cyst stages. At the time of its description, it was assigned to a new genus and species, Phreatamoeba balamuthi and was incertae sedis on the basis that it was distinct from PARAMOEBIDAE, Pelobiontida (= Pelomyxa), Schizopyrenida (all sensu Page, 1976a, b) and the MASTIGAMOEBIDAE (= all pelobionts except Pelomyxa; on the grounds that mastigamoebids are ‘zooflagellates whose members possess a permanent flagellum’). Phreatamoeba was assigned to the pelobionts in 1991 (Mylnikov, 1991; Brugerolle, 1991a, b; Page & Siemensma, 1991) with new data demonstrating that its ultrastructure was the same as that of Mastigamoeba (Brugerolle, 1991a, b). Studies of the morphological variation in pelobionts (Goldschmidt, 1907; Simpson et al., 1997) suggested that pelobionts are generally both polymorphic in their life cycle and pleomorphic as individuals. On these grounds the genus Phreatamoeba was judged to be a junior synonym of Mastigamoeba (Simpson et al., 1997, p. 95) and the generic assignment of P. balamuthi Chavez, Balamuth & Gong, 1986 was changed accord- ingly. Another study extended this observation of polymorphism and pleomorphism to three other species of pelobionts (Walker et al., 2001). Assuming our knowledge of biology of pelobionts (Goldschmidt, 1907; Brugerolle, 1991a, b; Simpson et al., 1997; Walker et al., 2001) applies to all pelobionts, M. balamuthi (Chavez, Balamuth & Gong, 1986) is therefore not differentiable from M. Jongifilum Stokes, 1886. 5. Since its description, M. balamuthi has almost universally been used as the species name for polymorphic mastigamoebid pelobionts with no other distinguish- ing features; Larsen & Patterson (1990) is the single exception. Because of the availability of a culture in a type culture collection, this taxon is now the ‘representative’ pelobiont in studies of molecular phylogenetics, physiology and cell biology, resulting in many papers bearing its name. One reference to M. balamuthi (Chavez, Balamuth & Gong, 1986) (see Bapteste et al., 2002) has been particularly frequently cited, with 145 citations in the last 5 years. An Expressed Sequence Tag (EST) project has been carried out on this taxon, which has 20117 entries in the Genbank sequence database as of May 2007, all of the entries currently bearing the name M. balamuthi. The existence of this EST project implies a high probability of Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 215 numerous further papers bearing the name M. balamuthi being currently underway and being published in the next few years, even if steps are taken to amend the Genbank database in favour of the name M. Jongifilum. Reference to Phreatamoeba balamuthi or Mastigamoeba balamuthi has been made by 81 authors in the last 21 years. A list of 68 papers not cited in this application, that refer to the name, is held by the Commission Secretariat. 6. As discussed above, the pelobionts are not represented by type material that will satisfy the provisions of the Code. Following recommendation 73F (Avoidance of assumption of holotype) and Article 74.4 of the Code (Designation by means of illustration), the specimen figured by Chavez et al. (1986, p. 398, fig. 2) is designated here as the lectotype of Phreatamoeba balamuthi Chavez, Balamuth & Gong, 1986. This figure shows the flagellated amoeba, lacking other distinguishing features, which is recognisable as Mastigamoeba balamuthi. M. balamuthi (Chavez, Balamuth & Gong, 1986) was originally described from a clonal culture that was subsequently deposited with the American Type Culture Collection as Amoeba sp. (http://www. lgepromochem-atcc.com/common/catalog/numSearch/numResults.cfm?atccNum= 30984). 7. Recent studies (Chavez et al., 1986; Griffin, 1988; Brugerolle, 1991a, b; Simpson et al., 1997; Bernard et al., 2000; Walker et al., 2001) have confirmed Goldschmidt’s (1907) observation that there is considerable polymorphism and pleomorphism in any single species of pelobionts. This has been confirmed in all species studied recently with this issue in mind. On the basis of these observations and the absence of type material, many species descriptions (based on single sightings of single individuals) now overlap, and in reviewing the situation we conclude that the number of distinguishable entities (species) is considerably smaller than the number of nominal species and genera (Walker & Patterson, in press). The original descriptions and lectotypes of M. Jongifilum and M. balamuthi do not show any features which could make them mutually distinguishable. The original description and lectotype of M. longifilum cannot be distinguished from the original description or lectotype of M. balamuthi. Consequently it is concluded here that Mastigamoeba longifilum and Mastigamoeba balamuthi are not distinguishable, and that M. balamuthi is a subjective junior synonym of M. Jongifilum. 8. Mastigamoeba longifilum Stokes, 1886 has priority over Mastigamoeba bala- muthi (Chavez, Balamuth & Gong, 1986) if the two are treated as synonyms. Eight publications have included studies of or reference to Mastigamoeba longifilum in the last 120 years (see list above in para. 2), compared to 77 that have dealt with the identity of Mastigamoeba balamuthi in the last 20 years, of which 53 have been published in the last five years. Current usage of M. balamuthi, rather than its senior synonym M. longifilum is pervasive, and the strict application of the Principle of Priority would lead to considerable instability. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to suppress the name Jongifilum Stokes, 1886, as published in the binomen Mastigamoeba longifilum, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name balamuthi Chavez, Balamuth & Gong, 1986, as published in the binomen Phreatamoeba balamuthi; 216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name /ongifilum Stokes, 1886, as published in the binomen Mastigamoeba longifilum and as suppressed in (1) above. References Bapteste, E., Brinkmann, H., Lee, J.A., Moore, D.V., Sensen, C.W., Gordon, P., Duruflée, L., Gaasterland, T., Lopez, P., Miiller, M. & Philippe, H. 2002. The analysis of 100 genes supports the grouping of three highly divergent amoebae: Dictyostelium, Entamoeba, and Mastigamoeba. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 99: 1414-1419. Bernard, C., Simpson, A.G.B. & Patterson, D.J. 2000. Some free-living flagellates (Protista) from anoxic habitats. Ophelia, 52: 113-142. Brugerolle, G. 1991a. Cell organization in free-living amitochondriate heterotrophic flagellates. Pp. 133-148 in Patterson, D.J. & Larsen, J. (Eds.), The Biology of Free-Living Hetero- trophic flagellates. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Brugerolle, G. 1991b. Flagellar and cytoskeletal systems in amitochondrial flagellates: Archamoeba, Metamonada and Parabasala. Protoplasma, 164: 70-90. Calaway, W.T. & Lackey, J.B. 1962. Waste treatment Protozoa. College of Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville. Chavez, L.A., Balamuth, W. & Gong, T. 1986. A light and electron microscopical study of a new polymorphic free-living amoeba, Phreatamoeba balamuthi n. g., n. sp. Journal of Protozoology, 33: 397-404. Dujardin, F. 1841. Histoire naturelle des Zoophytes. 689 pp. Librairie encyclopédique de Roret, Paris. Frenzel, J. 1897. Untersuchungen.tiber die mikroskopische Fauna Argentiniens. Erster Teil: Die Protozoen. I & II Abteilung: die Rhizopoden und Helioamoeben. Nagele, Stuttgart. Goldschmidt, R. 1907. Uber die Lebensgeschichte der Mastigella vitrea n. sp. und Mastigina. setosa n sp. Archiv fiir Protistenkunde, Supplement 1: 83-168. Griffin, J.L. 1988. Fine structure and taxonomic position of the giant amoeboid flagellate Pelomyxa palustris. Journal of Protozoology, 35: 300-315. Kent, W.S. 1880-1881. 4 Manual of the Infusoria, vol. 1. x, 472 pp. David Bogue, London. Lackey, J.B. 1923. The fauna of Imhoff tanks. New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Stations Bulletin, 417: 3-39. Larsen, J. & Patterson, D.J. 1990. Some flagellates (Protista) from tropical marine sediments. Journal of Natural History, 24: 801-937. Lemmermann, E. 1914. Flagellatae 1. Pp. 1-138 im Pascher, A. (Ed.), Die Siisswasser-flora Deutschlands, Osterreichs und der Schweiz. Gustav Fischer, Jena: Mylnikov, A.P. 1991. Diversity of flagellates without mitochondria. Pp. 149-158 in Patterson, D.J. & Larsen, J. (Eds.), The Biology of Free-living Heterotrophic Flagellates. Systematics Association, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Page, F.C. 1976a. A revised classification of the Gymnamoebia (Protozoa: Sarcodina). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 58: 61-77. Page, F.C. 1976b. An illustrated key to freshwater and soil amoebae with notes on cultivation and ecology. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside. Page, F.C. & Siemensma, F.J. 1991. Nackte Rhizopoda und Heliozoea. xi, 297 pp. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart. Schulze, F.E. 1875. Rhizopodenstudien IV. Archiv ftir Mikroskopische Anatomie und Entwick- lungsmechanik, 11: 329-353. Simpson, A.G.B., Bernard, C., Fenchel, T. & Patterson, D.J. 1997. The organisation of Mastigamoeba schizophrenia n. sp.: More evidence of ultrastructural idiosyncrasy and simplicity in pelobiont protests. European Journal of Protistology, 33: 87-98. Skuja, H. 1964. Grundziige der Algenflora und Algenvegetation der Fjeldgegenden um Abisko in Schwedish-Lappland. Nova Acta Regiae Societatis Scientiarum Uppsaliensis, (4)18: 1-465. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 217 Stokes, A.C. 1886. Notices of new fresh-water Infusoria. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 23: 562-568. Stokes, A.C. 1888. A preliminary contribution toward a etiony of the fresh-water Infusoria of the United States. Journal of the Trenton Natural History Society, 1: 73-319. Walker, G. & Patterson, D.J. (in press). The diversity and taxonomy of the Pelobionts. Journal of Natural History. Walker, G., Silberman, J.D., Karpov, S.A., Preisfeld, A., Foster, P., Frolov, A.O., Novozhilov, Y. & Sogin, M.L. 2003. An ultrastructural and molecular study of Hyperamoeba dachnaya, n. sp., and its relationship to the mycetozoan slime moulds. European Journal of Protistology, 39: 319-336. Walker, G., Simpson, A.G.B., Edgcomb, V., Sogin, M. & Patterson, D.J. 2001. Ultrastructural identities of Mastigamoeba punctachora, Mastigamoeba simplex and Mastigella commu- tans, and assessment of hypotheses of relatedness of the pelobionts (Protista). European Journal of Protistology, 37: 25-49. Acknowledgement of receipt of this publication was published in BZN 62: 186. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 Case 3405 Trigonostomum Schmidt, 1852 (Platyhelminthes, TRIGONOSTOMIDAE) and Trigonostomus Brenske, 1893 (Coleoptera, SCARABAEIDAE), proposed conservation of the generic names and proposed emendation of the current spelling of TRIGONOSTOMINA Ohaus, 1912 (Coleoptera, SCARABAEIDAE) to remove homonymy with TRIGONOSTOMIDAE Graff, 1905 (Platyhelminthes) Wim R. Willems Swedish Museum of Natural History, Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Box 50007, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden (e-mail: wim.willems@nrm.se) (current address) & Hasselt University, Research Group Biodiversity, Phylogeny and Population Studies, Centre for Environmental Sciences, Department of SBG, Campus Diepenbeek, Agoralaan building D, B-3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium (e-mail: wim.willems@uhasselt.be) Frank-Thorsten Krell Department of Zoology, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, 2001 Colorado Boulevard, Denver, CO 80205-5798, U.S.A. (e-mail: Frank.Krell@dmns.org) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.4 and 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the widespread usage of the generic name TJrigonostomum Schmidt, 1852 for a group of marine flatworms (family TRIGONOSTOMIDAE) and, under Articles 55 and 29 of the Code, to remove the homonymy between the chafer subtribe name TRIGONOSTOMINA Ohaus, 1912 (type genus Trigonostomum Burmeister, 1844; family scARABAEIDAE) and the flatworm family name TRIGONOsTO- MIDAE Graff, 1905 (type genus TJrigonostomuwm Schmidt, 1852). The flatworm genus-group name 7rigonostomum Schmidt, 1852 is threatened by the chafer name Trigonostomum Burmeister, 1844. It is proposed that Trigonostomum Burmeister, 1844 be suppressed, the incorrect subsequent spelling Trigonostomus Brenske, 1893 be deemed available as a substitute name for Trigonostomum Burmeister, 1844, and that the entire genus name should be adopted as the stem, so that the correct spelling of the chafer subtribe name will become TRIGONOSTOMUSINA Ohaus, 1912 to remove homonymy with Graffs flatworm family name. Trigonostomum seti- gerum Schmidt, 1852 is herein designated as the type species of Hyporhynchus Graff, 1882 to make this genus-group name an objective junior synonym of Trigonostomum Schmidt, 1852 and HypORHYNCHINAE Graff, 1882 an objective senior synonym of TRIGONOSTOMIDAE Graff, 1905. According to Article 23.9.2 of the Code it is herein declared that TRIGONOSTOMIDAE is the valid name and has precedence over HYPORHYNCHINAE. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 219 Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Platyhelminthes; Coleoptera; Rhabdocoela; TRIGONOSTOMIDAE; HYPORHYNCHINAE; SCARABAEIDAE; TRIGONOSTOMUSINA; T1igono- stomum,; Trigonostomus; Trigonostomum setigerum; Trigonostomus mucoreus; marine free-living flatworms; scarab beetles. 1. Burmeister (1844, p. 466) described Trigonostomum for a single species of ruteline beetle (Coleoptera, SCARABAEIDAE) from Madagascar, 7. mucoreum Burmeister, 1844 (p. 467), which is the type species by monotypy. The genus name has been in continuous but scarce use since its description, after 1961 only in catalogues and a checklist (Arrow, 1917, p. 289; Ohaus, 1912b, p. 281, 1935, p. 129, 1941, p. 204; Vinson, 1958, p. 107; Machatschke, 1961, p. 926, 1965, p. 107, 1972, p. 340; Gomy, 2000, p. 61 (in the subsequent incorrect spelling Trigonostonum); Smith, 2006, p. 174). We found no more references from the last 100 years. The genus Trigonostomum contains eight species from Madagascar, Africa, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia, and it is the type genus of the subtribe TRIGONOSTOMINA Ohaus, 1912a (p. 151). 2. Schmidt (1852, p. 500) described Trigonostomum for a single species of flatworm (Platyhelminthes) from the Adriatic Sea, 7. setigerum Schmidt, 1852 (p. 500), which is the type species by monotypy. Trigonostomum Schmidt has been in continuous use since its description, is the type genus of TRIGONOSTOMIDAE Graff, 1905 (p. 109) and frequently appears in current literature (Karling, 1986, pp. 201, 209-210; Armonies & Hellwig-Armonies, 1987, p. 104; Joffe & Kotikova, 1989, pp. 70-72, 74-77, 79-82; Ax & Armonies, 1990, p. 100; Birstein, 1991, p. 108; Watson, 2001, pp. 226-227; Artois et al., 2000, pp. 104-105; Willems et al., 2004, 2005, pp. 96-97, 2006, pp. 3, 5, 8, 11; Faubel, 2005; Faubel & Warwick, 2005, p. 29; a list of 12 further references from the last 50 years and 29 from 1852-1954 is held by the Commission Secretariat). The genus is distributed world-wide and currently contains 17 species (see Willems et al., 2004, for a revision of the genus). Schmidt’s genus name is by far more widely and frequently used than Trigonostomum Burmeister. Changing this name would cause much more confusion than replacing Burmeister’s rarely used name. It is proposed that the name Trigonostomum Burmeister, 1844 be suppressed. 3. Before Graff introduced TRIGONOSTOMIDAE in 1905, he had synonymized Trigonostomum Schmidt, 1852 with his new genus Hyporhynchus Graff, 1882 in his Monographie der Turbellarien (1882, p. 336), justifying this act by a major change of the genus concept. This act is nomenclaturally invalid, but Graff introduced a new family-group name, “Subfamilie Hyporhynchina’ based on Hyporhynchus. Since Hyporhynchus Graff is a junior subjective synonym of Trigonostomuwm Schmidt, 1852 (Willems et al., 2004), TRIGONOSTOMIDAE Graff, 1905 and HyPORHYNCHINAE Graff, 1882 are synonyms, too, with the latter being senior. However, to our knowledge HYPORHYNCHINAE has never been used after 1899 whereas TRIGONOSTOMIDAE has been widely used since its introduction in 1905. According to Article 23.9.2 of the Code we declare that TRIGONOSTOMIDAE Graff, 1905 is the valid name and has precedence over HYPORHYNCHINAE Graff, 1882, which is supported by the following 25 references by 36 authors according to Article 23.9.1.2 of the Code: Ax (1956, 1959, 1971), Riedl (1959); Beauchamp (1961), Luther (1962), Den Hartog (1964), Ax & Heller (1970), 220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 Karling et al. (1972), Ehlers & Ehlers (1980), Odening (1984), Karling (1986), Joffe & Kotikova (1989), Birstein (1991), Jondelius & Thollesson (1993), De Clerck & Schockaert (1995), Watson (1998, 2001), Littlewood et al., 1999a, b, Artois et al. (2000), Zamparo et al. (2001); Willems et al. (2004, 2005); Faubel & Warwick (2005) (12 additional references are held by the Commission Secretariat). To our knowledge the type species of Hyporhynchus Graff, 1905 has never been designated. To avoid future instability, we herewith designate Trigonostomum setigerum Schmidt, 1852 as the type species of Hyporhynchus Graff, 1882, being the same type species as for Trigonostomum Schmidt, 1852 thus making Hyporhynchus an objective synonym of Trigonostomum and HYPORHYNCHINAE an objective synonym of TRIGONOSTOMIDAE. 4. Trigonostomum Burmeister, 1844 has no synonyms (Machatschke, 1972). The similar genus name Trigonostoma Dejean, 1833 (p. 157), although in the same tribe as Trigonostomum Burmeister, was introduced for a different set of species. Trigon- ostoma Dejean, 1833 is a Junior objective synonym of Adoroleptus Brenske, 1893 (see Machatschke, 1972) and is preoccupied by Trigonostoma de Blainville, 1825 (p. 653), which is widely used for a genus of marine snails (Petit & Harasewych, 1990, p. 7; Millard, 2001, p. 528). Thus Trigonostoma Dejean, 1833 cannot be used as a new name for Trigonostomum Burmeister, 1844. Brenske (1893, p. 1) used the spelling ‘Trigonostomus Burm.’ for Trigonostomum Burmeister, 1844 which is an incorrect subsequent spelling, hence, it is not an available name according to Article 33.3 of the Code and probably has never been used since. It is proposed that it is deemed available to enable its use for Trigonostomum Burmeister, 1844 since it is similar to Trigonostomum, fulfils the one-letter difference criterion (Article 56.2 of the Code) and has no homonyms. It would avoid creating a nomen novum and would be the least confusing decision. Applying for a change of the original spelling of Trigonostomum Burmeister to Trigonostomus would be confusing since this spelling is not associated with the original description. Brenske did not include any species when using Trigonostomus. We propose to designate Trigonostomum mucoreum Burmeister, 1844 as the type species for Trigonostomus Brenske, 1893 if the genus name is made available. 5. Since TRIGONOSTOMINA Ohaus, 1912 is a junior homonym of TRIGONOSTOMIDAE Graff, 1905, we propose to emend it to TRIGONOSTOMUSINA by ruling the stem of Trigonostomus Brenske to be TRIGONOSTOMUs-. We propose Trigonostomus Brenske to be the type genus of TRIGONOSTOMUSINA Ohaus, 1912 since we apply for suppression of Trigonostomum Burmeister, 1844, the original type genus of TRIGONOSTOMINA Ohaus, 1912. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power: (a) to suppress the generic name Trigonostomum Burmeister, 1844 and all uses of the name for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (b) to rule that the generic name Trigonostomus is deemed available from Brenske, 1893 and is not invalid by reason of being an incorrect subsequent spelling of Trigonostomum Burmeister, 1844; (c) to designate Trigonostomum mucoreum Burmeister, 1844 as the type species of Trigonostomus Brenske, 1893; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 221 (d) to rule that the stem of the generic name Jrigonostomus Brenske, 1893, as deemed available in (1b) above, is TRIGONOSTOMUS-; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Trigonostomum Schmidt, 1852 (gender: neuter), type species by monotypy Trigonostomum setigerum Schmidt, 1852; (b) Trigonostomus Brenske, 1893 (gender: masculine), type species Trigonosto- mum mucoreum Burmeister, 1844, as designated in (1c) above; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) setigerum Schmidt, 1852, as published in the binomen Trigonostomum setigerum (specific name of the type species of Trigonostomum Schmidt, 1852 and of Hyporhynchus Graff, 1882); (b) mucoreum Burmeister, 1844, as published in the binomen Trigonostomum mucoreum (specific name of the type species of Trigonostomus Brenske, 1893); (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following names: (a) TRIGONOSTOMIDAE Graff, 1905, type genus Trigonostomum Schmidt, 1852 (Platyhelminthes); (b) TRIGONOSTOMUSINA Ohaus, 1912, type genus Trigonostomus Brenske, 1893 (spelling emended by ruling in (1d) above) (Coleoptera); (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Trigonostomum Burmeister, 1844, as suppressed in (la) above; (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the name TRIGONOSTOMINA Ohaus, 1912 (an incorrect original spelling of TRIGONOSTOMUSINA, as ruled in (1d) above). Acknowledgements We are grateful to Dr Dirk Ahrens (Zoologische Staatssammlung, Munich) for drawing our attention to the Trigonostomum homonymy. References Armonies, W. & Hellwig-Armonies, M. 1987. Synoptic patterns of meiofaunal and macrofaunal abundances and specific composition in littoral sediments. He/goldnder Meeresuntersuc- hungen, 41: 82-111. Arrow, G.J. 1917. The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Coleoptera, Lamellicornia Part II. (Rutelinae, Desmonycinae, and Euchirinae). xii, 387 pp., 5 pls. Taylor & Francis, London. Artois, T., Vermin, W. & Schockaert, E. 2000. Rhabdocoela (Platyhelminthes) from the Weddell Sea (Antarctica) with the description of eight new species. Belgian Journal of Zoology, 130: 103-110. Ax, P. 1956. Les Turbellari¢s des étangs cOtiers du littoral Méditerranéen de la France méridionale. Vie et Milieu, 5(Suppl.): 1-215. Ax, P. 1959. Zur Systematik, Okologie und Tiergeographie der Turbellarienfauna in den ponto-kaspischen Brackwassermeeren. Zoologische Jahrbiicher, Abteilung fiir Systematik, Okologie und Geographie der Tiere, 87: 43-184. Ax, P. 1971. Zur Systematik und Phylogenie der Trigonostominae (Turbellaria, Neorhab- docoela). Mikrofauna des Meeresbodens, 4: 141-220. 222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 Ax, P. & Armonies, W. 1990. Brackish water Plathelminthes from Alaska as evidence for the existence of a boreal brackish water community with circumpolar distribution. Micro- fauna Marina, 6: 7-109. Ax, P. & Heller, R. 1970. Neue Neorhabdocoela (Turbellaria) von der Sandstrand der Nordsee-Insel Sylt. Mikrofauna des Meeresbodens, 2: 55-98. Beauchamp, P. de. 1961. Classe des Turbellariés. Turbellaria (Ehrenberg, 1831). Pp. 132-174 in Grassé, P.-P. (Ed.), Traité de Zoologie. Anatomie, Systématique, Biologie. Tome IV Plathelminthes, Mésozoaires, Acanthocéphales, Némertiens ( Premier fascicule). Masson et Cie, Paris. Birstein, V.J. 1991. On the karyotypes of the Neorhabdocoela species and karyological evolution of Turbellaria. Genetica, 83: 107-120. Blainville, H.M.D. de. 1825. Manuel de Malacologie et de Conchyliologie. viii, 664 pp. Levrault, Paris & Strasbourg. Brenske, E. 1893. Zur Kenntnis der Adoretiden Madagascars. Societas Entomologica, 8: \—2. Burmeister, H. 1844. Handbuch der Entomologie, vol. 4(1). xii, 588 pp. Enslin, Berlin. De Clerck, G.G. & Schockaert E.R. 1995. Two peculiar new genera of Typhloplanoida from the Western Indian Ocean. Hydrobiologia, 305: 3-9. Dejean, [P.F.M.A.] 1833. Catalogue des Coléoptéres de la Collection de M. Le Compte Dejean. 2me Livraison. Fascicle 2. Pages 97-176. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris. Den Hartog, C. 1964. A preliminary revision of the Proxenetes group (Trigonostomidae, Turbellaria) I, Il, III. Proceedings van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Weten- schappen Series C, 67: 371-407. Ehlers, U. & Ehlers, B. 1980. Zur Systematik und geographischen Verbreitung interstitieller Turbellarien der Kanarischen Inseln. Mikrofauna des Meeresbodens, 80: 573-593. Faubel, A. 2005. On the synonymy of Scillyvortex phytophilus Faubel and Warwick, 2005 (Plathelminthes). Journal of Natural History, 39: 3481. Faubel, A. & Warwick, R.M. 2005. The marine flora and fauna of the Isles of Scilly: Free-living Plathelminthes (‘Turbellaria’). Journal of Natural History, 39: 1-45. Gomy, Y. 2000. Nouvelle liste chorologique des coléoptéres de V'archipel des Mascareignes. 140 pp. Société réunionnaise des Amis du Muséum, Saint-Denis. Graff, L. yon. 1882. Monographie der Turbellarien. I. Rhabdocoelida. xu, 442 pp. Engelmann, Leipzig. Graff, L. von. 1905. Marine Turbellarien Orotavas und der Kiisten Europas. Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschaftliche Zoologie, 83: 68-148, pls. 2-6. Joffe, B.I. & Kotikova, E.A. 1989. Catecholamines in the nervous system of turbellarians from the family Trigonostomidae (Neorhabdocoela, Typhloplanoida). Proceedings of the Zoological Institute, Leningrad, 195: 70-83. Jondelius, U. & Thollesson, M. 1993. Phylogeny of the Rhabdocoela (Platyhelminthes): a working hypothesis. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 71: 298-308. Karling, T.G. 1986. Free-living marine Rhabdocoela (Platyhelminthes) from the N. American Pacific coast. With remarks on species from other areas. Zoologica Scripta, 15: 201-219. Karling, T.G., Mack-Fira, V. & Dorjes J. 1972. First report on marine microturbellarians from Hawaii. Zoologica Scripta, 1: 251-269. Littlewood, D.T.J., Rohde, K. & Clough, K.A. 1999a. The interrelationships of all major groups of Platyhelminthes: phylogenetic evidence from morphology and molecules. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 66: 75-114. Littlewood, D.T.J., Rohde K., Bray R.A. & Herniou E.A. 1999b. Phylogeny of the Platy- helminthes and the evolution of parasitism. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 68: 257-287. Luther, A. 1962. Die Turbellarien Ostfennoskandiens. III. Neorhabdocoela 1. Dalyellioida, Typhloplanoida: Byrsophlebidae und Trigonostomidae. Fauna Fennica, 12: 1-71. Machatschke, J.W. 1961. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Adoretini der aethiopischen Region (Coleoptera: Lamellicornia, Melolonthidae, Rutelinae) II. Teil. Beitrage zur Entomologie, 11; 922-929. Machatschke, J.W. 1965. Coleoptera Lamellicornia Fam. Scarabaeidae Subfam. Rutelinae Dritter Teil. Genera Insectorum, 199¢: 1-145, 2 pls. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 223 Machatschke, J.W. 1972. Scarabaeoidea: Melolonthidae Rutelinae. Catalogus Coleopterorum Supplementa, 66: 1-361. Millard, V. 2001. Classification of Mollusca: A Classification of World Wide Mollusca, vol. 2. Pages 223-914. Author, Rhine Road, South Africa. Odening, K. 1984. 7. Stamm Platyhelminthes, Plattwirmer. Pp. 341-442 in Gruner, H.-E. (Ed.), Lehrbuch der Speziellen Zoologie. Band 1: Wirbellose Tiere. 2. Teil: Cnidaria, Ctenophora, Mesozoa, Platyhelminthes, Nemertini, Entoprocta, Nemathelminthes, Pri- apulida. 4 ed. Fischer, Jena. Ohaus, F. 1912a. Revision der Adoretini. (Col. lamell. Rutelin.). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 1912: 141-156. Ohaus, F. 1912b. Revision der Adoretini. (Col. lamell. Rutelin.) (Fortsetzung.). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 1912: 267-282. Ohaus, F. 1935. XXVIII. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Rutelinae (Col. Scarab.). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 1935: 121-130. Ohaus, F. 1941. 31. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Rutelinen (Col. Scarab.). Stettiner Entomolo- gische Zeitung, 102: 194-205. Petit, R-E. & Harasewych, M.G. 1990. Catalogue of the superfamily Cancellarioidea Forbes and Hanley, 1851 (Gastropoda: Prosobranchia). Nautilus Supplement, 1: 1-69. Riedl, R. 1959. Turbellarien aus submarinen Hohlen, 3. Seriata und Neorhabdocoela. Ergebnisse der Osterreichischen Tyrrhenia Expedition 1952, Teil LX. Pubblicazioni di Stazione Zoologica di Napoli, 30: 305-332. Schmidt, O. 1852. Neue Rhabdocoelen aus dem nordischen und dem adriatischen Meere. Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien, Mathematisch- Naturwissenschaftliche Classe, 9: 490-505, pls. 44-47. Smith, A.B.T. 2006. A review of the family-group names for the superfamily Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera) with corrections to nomenclature and classification. Coleopterists Society Monograph, Supplement to The Coleopterists Bulletin, 60: 144-204. Vinson, J. 1958. Catalogue of the Coleoptera of Mauritius and Rodriguez Part II. Mauritius Institute Bulletin, 4: 75-130. Watson, N.A. 1998. Characteristics of protonephridial terminal organs and the eyes of four species of Trigonostominae (Platyhelminthes: Rhabdocoela). Australian Journal of Zoology, 46: 251-265. Watson, N.A. 2001. Insights from comparative spermatology in the ‘turbellarian’ Rhab- docoela. Pp. 217-230 in Littlewood, D.T.J. & Bray, R.A. (Eds.), Interrelationships of the Platyhelminthes. Taylor and Francis, London & New York. Willems, W.R., Artois, T.J., Vermin, W.A. & Schockaert, E.R. 2004. Revision of Trigonosto- mum Schmidt, 1852 (Platyhelminthes, Typhloplanoida, Trigonostomidae) with descrip- tion of seven new species. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 141: 271-296. Willems, W.R., Artois, T.J., Backeljau, T. & Schockaert, E.R. 2005. Typhloplanoida (Platyhelminthes, Rhabdocoela) from New Caledonia and eastern Australia, with the description of six new taxa. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 32: 79-98. Willems, W.R., Wallberg, A., Jondelius, U., Littlewood, D.T.J., Backeljau, T., Schockaert, E.R. & Artois, T.J. 2006. Filling a gap in the phylogeny of flatworms: relationships within the Rhabdocoela (Platyhelminthes), inferred from 18S ribosomal DNA sequences. Zoologica Scripta, 35: 1-17. Zamparo, D., Brooks, D.R., Hoberg, E.P. & McLennan, D.A. 2001. Phylogenetic analysis of the Rhabdocoela (Platyhelminthes) with emphasis on the Neodermata and relatives. Zoologica Scripta, 30: 59-77. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 64: 2. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 S5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 Case 3404 Atlanta lesueurii Souleyet, 1852 (Mollusca, Gastropoda, PTEROTRACHEOIDEA, ATLANTIDAE): proposed conservation of the specific name Arie W. Janssen 12, Trig tal Hamrija, Xewkija XWK 9033, Gozo, Malta (e-mail: ariewjanssen@waldonet.net.mt) Roger R. Seapy California State University, Fullerton, California, U.S.A. (e-mail: rseapy@fullerton.edu) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.5 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name of the heteropod Atlanta lesueurii Souleyet, 1852 (ATLANTIDAE), originally published as a primary homonym of the pteropod Aflanta lesueurti d’Orbigny, 1836 (currently Limacina lesueurii). Both names are in use and have not been considered congeneric since the 19th century. It is proposed to conserve the name Atlanta lesueurti Souleyet, 1852 by ruling that the name is not invalid by reason of its being a junior primary homonym. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda, Heteropoda; Pteropoda; pTERO- TRACHEOIDEA; ATLANTIDAE; LIMACINOIDEA, LIMACINIDAE; Atlanta; Limacina; Atlanta lesueurti; Limacina lesueurii; gastropods. 1. The genus Atlanta was described with two included species by Lesueur (1817, p. 390). The type species is A. peronii Lesueur, 1817 (p. 390), a holoplanktonic gastropod of the family ATLANTIDAE Rang, 1829 (superfamily PTEROTRACHEOIDEA Rafinesque, 1814 (= Heteropoda Lamarck, 1812) (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005, pp. 88, 251). 2. The species Atlanta lesueurii d’Orbigny, 1836 is currently assigned to the genus Limacina Bosc, 1817 (junior synonym Spirate/l/a Blainville, 1817, see Janssen & Zorn, 2001, p. 148) (Thecosomata, LIMACINIDAE). Boas (1886, p. 46) was the first to transfer Atlanta lesueurii to the genus Limacina, followed by almost all later authors, although some used the synonymous name Spirate/la (compare van der Spoel, 1967, p. 52). 3. Ever since its introduction, Atlanta lesueurii Souleyet, 1852 has been considered to belong to the genus Atlanta [e.g. Tesch, 1906, p. 8; van der Spoel, 1976, p. 143 (and many references therein); Richter, 1986, p. 21; Seapy, 1990, p. 118]. Souleyet (1852, p. 380, footnote) gave the following explanation for his choice of the name /esueurii: ‘Lespéce que M. d’Orbigny a designée sous ce nom spécifique appartient au genre Spiriale et ne doit pas étre conservée, par conséquent, dans le genre Atlante’. This, however, does not change the status of A. /esueurii Souleyet, 1852 as a primary homonym of 4. /esueurii d’Orbigny, 1836. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 225 4. Both names, Atlanta lesueurii d’Orbigny, 1836 (currently Limacina lesueurii) and Atlanta lesueurii Souleyet, 1852, have been in common use for over a hundred years, and the latter has never been referred to another generic name (van der Spoel, 1976, p. 143). Introducing a replacement name for the well-known name A¢lanta lesueurii Souleyet, 1852 offers nothing but loss of information and confusion. This application for the conservation of prevailing usage 1s submitted in the interest of stability and in accordance with Article 23.9.5 of the Code (names not considered congeneric after 1899). 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to rule that the specific name Atlanta lesueurii Souleyet, 1852 is not invalid by reason of its being a junior primary homonym of Atlanta lesueurii dOrbigny, 1836; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) lesueurii Souleyet, 1852, as published in the binomen Atlanta lesueurii with the endorsement that it is not invalid by reason of its being a junior primary homonym of Atlanta lesueurii d’Orbigny, 1836; (b) /esueurii d Orbigny, 1836, as published in the binomen Atlanta lesueurii. References Blainville, Ducrotay, H.M. de. 1817. Clio (Malacoz.). Dictionnaire des Sciences naturelles, 9: 404-407. Boas, J.E.V. 1886. Spolia Atlantica. Bidrag til Pteropodernes. Morfologi og Systematik samt til Kundskaben om deres geografiske Udbredelse. Videnskabernes Selskabs Skrifter, 6te Raekke (naturvidenskabelig og mathematisk Afdeling), 4(1): 1-231. Bouchet, P. & Rocroi, J.-P. 2005. Classification and nomenclator of gastropod families. Malacologia, 47(\—2): 1-397. Bosc, L.A.G. 1817. Limacine. Nouveau Dictionnaire d’ Histoire naturelle, 18: 42. Janssen, A.W. & Zorn, I. 2001. Notes on the systematics, morphology and biostratigraphy of fossil holoplanktonic Mollusca, 11. Limacina Bosc, 1817: precedence over Spiratella Blainville, 1817 (Mollusca, Gastropoda: Euthecosomata. Basteria, 65: 147-149. Lamarck, J.B.P. de. 1812. Extrait du Cours de Zoologie du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, sur les Animaux sans vertébres: présentant la distribution et la classification de ces Animaux, les caractéres des principales divisions, et une simple liste des genres. 127 pp. D’Hautel, Paris. Lesueur, J.A. 1817. Mémoire sur deux nouveaux genres de mollusques, Atlante et Atlas. Journal de Physique, de Chimie, d’Histoire Naturelle et des Arts, 85: 390-393. Orbigny, A. d’. 1836. Voyage dans l’Amérique méridionale ..., vol. 5(3). Mollusques. pp. 49-184. Bertrand, Paris. Rafinesque, C.S. 1814. Précis de découvertes et travaux somiologiques de Mr. C.S. Rafinesque- Schmalz entre 1800 et 1814. 76 pp. Palermo. Rang, S. [= P.C.A.L.]. 1829. Manuel de l'histoire naturelle des mollusques et de leurs coquilles, ayant pour base de classification celle de M. le Baron Cuvier. 1-vi, 1-390 pp. Roret, Paris. Richter, G. 1986. Zur Kenntnis der Gattung Atlanta, 2. Atlanta lesueuri Souleyet und Atlanta oligogyra Tesch (Prosobranchia: Heteropoda). Archiv fiir Molluskenkunde, 117(\-3): 19-31. Seapy, R.R. 1990. The pelagic family Atlantidae (Gastropoda: Heteropoda) from Hawaiian waters: a faunistic survey. Malacologia, 32(1): 107-130. Souleyet, F.L.A. in Eydoux, F. & Souleyet, F.L.A. 1852. Voyage autour du monde .. ., 2. A. 664 pp. Bertrand, Paris. Spoel, S. van der. 1967. Euthecosomata, a group with remarkable developmental stages (Gastropoda, Pteropoda). 375 pp. J. Noorduijn, Gorinchem. 226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 Spoel, S. van der. 1976. Pseudothecosomata, Gymnosomata and Heteropoda (Gastropoda). 484 pp. Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema, Utrecht. Tesch, J.J. 1906. Heteropoda der Siboga expeditie. Uitkomsten op zoologisch, botanisch, oceanographisch en geologisch gebied verzameld in Nederlandsch Oost-Indié 1899-1900 aan boord van H.M. Siboga onder commando van Luitenant ter zee le kl. G. Tydeman, 51: 1-112. Acknowledgement of receipt of this publication was published in BZN 64: 2 Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 DO Case 3408 © Geophilus holstii Pocock, 1895 (currently Arrup holsti; Chilopoda, MECISTOCEPHALIDAE): replacement of the holotype by designation of a neotype Marco Uliana, Lucio Bonato and Alessandro Minelli Department of Biology, University of Padova, Via Ugo Bassi 58 B, I 35131 Padova, Italy (e-mail: marco.uliana@unipd.it; lucio.bonato@unipd.it; alessandro.minelli@unipd.it) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 75.5 of the Code, is to replace the existing unidentifiable holotype of Geophilus holstii Pocock, 1895 (currently Arrup holstii) by a neotype. All body parts carrying useful diagnostic characters are missing in what remains of the holotype of Geophilus holstii. It is proposed to set the holotype aside and to designate a neotype. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Chilopoda, Geophilomorpha; MECISTOCEPHALI- DAE; Arrup; Arrup holstii; centipede; Japan. 1. The nominal species Geophilus holstii was described by Pocock (1895, p. 352) based on a single, probably male, specimen from ‘“Ashinoju, Japan’, collected by “Mr. Holst’. This specimen represents the holotype of this taxon by monotypy (Article 73.1.2 of the Code). Pocock (1895) tentatively assigned the new species to Geophilus Leach, 1814 and discussed its possible inclusion in the genus Mecistocephalus Newport, 1843. As stated by Pocock (1895, p. 346), this specimen was preserved in the collections of the ‘British Museum’, where it was subsequently examined by Crabill (1964). It is still preserved at the Natural History Museum, London. 2. We examined the holotype of Geophilus holstii in 2006. The specimen, preserved in alcohol, has two labels: (1, printed) ‘Prolamnonyx holstii Pocock / TYPE / JAPAN: Ashinojn? / BMNH #200456 / Chilo. 1891-.5.16.22’; (2, handwritten, except “TYPE’) “TYPE / Geophilus / holstii Pocock / [=Prolamnonyx holstii (Poc.)] / N.B. When found among / ordinary material (6.[X.1962) / forebody and head + mouthparts / were missing. R. Crabill / 6.1X.1962’. In fact, only two pieces of the trunk are left in the vial, comprising 18 and 6 leg-bearing segments respectively. Conversely, the anterior part of the body (including the head and the forcipular segment), the posterior part of the body (including the last leg-bearing segment and the terminal segments) and many legs of the remaining parts of the trunk are missing. As far as is known, the missing parts are not present elsewhere in the collections of the Natural History Museum, London (J. Beccaloni, pers. comm.) and should be considered lost. 3. The type locality was consistently spelled as ‘Ashinoju, Japan’ in the original paper (Pocock, 1895); as mentioned, the variant spelling ‘Ashinojn’ occurs in a printed label associated with the holotype. No locality named ‘Ashinoju’ or 228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 ‘Ashinojn’ seems to be found in modern gazetteers, but the name may well correspond to Ashinoyu, a city in the Kanagawa Prefecture, central Honshu, Japan. 4. The validity of the species has been never disputed. Since the original description it has been cited in at least 40 papers, also in recent years. It has been recorded from a large area in Eastern Asia from Hokkaido to Taiwan, from Eastern China to Korea, and in some small nearby islands, though many reports are probably based on misidentifications (Uliana et al., 2007). Silvestri (1919, pp. 47, 85) designated Geophilus holstii as the type species of the new genus Prolamnonyx, in the subfamily DICELLOPHILINAE (currently in the family MECISTOCEPHALIDAE). Crabill (1964, pp. 161-162), comparing the holotype of Geophilus holstii with specimens of Arrup pylorus Chamberlin, 1912, which is the type species of Arrup Chamberlin, 1912, recognised the genus Prolamnonyx as a junior synonym of Arrup. 5. Arrup Chamberlin, 1912 is a well-defined genus, to which 16 nominal species are currently assigned; it is distributed from Central Asia to California, with the highest diversity in Eastern Asia (Bonato et al., 2003; Foddai et al., 2003; Uliana et al., 2007). The actual diversity of the genus is probably underestimated, especially in the area ranging from central Honshu (where the type locality of G. holstii is located) to Okinawa, where four new species have been recently discovered (Uliana et al., 2007). Most species included in the genus Arrup are highly uniform in morphology and their taxonomy and distinction are in some cases problematic. The most useful diagnostic characters are found in the head, in the forcipular segment and in the last leg-bearing segment (Uliana et al., 2007), which are exactly the body parts missing in what remains of the holotype of -Geophilus holstii. Therefore, the present holotype is completely useless as a reference for the diagnosis of Arrup holstii and its distinction from the congeners. The original description of Geophilus holstii does not include many useful diagnostic characters and is therefore inadequate to separate unambigu- ously this taxon from other species in the genus Arrup. Limited additional infor- mation on the holotype was provided by Crabill (1964), who studied the specimen when it was still complete (evidently before 1962; see above). Silvestri (1919) redescribed the species as Prolamnonyx holstii, from specimens from “Kamatura’, near Tokyo. The specific identity of this material is reasonably correct. Silvestri’s description and illustrations provide detailed information on some additional morphological traits of the species, in particular on forcipules and mouthparts. 6. Thus, the taxonomical difficulties in the genus Arrup, and the wholly inadequate condition of the existing holotype of Geophilus holstii, require the designation of a neotype (Article 75.5 of the Code). We propose to designate as neotype a male specimen, 20 mm long, preserved at the National Science Museum, Tokyo, matching the qualifying conditions in Article 75.3 of the Code. Collecting data are as follows: Hon-noo, Mobara City, Chiba Pref., Honshu, 3.XII.1997, K. Ishii leg. This specimen is recognisable as conspecific with the holotype of Geophilus holstii based on congruence in key diagnostic traits such as body size (in agreement with holotype), structure of mouthparts and forcipules (in agreement with Silvestri, 1919), elongation of the poison calyx (in agreement with Crabill, 1964) and number of coxal pores (in agreement with Pocock, 1895). Moreover, Hon-noo, Mobara City, which will become a new type locality for Geophilus holstii (Article 76.3 of the Code), is at a relatively small distance (about 150 km) from the original type locality in Ashinoyu (Article 75.3.6 of the Code—Qualifying conditions for neotypes). The specimen has Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 229 been labelled “Proposed neotype of Geophilus holstii Pocock, 1895 by Marco Uliana, Lucio Bonato & Alessandro Minelli (BZN: Case 3408)’ and has been described and illustrated in detail by Uliana et al. (2007). 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to set aside the existing holotype of Geophilus holstii Pocock, 1895, and to designate as neotype the male specimen specified in para. 6 above; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name Geophilus holstii Pocock, 1895, as published in the binomen Geophilus holstii and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above. References Bonato, L., Foddai, D. & Minelli, A. 2003. Evolutionary trends and patterns in centipede segment number based on a cladistic analysis of Mecistocephalidae (Chilopoda: Geophi- lomorpha). Systematic Entomology, 28: 539-579. Chamberlin, R.V. 1912. The Chilopoda of California. III. Pomona College Journal of Entomology, 4: 651-672. Crabill, R.E. 1964. A revised interpretation of the primitive centipede genus Arrup, with redescription of its type-species and list of known species. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 77: 161-170. Foddai, D., Bonato, L., Pereira, L.A. & Minelli, A. 2003. Phylogeny and systematics of the Arrupinae (Chilopoda Geophilomorpha Mecistocephalidae) with description of a new dwarfed species. Journal of Natural History, 37: 1247-1267. Leach, W.E. 1814. Crustaceology. Pp. 383-437 in Brewster, H. (Ed.), The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, vol. 7(2). Blackwood, Edinburgh. Newport, G. 1843. On some new genera of the class Myriapoda. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 10: 177-181. Pocock, R.I. 1895. Report upon the Chilopoda and Diplopoda obtained by P.W. Bassett- Smith, Esq., Surgeon, R.N., and J.J. Walker, esq., R.N., during the cruise in the Chinese Seas of H.M.S. ‘Penguin’, Commander W.U. Moore commanding. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (6)15: 346-372. Silvestri, F. 1919. Contributions to a knowledge of the Chilopoda Geophilomorpha of India. Records of the Indian Museum, 16: 45-107. Uliana, M., Bonato, L. & Minelli, A. 2007. The Mecistocephalidae of the Japanese and Taiwanese islands (Chilopoda: Geophilomorpha). Zootaxa, 1396: 1-84. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 64: 78. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 Case 3412 Reticulitermes Holmgren, 1913 (Insecta, Isoptera): proposed precedence over Maresa Giebel, 1856 Michael S. Engel Division of Entomology, Natural History Museum, and Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, 1501 Crestline Drive—Suite 140, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66049-2811, U.S.A. (e-mail: msengel@ku.edu) Kumar Krishna Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, N.Y. 10024-5192, U.S.A. (e-mail: krishn@amnh.org) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the usage of the genus-group name Reticulitermes Holmgren, 1913 (type species Termes flavipes Kollar, 1837) for an economically important and universally known group of subterranean termites responsible for much economic damage in the Northern Hemisphere. Two genus-group names have priority over Reticulitermes, both having been established for a common species of fossil termite in Baltic amber. Hemerobites Germar, 1813 (type species Hemerobites antiquus Germar, 1813) has not been used after 1899 and can be considered a nomen oblitum under Article 23.9.1 of the Code. Maresa Giebel, 1856 (type species Maresa plebeja Giebel, 1856) has been used once since 1899, in a large compendium on fossil insects, and, therefore, cannot be automatically considered a nomen oblitum. It is proposed that the genus-group name Reticulitermes be given precedence over Maresa. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Isoptera; Reticulitermes; Maresa; Hemerobites: Reticulitermes flavipes; Maresa plebeja; termites; fossil; Baltic amber; Eocene. 1. Germar (1813, p. 16) established the nominal genus Hemerobites in a paper on Baltic amber insects (middle Eocene (Lutetian)). A single species was included, Hemerobites antiquus Germar, 1813. Hemerobites antiquus was recognized to be a termite and transferred to Termes Linnaeus, 1758 by Hagen (1854, p. 222) and eventually to Reticulitermes Holmgren, 1913 by Rosen (1913, p. 331). The last usage of Hemerobites as a valid genus-group name was by Schlechtendal (1888, p. 489). 2. Ina general work on the fossils of Germany Giebel (1856, p. 298) established the genus Maresa for what he believed to be a new fossil species of termite in Baltic amber. The type species of Maresa is Maresa plebeja Giebel, 1856 by monotypy. Maresa was synonymized with Termes Linnaeus, 1758 by Hagen (1858, p. 181) and was subsequently used only as a valid genus-group name by Handlirsch (1907, p. 700), who synonymized Maresa plebeja Giebel, 1856 with Termes fossile Ouchakoff, 1838. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 231 3. In his monumental monograph on the systematics of termites Holmgren (1913, pp. 60-61) established the nominal genus Reticulitermes as a subgenus of Leucoter- mes Silvestri, 1901 for Termes flavipes Kollar, 1837 (p. 411) and related species. Termes flavipes was fixed as type species by original designation. Although the name T. flavipes was previously used in an 1833 report of a society meeting, no description or figures, nor indication of a description or figures, was provided and the name was a nomen nudum at that time (Anonymous, 1833, col. 459). 4. Both generic names Hemerobites and Maresa have priority over Reticulitermes by 100 and 57 years, respectively. As noted, Hemerobites has not been used since 1888 while the junior synonym has been used in more than 50 articles by more than 10 authors during the last 50 years. Accordingly, Hemerobites can be automatically considered a nomen oblitum under Article 23.9.1. Maresa plebeja was recognized as a synonym of Hemerobites antiquus by Hagen (1858, p. 180) and was not used by authors after Giebel (1856) except when temporarily resurrected as a valid generic name by Handlirsch (1907, p. 700) for 7. fossile. The name was not used again by any subsequent authors. While Reticulitermes has been universally used during the last century for T. flavipes and its relatives, including the fossil 7. antiquus, Maresa has priority and cannot be automatically considered a nomen oblitum under Article 23.9.1 of the Code owing to Handlirsch’s usage of the name. 5. To revert to Maresa in place of its junior synonym Reticulitermes would bring about a change in name for a group of widely-encountered and economically important pest species. As noted, no author subsequent to Handlirsch (1907) has employed Maresa as a valid genus-group name, and Reticulitermes has been universally used as the valid name in hundreds of works published by dozens of authors subsequent to Handlirsch. Such works include systematic treatments (e.g. Snyder, 1949; Emerson, 1971; Roonwal, 1983; Nel & Paicheler, 1993; Sands, 1998; Takematsu, 1999; Luchetti et al., 2004; Austin et al., 2006; Heintschel et al., 2006; Maiti, 2006; Nobre et al., 2006) as well as biological and behavioral studies (e.g. Chhotani & Bose, 1979; Prestwich, 1983, 1984, 1985; Matsuura, 2001; Nelson et al., 2001; Laine & Wright, 2003; Arquette & Forschler, 2006), work on protozoan symbionts (e.g. Brugerolle & Bordereau, 2006), and biological control investigations (e.g. Cornelius & Ostbrink, 2001; Peterson & Ems, 2003; Swoboda et al., 2004; Nakayama et al., 2004; Bernklau et al., 2005; Arquette et al., 2006). It is proposed that the genus-group name Reticulitermes be given precedence over Maresa. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to rule that the generic name Reticulitermes Holmgren, 1913 is to be given precedence over Maresa Giebel, 1856 whenever their type species are placed in the same genus-group taxon; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Reticulitermes Holmgren, 1913 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation Termes flavipes Kollar, 1837, with the endorsement that it is to be given priority over the name Maresa Giebel, 1856 whenever their type species are placed in the same genus-group taxon; (b) Maresa Giebel, 1856 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Maresa plebeja Giebel, 1856, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name Reticulitermes Holmgren, 1913 whenever their type species are placed in the same genus-group taxon; 232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) flavipes Kollar, 1837, as published in the binomen Termes flavipes (specific name of the type species of Reticulitermes Holmgren, 1913); (b) plebeja Giebel, 1856, as published in the binomen Maresa plebeja (specific name of the type species of Maresa Giebel, 1856). Acknowledgements We are grateful to Valerie Krishna for comments on the application. This work was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF DEB-0542909 to M.S. Engel) along with a Guggenheim Fellowship from the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation (to M.S. Engel). References Anonymous. 1833. Versammlung Naturforscher und Arzte in Wien. Isis, 26(4-6): 288-580. Arquette, T.J. & Forschler, B.T. 2006. Survey of metabolic reserves, stored uric acid, and water content from field populations of subterranean termites (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) from Georgia. Journal of Economic Entomology, 99(3): 873-878. Arquette, T.J., Champagne, D.E., Brown, M.R. & Forschler, B.T. 2006. Evaluation of novel and traditional measures for vigor of laboratory-cultured termites, Reticulitermes flavipes (Kollar). Journal of Insect Physiology, 52(1): 51-66. Austin, J.W., Szalanski, A.L., Ghayourfar, R., Kence, A. & Gold, R.E. 2006. Phylogeny and genetic variation of Reticulitermes (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) from the eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. Sociobiology, 47(3): 873-890. Bernklau, E.J., Fromm, E.A., Judd, T.M. & Bjostad, L.B. 2005. Attraction of subterranean termites (Isoptera) to carbon dioxide. Journal of Economic Entomology, 98(2): 476-484. Brugerolle, G. & Bordereau, C. 2006. Immunological and ultrastructural characterization of spirotrichonymphid flagellates from Reticulitermes grassei and R. flavipes (syn. R. santonensis), with special reference to Spirotrichonympha, Spironympha and Microjoenia. Organisms, Diversity and Evolution, 6(2): 109-123. Chhotani, O.B. & Bose, G. 1979. Nesting behaviour and nests of Indian termites. Zoologiana, 2: 16-28. Cornelius, M.L. & Ostbrink, W.L.A. 2001. Tunneling behavior, foraging tenacity, and wood consumption rates of Formosan and eastern subterranean termites (Isoptera: Rhinoter- mitidae) in laboratory assays. Sociobiology, 37(1): 79-94. Emerson, A.E. 1971. Tertiary fossil species of the Rhinotermitidae (Isoptera), phylogeny of genera, and reciprocal phylogeny of associated Flagellata (Protozoa) and the Staphylinidae (Coleoptera). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 146(3): 243-303. Germar, G.F. 1813. Insecten in Bernstein eingeschlossen, beschrieben aus dem academischen Mineralien-Cabinet zu Halle. Magazin der Entomologie, 1: 11-18. Giebel, C.G. 1856. Fauna der Vorwelt [vol. 2]: Die Insekten und Spinnen der Vorwelt mit Steter Berticksichtigung der Lebenden Insekten und Spinnen. xviii, 511 pp. F.U. Brockhaus, Leipzig. Hagen, H. 1858. Monographie der Termiten. Linnaea Entomologica, 12: 1-342. Handlirsch, A. 1907. Die Fossilen Insekten und die Phylogenie der rezenten Formen: Ein Handbuch fiir Paldontologen und Zoologen. 641-1120 pp. Engelmann, Leipzig. Heintschel, B.P., Austin, J.W. & Gold, R.E. 2006. Soldier labral morphology and genetic comparisons of Reticulitermes (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) from Texas. Sociobiology, 48(1): 63-84. Holmgren, N. 1913. Termitenstudien. 4. Versuch einer systematischen Monographie der Termiten der orientalischen Region. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlin- gar, 50(2): 1-276. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 233 Kollar, V. 1837. Naturgeschichte der schadlichen Insekten in Beziehung auf Landwirthschaft und Forstcultur, &c. viii, 421 pp. Ferdinand Ullrich, ‘Wien. Laine, L.V. & Wright, D.J. 2003. The life cycle of Reticulitermes spp. (Isoptera: Rhinotermiti- dae): What do we know? Bulletin of Entomological Research, 93(4): 267-278. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvi, Holmiae. Luchetti, A., Trenta, M., Mantovani, B. & Marini, M. 2004. Taxonomy and phylogeny of north Mediterranean Reticulitermes termites (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae): A new insight. Insectes Sociaux, 51: 117-122. Maiti, P.K. 2006. A taxonomic monograph on the world species of termites of the family Rhinotermitidae (Isoptera: Insecta). Memoirs of the Zoological Survey of India, 20(4): 1-272. Matsuura, K. 2001. Nestmate recognition mediated by intestinal bacteria in a termite, Reticulitermes speratus. Oikos, 92(1): 20-26. Nakayama, T., Yoshimura, T. & Imamura, Y. 2004. Recovery of Japanese subterranean termites, Reticulitermes speratus and Coptotermes formosanus, (Isoptera: Rhinotermiti- dae), from desiccation treatment. Sociobiology, 43(3): 489-499. Nel, A. & Paicheler, J.-C. 1993. Les Isoptera fossiles. Etat actuel des connaissances, implications paléoecologiques et paléoclimatologiques (Insecta, Dictyoptera). Cahiers de Paléontologie, 1993: 101-179. Nelson, L.J., Cool, L.G., Forschler, B.T. & Haverty, M.I. 2001. Correspondence of solider defense secretion mixtures with cuticular hydrocarbon phenotypes for chemotaxonomy of the termite genus Reticulitermes in North America. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 27(7): 1449-1479. Nobre, T., Nunes, L., Eggleton, P. & Bignell, D.E. 2006. Distribution and genetic variation of Reticulitermes (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) in Portugal. Heredity, 96(5): 403-409. Ouchakoff, N. 1838. Notice sur un Termes fossile. Bulletin de la Société Imperiale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 11: 37-42. Peterson, C.J. & Ems, W.J. 2003. Catnip essential oil as a barrier to subterranean termites (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) in the laboratory. Journal of Economic Entomology, 96(4): 1275-1282. Prestwich, G.D. 1983. Chemical systematics of termite exocrine secretions. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 14: 287-311. Prestwich, G.D. 1984. Defense mechanisms of termites. Annual Review of Entomology, 29: 201-232. Prestwich, G.D. 1985. Communication in insects, II. Molecular communication of insects. Quarterly Review of Biology, 60(4): 437-456. Roonwal, M.L. 1983. Evolution and systematic significance of wing micro-sculpturing in termites. XIII. Order Isoptera. Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy, Series B, 49(5): 359-391. Rosen, K., von. 1913. Die fossilen Termiten: Eine kurze Zusammenfassung der bis jetzt bekannten Funde. Transactions of the Second International Congress of Entomology, Oxford 1912, 2: 318-335, 6pls. Sands, W.A. 1998. The Identification of Worker Castes of Termite Genera from Soils of Africa and the Middle East. vii, 500 pp. CAB International, Oxon. Schlechtendal, D.[H.R.], von. 1888. Mittheilungen tiber die in der Sammlung aufbewahrten Originale zu Germar’s: “Insekten in Bernstein eingeschlossen” mit Rutcksicht auf Giebels “Fauna der Vorwelt”’. Zeitschrift fiir [die Gesammten] Naturwissenschaften, 61: 473-491. Silvestri, F. 1901. Nota preliminare sui Termitidi sud-americani. Bollettino dei Musei di Zoologia ed Anatomia Comparata della Reale Universita di Torino, 16(389): 1-8. Snyder, T.E. 1949. Catalog of the termites (Isoptera) of the world. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 112: 1-490. Swoboda, L.E., Miller, D.M., Fell, R.J. & Mullins, D.E. 2004. The effect of nutrient compounds (sugars and amino-acids) on bait consumption by Reticulitermes spp. (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Sociobiology, 44(3): 547-563. 234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 Takematsu, Y. 1999. The genus Reticulitermes (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) in Japan, with description of a new species. Entomological Science, 2(2): 231-243. - Acknowledgement of receipt of this publication was published in BZN 64: 78. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 235 Case 3406 © Belostoma annulipes Herrich-Schaeffer, 1845 (currently Lethocerus annulipes; Insecta, Heteroptera, BELOSTOMATIDAE): proposed conservation of usage of the specific name by designation of a neotype P.J. Perez-Goodwyn Kyoto University, Graduate School of Agriculture, Laboratory of Insect Ecology, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan (e-mail: pablogoodwyn@yahoo.com.ar) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 75.6 of the Code, is to conserve the widely used specific name Lethocerus annulipes (Herrich-Schaeffer, 1845) for a common Neotropical giant water bug (family BELOSTOMATIDAE) by setting aside all previous type fixations and designating a neotype. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Heteroptera; BELOSTOMATIDAE; Lethocerus; Lethocerus annulipes; Neotropics; giant water bug. 1. Belostoma annulipes Herrich-Schaeffer, 1845 (currently Lethocerus annulipes) is the most common species of the genus in the Neotropical region. It is distributed from central Buenos Aires, Argentina, northwards to Venezuela and Trinidad, and (according to Menke, 1963) Puerto Rico and Hispaniola Island, inhabiting water bodies from sea level up to 1300 m altitude (Perez Goodwyn, 2006). 2. In 1845 Herrich-Schaeffer (p. 28, figs. 803-804) described Belostoma annulipes from ‘Stidamerika’. His brief description stated that it was the largest water bug he had ever seen, with robust femora and three dark rings on the legs, a character from which the name was derived. He included drawings of the dorsal and ventral habitus, but in the drawings there is no trace of any dark ventral stripes. Herrich-Schaeffer also stated that he would describe the species in more detail in a future work. In the next work he published (Herrich-Schaeffer, 1849, p. 33) he synonymized it with Nepa grandis Linnaeus (1758, p. 440). 2. Dufour (1863) established two species, Belostoma ruficeps (p. 382) and B. signoreti (p. 382), the latter having the dark ventral stripes typical of the species that is currently known as L. annulipes. 3. Mayr (1868, pp. 185-186) stated that B. annulipes was a valid name and that Herrich-Schaeffer had synonymized it incorrectly. He redescribed this species very briefly, and highlighted the character of the rounded projection of the hind tibia. In the same work, he synonymized (pp. 185-186) B. ruficeps, B. distinctum Dufour, 1863, B. signoreti Dufour, 1863, B. litigiosum Dufour, 1863 and B. obscurum Dufour, 1863 under B. annulipes based upon the variation of the colour pattern in Dufour’s species. He mentioned a specimen that had ‘two dark bands on the venter’, but suggested that this variation was intraspecific. 4. In 1871 Mayr published a key by which the species currently identified as Lethocerus delpontei De Carlo, 1930 and Lethocerus melloleitaoi Carlo, 1933 could be identified as “Belostoma annulipes’. In this work the synonymic list of Belostoma 236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 annulipes includes only Dufour’s Belostoma ruficeps and B. signoreti; the other above names were assigned to other species: Belostoma distinctum, under B. haldemanus Stal, 1861 (currently Benacus griseus (Say, 1832, pp. 428-429) and both Belostoma litigiosum and Belostoma obscurum under Belostoma griseum Stal, 1861 (currently Lethocerus americanus (Leidy, 1847, pp. 427-428)). 5. Montandon (1896) considered B. annulipes as a species with three rings on its legs, without describing the ventral stripes. His description of B. annulipes, though extensive, could fit at least another two different species (L. delpontei Carlo, 1930 and L. medius Guérin-Meéneville, 1837). In the same work (p. 514) he described B. mayri ‘considered as a variety until more specimens are checked’. According to the description and the examination of the type, this variety is unequivocally L. annulipes as presently interpreted, even though Montandon did not describe the dark bands. It is surprising that the specimens deposited in the Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Austria (NHMW), types of Dufour’s Belostoma ruficeps and Belostoma signoreti, were redetermined by Montandon as ‘B. annulipes’, and that he was not able to recognize his own species variety B. mayri in them while correctly distinguishing it from L. medius or L delpontei. 6. De Carlo (1930) considered all specimens with ventral dark stripes as Lethocerus annulipes but he made a comment that showed the confusion current at that time ‘Among the revised specimens, I found four males that match very closely with the description of the subspecies Mayr [sic] Montd. 1896, but I do not dare to identify them as such, until I check more specimens’. Cummings (1933) and De Carlo (1938) identified all specimens with-ventral stripes as L. annulipes. 7. Menke (1962) wrote that the description by Herrich-Schaeffer was insufficient, but he did not make any decision on the taxonomical status. He stated that Herrich-Schaeffer (more precisely the drawing artist) had made a ‘lapsus’ by omitting the stripes. It seems likely, on the contrary, that the drawings were accurate in that respect, and L. maximus De Carlo, 1938 or L. grandis was drawn. The longer claws of the fore leg suggest a L. grandis. 8. The holotype specimen of Belostoma annulipes should be deposited in the Staatssammlung Munchen, together with most of the collection of Herrich-Schaeffer, but there is no belostomatid identified by that author there. Cummings (1933) and Menke (1962) were also unsuccessful in this search of this specimen, so the type material is probably lost. For all the reasons given above, it is presumed that the first valid descriptions of the species are those of B. ruficeps and B. signoreti of Dufour (1863). The respective holotypes are deposited in the NHMW. 9. Even though this is a case of misidentification, and B. annulipes is in fact a synonym of B. grandis, the name Belostoma annulipes Herrich-Schaeffer, 1845 has been extensively used for over 100 years and a change to B. ruficeps would seriously undermine stability. The secretariat holds an additional list of 25 papers, in which the name Belostoma annulipes Herrich-Schaeffer, 1845 is used in the accustomed way. In order to maintain prevailing usage it 1s proposed that all previous type fixations for Belostoma annulipes Herrich-Schaeffer, 1845 are set aside and a neotype is designated. 10. A neotype is here proposed, a male, from Argentina, Chaco, Resistencia, with the following 4 labels: Ist: “CHACO — ARGENTINA, Dep. Resistencia, X-XII-935 J. B. Daguerre’; 2nd: ‘“Lhetocerus [sic] annulipes, Det. De Carlo H.S. MUSEO ARGENTINO DE CIENCIAS NATURALES’; 3rd: *44186’; 4th: “Descripto’. A Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 237 new label is added: Lethocerus annulipes (Herrich Schaeffer, 1845), NEOTYPUS, Perez-Goodwyn, 2006. Perez-Goodwyn (2006) already proposed this change. 11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal species annulipes Herrich-Schaeffer, 1845 as published in the binomen Belostoma annulipes and to designate specimen 44186 in the Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales as the neotype; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name annulipes Herrich-Schaeffer, 1845, as published in the binomen Belostoma annulipes, and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above. References Cummings, C. 1933. The giant water bugs (Belostomatidae Hemiptera). University of Kansas Science Bulletin, 21: 197-219. De Carlo, J.A. 1930. Familia Belostomidae. Géneros y especies para la Argentina. Revista de la Sociedad entomologica Argentina, 3: 103-108. De Carlo, J.A. 1938. Los Belostomidos Americanos. Anales del Museo argentino de Ciencias naturales ‘Bernadino Rivadavia’, 39: 189-260. Dufour, L. 1863. Essai monographique sur les Bélostomides. Annales de la Société entomologique de France, (4)3: 373-400. Herrich-Schaeffer, G.A.W. 1845. Die wanzenartigen Insecten: getreu nach der Natur abgebildet und beschrieben, 8(1): 1-48. Lotzbeck, Ntirnberg. Herrich-Schaeffer, G.A.W. 1849. Die wanzenartigen Insecten: getreu nach der Natur abgebildet und beschrieben, vol. 9(1). 44 pp. Lotzbeck, Nurnberg. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Mayr, G.L. 1868. Familie Belostomida. Pp. 183-188 in: Reise der dsterreichischen Fregatte Novara um die Erde in den Jahren 1857, 1858, 1859. Zoologischer Theil. Hemiptera, vol. 2(1). Karl Gerold’s Sohn, Wien. Mayr, G.L. 1871. Die Belostomiden. Mongraphisch bearbeitet. Verhandlungen der zoologisch- botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 21: 379-440. Menke, A. 1962. Notes on species of Lethocerus Mayr and Hydrocyrius Spinola, described by C. Guérin-Méneville, L. Dufour, A.L. Montandon, and G.A.W. Herrich-Schaffer (Belostomatidae: Hemiptera). Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 15: 61-66. Menke, A. 1963. A review of the genus Lethocerus in North and Central America, including the West Indies. Annals of the entomological Society of America, 56: 261-267. Montandon, A.L. 1896. Hemipteres-Héteroptéres exotiques. Notes et descriptions. Annales de la Société entomologique de Belgique, 40: 508-520. Perez Goodwyn, P.J. 2006. Taxonomic revision of the subfamily Lethocerinae (Heteroptera: Belostomatidae). Stuttgarter Beitrdge fiir Naturkunde (A), 695: 1-71. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 64: 77. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 Case 3407 Drosophila Fallén, 1832 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of usage Kim van der Linde Department of Biological Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306-1100, U.S.A. (e-mail: kim@kimvdlinde.com) Gerhard Bachli Zoological Museum, Winterthurerstrafe 190, 8057 Ziirich, Switzerland (e-mail: baechli@zm.uzh.ch) Masanori J. Toda Institute of Low Temperature Science, Hokkaido University, N19 W8, Kita-ku, Sapporo 060-0819, Japan Wen-Xia Zhang College of Life Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, 100871, China Toru Katoh COE for Neo-Science of Natural History, Hokkaido University, N10 W8, Kita-ku, Sapporo 060-0810, Japan Yao-Guang Hu Institute of Low Temperature Science, Hokkaido University, N19 WS, Kita-ku, Sapporo 060-0819, Japan Greg S. Spicer Department of Biology, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, California 94132-1722, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 70.2 of the Code, is to conserve the current usage of the widely used name Drosophila Fallen, 1832 (a genus of flies widely used in biological research, particularly in genetics and developmental biology) by the designation of Drosophila melanogaster Meigen, 1830 as the type species of Drosophila. Detailed phylogenetic studies show that the genus Drosophila as currently defined is paraphyletic. Splitting the genus requires that the subgenus Sophophora Sturtevant, 1939 must be ranked as a separate genus. The type species of Sophophora is by original designation Drosophila melanogaster Meigen, 1830. Ranking Sophophora as a genus and changing the name of Drosophila melanogaster to Sophophora melanogaster would result in major nomenclatural instability due to the breadth and vast number of publications, using this combination. In addition, many refer to ‘Drosophila’ when ‘Drosophila melanogaster’ is actually meant; the two Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 239 names are used interchangeably. It is therefore proposed that Drosophila mela- nogaster Meigen, 1830 is designated as the type species of Drosophila. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; DROSOPHILIDAE; Drosophila; Sophophora; Drosophila melanogaster; Drosophila funebris; fruit flies. 1. The genus Drosophila was established by Fallén (1823, p. 4) with the following included species: Musca funebris Fabricius, 1787 (p. 345) (the type species, by subsequent designation by Macquart, 1835 (p. 548)), Drosophila cinerella Fallen, 1823 (p. 7), Drosophila curvipennis Fallén, 1823 (p. 4), Drosophila fenestrarum Fallén, 1823 (p. 6), Drosophila flava Fallén, 1823 (p. 7), Drosophila fuscula Fallen, 1823 (p. 7), Drosophila glabra Fallen, 1823 (p. 8), Drosophila graminum Fallen, 1823 (p. 8), Drosophila obscura Fallén, 1823 (p. 6), Drosophila transversa Fallén, 1823 (p. 6), Drosophila tristis Fallén, 1823 (p. 7) and Drosophila variegata Fallén, 1823 (p. 5). 2. The genus Drosophila, currently containing about 1500 species (all taxa counts based on Bachli, 1999-2007), has been split into 8 (sometimes 9) accepted subgenera, predominantly based on morphological characters. In the last 20 years, a large series of phylogenetic studies has been undertaken, mainly based on molecular biological data. Published studies are largely in agreement that the genus Drosophila as presently defined is paraphyletic. At least some species of the following genera are positioned within Drosophila sensu lato: Dichaetophora Duda, 1940 (p. 19), Hirto- drosophila Duda, 1923 (p. 41), Liodrosophila Duda, 1922 (p. 153), Mycodrosophila Oldenberg, 1914 (p. 4), Samoaia Malloch, 1934 (p. 270), Scaptomyza Hardy, 1849 (p. 361) and Zaprionus Coquillett, 1901 (p. 31) (20 references are held by the Secretariat). 3. The genus Drosophila consists of four distinct major clades: the subgenus Sophophora Sturtevant, 1939 (p. 139) (type species by original designation Drosophila melanogaster Meigen, 1830 (p. 85)) (332 species), the immigrans-tripunctata radiation of the subgenus Drosophila (304 species), the virilis-repleta radiation of the subgenus Drosophila (247 species) and the Hawaiian Drosophila of the subgenus Drosophila (379 species). Splitting the genus requires that each of the four major clades is designated the rank of genus. In case of a ruling by the Commission to make Drosophila melanogaster Meigen the type species of Drosophila, the four clades would be named Drosophila Fallén, 1823 (p. 4), Chaetodrosophilella Duda, 1923 (p. 40), Siphlodora Patterson & Mainland, 1944 (p. 25) and Idiomyia Grimshaw, 1901 (p. 50), respectively, and the name Sophophora Sturtevant, 1939 would become a junior objective synonym of Drosophila Fallén, 1823. The remaining smaller subgenera Dorsilopha Sturtevant, 1942, (p. 28), Psilodorha Okada, 1968 (p. 334), Phloridosa Sturtevant, 1942 (p. 28), Dudaica Strand, 1943 (p. 212) and Chusqueophila Brncic, 1957 (p. 100) are also tentatively assigned the rank of genus. All 78 species without subgeneric designation will remain in the genus Drosophila as incertae sedis. 4. The paraphyletic nature of the genus Drosophila is unacceptable as it violates modern systematic practice (Hu & Toda, 2001; Da Lage et al., 2007). Two options are available to resolve the paraphyletic nature of the genus Drosophila. One is to downgrade all included genera to species groups as those genera are positioned between the three major clades of the subgenus Drosophila (the fourth clade is the 240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 subgenus Sophophora). This would result in a single huge and heterogeneous genus Drosophila (s.1.) with more than 2250 species (60% of the family DROSOPHILIDAE). It would also result in more than 100 secondary homonyms (Hu & Toda, 2001). This is not an acceptable solution. The alternative solution is to split the genus Drosophila along the major clades resulting in four larger genera as well as several smaller genera (van der Linde et al., submitted). 5. Splitting the genus requires that the subgenus Sophophora Sturtevant, 1939 (p. 139) must be ranked as a separate genus. The type species of Sophophora is by original designation Drosophila melanogaster Meigen, 1830 (p. 85). Establishing Sophophora as a genus will require the name of Drosophila melanogaster to be changed to Sophophora melanogaster. However, Drosophila melanogaster is one of the world’s most important model organisms, is used in almost all biological disciplines, and is mentioned in a huge number of publications, a situation that can be expected to continue. A vast number of publications refer only to ‘Drosophila’ when ‘Drosophila melanogaster’ is actually meant; the two names tend to be used interchangeably. Changing the name from Drosophila melanogaster to Sophophora melanogaster would produce much confusion and is likely not to be accepted by many ‘Drosophila’ researchers, most of whom are not taxonomists. The best solution, therefore, is to set aside all previous type fixations for the genus Drosophila, and to designate Drosophila melanogaster Meigen, 1830 as the type species. 6. The following type designations for Drosophila have been published: (a) Musca cellaris Linnaets, 1758 (p. 597) by Curtis, 1833 (p. 473). As Musca cellaris Linnaeus is not originally included in Drosophila, this designation is invalid, although Curtis’s designation was accepted by Westwood, 1840 (p. 152) and Coquillett, 1910 (p. 535). The systematic status of Musca cellaris Linnaeus, 1758 has never been clarified; (b) Musca cellaris Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 597) by Macquart, 1835 (p. 548), without reference to Curtis (1833). Macquart (1835, p. 549) considered Musca cellaris Linnaeus, 1758 and Musca funebris Fabricius, 1787 to be synonymous. By this action Macquart (1835) validly designated Musca funebris Fabricius, 1787 as the type species of Drosophila (Article 69.2.2 of the Code — Designated type species at the same time placed in synonymy with the originally included species): (c) Musca funebris Fabricius, 1787 (p. 345) by Zetterstedt, 1847 (p. 2542). This designation, although invalid, was accepted by most subsequent authors. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked to use its plenary power: (1) to set aside all previous type fixations for Drosophila Fallén, 1823 and designate Drosophila melanogaster Meigen, 1830, as the type species of Drosophila Fallén, 1823; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Drosophila Fallen, 1823 (gender: feminine), type species Drosophila melanogaster Meigen, 1830, as ruled in (1) above; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name melanogaster Meigen, 1830, as published in the binomen Drosophila mela- nogaster (specific name of the type species of Drosophila Fallén, 1823, as ruled in (1) above). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 241 References Bichli, G. (1999-2007). TaxoDros: The Database on Taxonomy of Drosophilidae. http://taxodros.unizh.ch/ [Accessed in September 2007]. Brncic, D. 1957. Las especies Chilenas de Drosophilidae. Coleccién de Monografias Biologicas de la Universidad de Chile, 8: 1-136. Coquillett, D.W. 1901. New Diptera in the U.S. National Museum. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 23: 593-618. Curtis, J. 1833. Pp. 434-481 in: British entomology, being illustrations and descriptions of the genera of insects found in Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 10. London. Da Lage, J.-L., Kergoat, G.J., Maczkowiak, F., Silvain, J.-F., Cariou, M.-L. & Lachaise, D. 2007. A phylogeny of Drosophilidae using the Amyrel gene: questioning the Drosophila melanogaster species group boundaries. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolution- ary Research, 45(1): 47-63. Duda, O. 1922. Liodrosophila und Sphaerogastrella, zwei neue, zu den Drosophiliden und nicht zu den Camilliden geh6rige Dipteren-Gattungen aus Stidostasien (in German). Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, 88(A4): 150-160. Duda, O. 1923. Die orientalischen und australischen Drosophiliden-Arten (Dipteren) des ungarischen National-Museums zu Budapest (in German). Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici, 20: 24-S9. Duda, O. 1940. Revision der Afrikanischen Drosophiliden (Diptera). II. Annales Historico- Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici, 33: 19-53. Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Mantissa insectorum sistens species nuper detectas adiectis synonymis, observationibus, descriptionibus, emendationibus, vol. 2. 381 pp. Hafniae. Fallén, C.F. 1823. Diptera sveciae. Geomyzides. 8 pp. Berlin. Grimshaw, P.H. 1901. Diptera. 77 pp. University Press, Cambridge. Hardy, J. 1849. Note on remedies for the Turnip fly amongst the ancients, and on the Turnip fly of New Holland, with notice of a new genus and species of Diptera. History of the Berwickshire Naturalist’s Club, 2: 359-362. Hu, Y.G. & Toda, M.J. 2001. Polyphyly of Lordiphosa and its relationships in Drosophilinae (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Systematic Entomology, 26(1): 15-31. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Macquart, J.R. 1835. Histoire naturelle des insects, Diptéres, vol. 11. 703 pp. de Roret, Paris. Malloch, J.R. 1934. Diptera, Drosophilidae. Insects of Samoa, 6(8): 267-312. Meigen, J.W. 1830. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweifliigeligen Insekten. 6 Theil. 401 pp. Schulzische Buchhandlung, Hamm. Okada, T. 1968. Addition to the fauna of the family Drosophilidae of Japan and adjacent countries (Diptera). I. Genera Stegana, Amiota, Leucophenga and Microdrosophila, with discussion on the homology of phallic organs. Kontyu, 36: 303-323. Oldenberg, L. 1914. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der europaischen Drosophiliden (Dipt.). Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, 80(A)(2): 142. Patterson, J.T. & Mainland, G.B. 1944. The Drosophilidae of Mexico. University of Texas Publication, 4445: 9-101. Strand, E. 1943. Miscellanea nomenclatorica zoologica et palaeontologica XII. Folia Zoologica et Hydrobiologica, 12: 211-216. Sturtevant, A.H. 1939. On the subdivision of the genus Drosophila. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 25: 137-141. Sturtevant, A.H. 1942. The classification of the genus Drosophila, with descriptions of nine new species. University of Texas Publication, 4213: 5-51. van der Linde, K., Bachli, G., Toda, M.J., Zhang, W.-X., Katoh, T., Hu, Y.-G., & Spicer G.S. Resolving the paraphyletic status of the genus Drosophila while preserving the name of Drosophila melanogaster (submitted). Westwood, J.O. 1840. An introduction to the modern classification of insects, vol. 2. 587 pp. Longman, Orme, Brown, Green, and Longmans. 242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 Zetterstedt, J.W. 1847. Diptera scandinaviae disposita et descripta, vol. 6. 417 pp. Lundberg, Lund. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 64: 77. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 243 Case 3402 © PHOTININI LeConte, 1881 (Insecta, Coleoptera) and PHOTININAE Giglio-Tos, 1915 (Insecta, Mantodea): proposed resolution of homonymy between family-group names Gavin J. Svenson Laboratory for Conservation and Evolutionary Genetics, New York State Museum, Albany, NY, U.S.A. (e-mail: gavin.svenson@gmail.com) Marc A. Branham Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, U.S.A. (e-mail: MABranham@ifas.ufl.edu) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.5, 29, 33.2.3.1, 55.3.1 and 70.2 of the Code, is to remove the homonymy between the beetle family-group name PHOTININI LeConte, 1881 (type genus Photinus Laporte, 1833) and the mantis family-group name PHOTININAE Giglio-Tos, 1915 (type genus Photina Burmeister, 1838). It is proposed that the stem of Photina Burmeister, 1838 be changed from PHOTIN- to PHOTINA- so that the tribe name will be emended to PHOTINAINI Giglio-Tos, 1915 and the subfamily name to PHOTINAINAE Giglio- Tos, 1915. The family-group names PHOTININI and PHOTININAE have a complex nomenclatural history due to a misspelled name of the type species, overlooked type species designation, homonymy and synonymy. The name Lampyris pallens Fabricius, 1798, has been used for the type species of the genus Photinus Laporte, 1833 in most modern taxonomic treatments of LAMPYRIDAE. However this is an incorrect subsequent spelling of Lampyris pullens Fabricius, 1798, which has never been used since it was established. There was an earlier and overlooked designa- tion of Lampyris diaphana Germar, 1824 (currently Cratomorphus diaphanus) as the type species of Photinus Laporte, 1833, which renders Cratomorphus Motschulsky, 1853 a subjective junior synonym of Photinus Laporte, 1833. It is proposed that the spelling Lampyris pallens be deemed correct and all previous type fixations for Photinus Laporte, 1833 before that of Lampyris pullens Fabricius, 1798 by Fleutiaux et al. (1947) be set aside. Mantis vitrea Burmeister, 1838 (currently Photina vitrea Burmeister) has been designated as the type species of the genus Photina Burmeister, 1838. However it is a junior primary homonym of Mantis vitrea Stoll, 1813 (a junior subjective synonym of Hierodula venosa Olivier, 1792). It is proposed to rule that the name Mantis vitrea Burmeister, 1838 is not invalid by reason of its being a junior primary homonym of Mantis vitrea Stoll, 1813. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Insecta; Coleoptera; Mantodea; LAMPYRIDAE; PHOTININI; PHOTINAINI; PHOTININAE; PHOTINAINAE; Photinus; Photina; Photinus pallens; Photina vitrea; fireflies; lightning bugs; praying mantises. 244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 Photinus Laporte, 1833 1. The genus Photinus was established by Laporte, 1833 (p. 140) as a subgenus of Lampyris Linnaeus, 1758 to include 53 species of fireflies. Some of these species have subsequently been moved to several other genera. 2. Blanchard (1845a, p. 114) designated Lampyris diaphana Germar, 1824 (p. 64) as the type species of Photinus Laporte, 1833 (see Sherborn & Griffin, 1934 for the publication date of Blanchard’s work). Upon subdividing the genus Photinus, Motschulsky (1853, p. 35) transferred L. diaphana Germar to the genus Cratomor- phus Motschulsky, 1853, which is currently a well known and widely used generic name (see para. 7 below). While designation of L. diaphana Germar, 1824 as the type species of Photinus is valid, its acceptance makes Cratomorphus Motschulsky, 1853 a junior subjective synonym of Photinus Laporte, 1833, and Photinus Laporte, 1833 would replace Cratomorphus Motschulsky, 1853 for a group of insects to which Photinus has not been applied since 1853. 3. Motschulsky (1853, p. 40) designated Lampyris vittigera Gyllenhal in Schonherr, 1817 (p. 21) as the type species of Photinus Laporte, 1833. However, Blanchard’s (1845a) valid designation of Lampyris diaphana as the type species pre-dates Motschulsky’s designation. 4. Subsequently, Gorham (1880, p. 22) designated Lampyris corrusca Linnaeus, 1767 (p. 644) as the type species of Photinus Laporte, 1833, without reference to Blanchard’s (1845a) paper. This designation was also invalid. In addition, Lampyris corrusca Linnaeus, 1767 had already been assigned to El/lychnia Blanchard, 1845 (see Blanchard, 1845b, p. 54) and-had been designated as the type species of that genus by Motschulsky (1853, p. 27). 5. Laporte, 1833 (p. 153) listed Lampyris pullens Fabricius, 1798 (p. 124) as a species belonging to Photinus, but misspelled the name as Photinus pallens. Gemminger & Harold (1869, p. 1643) also misspelled the specific name as Photinus pallens (Fabricius, 1798), which has since become the universally accepted spelling of the species name. To our knowledge, the original spelling, as published in the binomen Lampyris pullens Fabricius, 1798, has never been used since it was established, thus satisfying the requirement of Article 23.9.1.1 of the Code. However, even though the spelling Photinus pallens (Fabricius) has been used in all pertinent publications since 1833, a total of twenty-five works have not been published on this species ©... in the immediately preceding 50 years’, thereby not satisfying the requirement of Article 23.9.1.2 of the Code. Unfortunately, we could only uncover a total of twenty-eight works in the preceding 138 years, seventeen of which fall in the preceding 50 years (Gemminger & Harold, 1869; Gorham, 1898; Olivier, 1902, 1907; Leng & Mutchler, 1922; Mutchler, 1923; Buck, 1937, 1941, 1948; Barber, 1941; Fleutiaux et al., 1947; Smith, 1963; Seliger & McElroy, 1964; Seliger et al., 1964a, 1964b; Biggley et al., 1967; Lloyd, 1969, 1980, 1998; McDermott & Buck, 1959; McDermott, 1964, 1966; Lall & Lloyd, 1989; Waldbauer, 2000; Buck & Case, 2002; Case & Hanson, 2004; Lund, 2005; McElroy & Harvey, 2005). Therefore, in order to maintain nomenclatural stability we refer this matter to the Commission for a ruling under the plenary power to conserve the subsequent spelling Lampyris pallens Fabricius, 1798 under Article 33.2.3.1 of the Code, as it has come into prevailing use. 6. Fleutiaux et al. (1947, p. 160) designated Lampyris pullens Fabricius, 1798 (spelled as Lampyris pallens) as the type species of Photinus Laporte, 1833, though Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 245 they incorrectly attributed Lampyris pallens to Browne (1756, p. 431). No mention of the name Lampyris pallens or Lampyris pullens appears in Browne (1756). Although this designation is invalid, Olivier (1902, 1907) and Leng & Mutchler (1922) used L. pullens (spelled as L. pallens) as a typical example for Photinus previous to the action of Fleutiaux et al. (1947, p. 160). In addition, in his two important works on the taxonomy of LAMPYRIDAE, McDermott (1964, p. 26, 1966, p. 35) listed Lampyris pullens Fabricius, 1798 (spelled as Lampyris pallens) as the type species of Photinus Laporte, 1833. In both of these works, McDermott noted that “Application has been made to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for the valida- tion of this type fixation so that the accepted usage of the name can be conserved’. Unfortunately, it appears as though McDermott’s case was never submitted to the Commission. The name Lampyris pullens Fabricius, 1798 (spelled as Lampyris pallens) has been used for the type species of the genus Photinus Laporte, 1833 in all of the most recent taxonomic treatments of LAMPYRIDAE (see Olivier, 1902, 1907; Leng & Mutchler, 1922: McDermott, 1964, 1966). 7. It is recognized herein that Blanchard’s (1845a, p. 114) designation of Lampyris diaphana Germar, 1824 as the valid type species for Photinus Laporte has rendered Cratomorphus Motschulsky, 1853 (p. 35) a junior synonym of Photinus Laporte, 1833. However, these two genera have been accepted as distinct since the subdivision of Photinus by Motschulsky in 1853 (p. 35) and are both in current use (Motchulsky, 1853; Lacordaire, 1857; Gorham, 1880, 1884; Olivier, 1895a 1895b, 1907, 1911; Leng & Mutchler, 1922; McDermott, 1964, 1966; Bohorquez, 1993; Viviani & Bechara, 1995; Lloyd, 2002). Therefore, the use of L. diaphana Germar, 1824 as the type species of Photinus is undesirable. Between the three subsequent invalid type designations made by Motschulsky (1853, p. 40) of Lampyris vittigera Gyllenhal in Schonherr, 1817, by Gorham (1880, p. 22) of Lampyris corrusca Linnaeus, 1767, and by Fleutiaux et al. (1947, p. 160) of Lampyris pullens (spelled as Lampyris pallens), it is preferred herein that the currently and universally accepted type species, Lampyris pullens Fabricius, 1798 (spelled as Lampyris pallens), be fixed as the type species for the genus Photinus. Lampyris vittigera Gyllenhal, 1817 in Schonherr and Lampyris corrusca Linnaeus, 1767 are currently classified within Robopus Motschulsky, 1853 and Ellychnia Blanchard, 1845, respectively. In the interest of nomenclatural stability it is therefore proposed that Lampyris pullens Fabricius, 1798 (in its emended spelling Lampyris pallens) be fixed now as the type species of the genus Photinus Laporte, 1833 in order to maintain its accustomed usage. Photina Burmeister, 1838 8. Stoll (1813, p. 15) described a new nominal species of praying mantis, which he named Mantis vitrea. The species was transferred to Hierodula Burmeister, 1838 by Saussure (1871, p. 76) where it remained until Beier (1935, p. 81) subjectively synonymized the species with Hierodula venosa Olivier, 1792. Therefore, vitrea Stoll, 1813, used as a valid name until the action of Beier (1935), is currently recognized as a junior subjective synonym of Hierodula venosa Olivier, which is currently classified as belonging to the tribe PARAMANTINI (see Roy & Ehrmann, 2002; Otte & Spearman, 2005). 9. Burmeister (1838, p. 532) described a praying mantis from South America as Mantis vitrea, a junior primary homonym of Mantis vitrea Stoll, 1813. Mantis vitrea 246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 Burmeister, 1838 was originally described within Photina Burmeister, 1838 (p. 531), a subgenus of Mantis Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 425). Saussure (1870, p. 231) later transferred Mantis vitrea Burmeister, 1838 to the genus Cardioptera Burmeister, 1838 (p. 540). However, in the same work that Stal (1877, p. 63) elevated the subgenus Photina Burmeister, 1838 to genus rank; he also synonymized Cardioptera vitrea (Burmeister, 1838) with the species Photina amplipennis Stal (1877, p. 64). Reversing this synonymy, Kirby (1904, p. 273) resurrected Photina vitrea Burmeister, 1838 as a distinct species, while subsequently designating Mantis vitrea Burmeister, 1838 as the type species for the genus Photina Burmeister, 1838. The position of the name Photina vitrea Burmeister, 1838 subsequently remained within Photina until Otte & Spearman (2005, p. 286) transferred the species to Metriomantis Saussure & Zehntner, 1894 (p. 151). As a result of this action Metriomantis Saussure & Zehntner, 1894 would become a junior synonym of Photina, as M. vitrea Burmeister, 1838 has been validly designated as the type species of Photina. Though the synonymy of Metriomantis Saussure & Zehntner with Photina Burmeister has been suggested in the past (Terra, 1995), this assignment has not been accepted by all, and Photina vitrea Burmeister, 1838 remains widely accepted as a member of Photina (see Cerda, 1997: Lombardo, 1999; Ehrmann, 2002; Roy & Ehrmann, 2002; Agudelo et al., in review). 10. The nominal species Mantis vitrea Stoll, 1813 (a junior synonym of Hierodula venosa Olivier) and Mantis vitrea Burmeister, 1838 (currently Photina vitrea Burmeister) have not been regarded as congeneric since the publications by Saussure (1870, 1871) and are now placed in distantly related MANTIDAE tribes (PARAMANTINI and PHOTININI, respectively).-Replacement of the junior homonym Mantis vitrea Burmeister, 1838 would cause nomenclatural confusion as it is currently used in many publications (Beier, 1935; Terra, 1995; Cerda, 1997; Lombardo, 1999; Jantsch, 1999; Ehrmann, 2002; Lombardo & Pérez-Gelabert, 2004; Otte & Spearman, 2005: Agudelo et al., in review). In addition, according to Article 67.1.2 of the Code, M. vitrea Burmeister, 1838 remains the validly designated type species of Photina Burmeister, 1838 even though it 1s a junior primary homonym of M. vitrea Stoll, 1813. M. vitrea Stoll, 1813 is currently subjectively synonymized with Hierodula venosa Olivier, 1792 but could be resurrected in future works, and its suppression is undesirable. It is therefore proposed to conserve the name M. vitrea Burmeister, 1838 as not invalid by reason of its being a junior primary homonym of Mantis vitrea Stoll, 1813 in accordance with Article 23.9.5 of the Code. PHOTININI LeConte, 1881 and PHOTININAE Giglio-Tos, 1915 11. The family-group name PHOTINI (Coleoptera) was first used by LeConte (1881, p. 30) based on the LAMpyRIDAE genus Photinus Laporte, 1833. PHOTINI is, however, an improperly formed family-group name. Olivier (1907, p. 27) later emended PHOTINI to the proper form PHOTININI LeConte (Coleoptera, LAMPYRIDAE). Originally, Olivier (1907) retained the name PHOTININI as a subfamily name before he corrected his use of the family-group name in 1910 (p. 21) by erecting PHOTININAE as a subfamily and PHOTININI as a tribe. Green (1948, p. 67) later sunk PHOTININAE under LAMPYRINAE preserving the group as the currently recognized tribe PHOTININI. 12. Gigho-Tos (1915, p. 65) erected the subfamily name PHOTININAE (Mantodea) based on the genus Photina Burmeister, 1838. Giglio-Tos (1915, p. 65) also proposed the subgroup PHOTINAE along with COPTOPTERIGES, ORTHODERELLAE and IRIDES to be Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 247 included within PHOTININAE, and later formalized these groups while outlining their generic composition in his ordinal classification (Giglio-Tos, 1919, pp. 66-67). Beier (1935, p. 119) altered this arrangement by sinking PHOTININAE Giglio-Tos, 1915 (excluding IrIDEs) to tribal status under the subfamily MANTINAE. Subsequently, Beier (1964, p. 950; 1968, p. 11) resurrected PHOTININAE Giglio-Tos, 1915 as a subfamily under MANTIDAE to include both PHOTINAE sensu lato Giglio-Tos, 1919 (PHOTINAE now including the genera from ORTHODERELLAE) and COPTOPTERIGES sensu Giglio-Tos, 1919 as tribes by emending the improperly formed family-group names to PHOTININI Giglio-Tos, 1915 and copropTERYGINI Giglio-Tos, 1915. This arrangement has remained unchanged in recent classifications (Roy & Ehrmann, 2002, p. 378; Otte & Spearman, 2005, pp. 79-89; Agudelo et al., in review) and its generic composition has been rather stable. 13. Therefore, pHoTININI LeConte, 1881 is a senior homonym of PHOTININAE Giglio-Tos, 1915. Both names are in current use (Cerda, 1997; Terra, 1995; Lombardo, 1999; Archangelsky & Branham, 2001; Roy & Ehrmann, 2002; Lloyd, 2002; Svenson & Whiting, 2004; Otte & Spearman, 2005; Kazantsev, 2006; Agudelo et al., in review). 14. The name PHOTININI LeConte, 1881 (name of a tribe of LAMpyrRIDAE) has priority and it is suggested that the name PHOTININAE Giglio-Tos, 1915 (name of a subfamily of MANTIDAE according to Roy & Ehrmann (2002) or vATIDAE according to Terra (1995)) be altered to remove homonymy. It is proposed that the stem of Photina Burmeister, 1838 be changed from PHOTIN- to PHOTINA-, thereby making the tribe name PHOTINAINI and the subfamily name PHOTINAINAE. 15. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power: (a) to rule that pallens Fabricius, 1798 is a justified emendation of the original spelling pullens Fabricius, 1798, as published in the binomen Lampyris pullens; (b) to set aside all previous type fixations for the genus Photinus Laporte prior to that of Lampyris pullens Fabricius, 1798 by Fleutiaux et al. (1947); (c) to rule that the species-group name vitrea Burmeister, 1838, as published in the binomen Mantis vitrea, is not invalid by reason of its being a junior primary homonym of vitrea Stoll, 1813, as published in the binomen Mantis vitrea; (d) to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code the stem of the generic name Photina Burmeister, 1838 is PHOTINA-; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Photinus Laporte, 1833 (gender: masculine), type species Lampyris pallens Fabricius, 1798, as ruled in (1b) above: (b) Photina Burmeister, 1838 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Kirby, 1904 Mantis vitrea Burmeister, 1838; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) pallens Fabricius 1798, with the endorsement that, as ruled in (la) above, it is a justified emendation of pullens Fabricius 1798, as published in the binomen Lampyris pullens (type species of Photinus Laporte, 1833, as ruled in (1b) above); 248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 (b) vitrea Burmeister, 1838, as published in the binomen Mantis vitrea (type species of Photina Burmeister, 1838), with the endorsement that it is not invalid by reason of its being a junior primary homonym of Mantis vitrea Stoll, 1813; (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following names: (a) PHOTININI LeConte, 1881 (type genus Photinus Laporte, 1833) (Coleoptera); (b) PHOTINAINAE Giglio-Tos, 1915 (type genus Photina Burmeister, 1838) (spelling emended by the ruling in (1d) above) (Mantodea); (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name pullens Fabricius, 1798, as published in the binomen Lampyris pullens (spelling emended to pallens as ruled in (1a) above); (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the name PHOTININAE Giglio-Tos, 1915 (junior homonym of PHOTININI LeConte, 1881 (spelling emended to PHOTINAINAE by the ruling in (1d) above) (Mantodea)). Acknowledgements We thank Kelly Miller, James Lloyd, Roger Roy, Stephen Cameron and Howard Frank for providing comments and suggestions, and Lee Herman for assistance in acquiring copies of rare taxonomic literature. Parts of this case pertaining to LAMPYRIDAE type designation are modified from an unpublished case prepared for the ICZN by the late F.A. McDérmott in 1963. References Agudelo, A.A, Lombardo, F. & Jantsch, L.J. Checklist of the Neotropical Mantids (Insecta, Dictyoptera, Mantodea). Biota Colombiana (in review). Archangelsky, M. & Branham, M.A. 2001. Description of last instar and pupa of Pyropyga nigricans (Coleoptera: Lampyridae: Photinini) and comparison with larvae of other Photinini genera. Canadian Entomologist, 133: 1-10. Barber, H.S. 1941. Species of Fireflies in Jamaica. Proceedings of the Rochester Academy of Sciences, 8:1—13. Beier, M. 1935. Mantodea, Familie Mantidae, Subfamilie Mantinae. Genera Insectorum ( Orthoptera), 203: 1-146. Beier, M. 1964. Blattopteroidea-Mantodea. Pp. 850-970 in Bronns, H.G. Klassen und Ordnungen des Tierreichs. Akademie Verlagsges, Leipzig. Beier, M. 1968. Mantodea. Pp. 1-47 in Helmcke, J.G, Starck, D. & Wermuth, H. Handbuch der Zoologie. 12. Teil 2/12, 4(2). Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin. Biggley, W.H., Lloyd, J.E. & Seliger, H.H. 1967. The spectral distribution of firefly light. II. The Journal of General Physiology, 50: 1681-1692. Blanchard, C.E. 1845a. Insectes Pp. 60-222 in Orbigny, A.D. d’. Voyage dans I Amérique meéridionale: (le Brésil, la république orientale de | Uruguay, la République argentine, la Patagonie, la république du Chili, la république de Bolivia, la république du Pérou), exécuté Paris. Blanchard, C.E. 1845b. Histoire des Insectes 1. 524 pp. Paris. Bohorquez, I. 1993. Studies on neotropical Lampyridae (Coleopotera): I. Description of two new species of Cratomorphus Motoschulsky, 1853, from Peru, and first report of a brachelytral, flightless and physogastrous female of the genus. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia, 37(2): 321-328. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 249 Browne, P. 1756. The Natural History of Jamaica. P. 431 and pl. 44. 503 pp. London. Buck, J.B. 1937. Flashing fireflies in Jamaica. Nature, 139: 801. Buck, J.B. 1941. Problems in the distribution and light organ structure of Jamaican lampyrid fireflies. Proceedings of the Rochester Academy of Sciences, 8: 1-13. Buck, J.B. 1948. The anatomy and physiology of the light organ in fireflies. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 49(3): 397-470. Buck, J. & Case, J. 2002. Physiological links in firefly flash code evolution. Journal of Insect Behavior, 15(1): 51-68. Burmeister, H.C. 1838. Handbuch der Entomologie. Fangschrechen, Mantodea, vol. 2(5-8). Pp. 517-552. Berlin. Case, J.F. & Hanson, F.E. 2004. The luminous world of John and Elisabeth Buck. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 44(3): 197-202. Cerda, F.J. 1997. Mantodea de Venezuela. Géneros y lista preliminar de especies. Parte 5: Familia Mantidae (Subfamilia Photininae). Boletin de Entomologia Venezolana, 12(1): 33-42. Ehrmann, R. 2002. Mantodea: Gottesanbeterinnen der Welt. 519 pp. Natur und Tier Verlag, Munster. Fabricius, J.C. 1798. Supplementum entomologiae systematicae. iv, 572 pp. C.G. Proft & Storch, Hafniae. Fleutiaux, E., Legros, C., Lepesme, P. & Paulian, R. 1947. Famille des Lampyridae. Faune de L’empire Francais VII Coléoptéres Des Antilles, 1: 158-162. Gemminger, M. & Harold, E. von. 1869. Malacodermidae. Catalogus Coleopterorum, vol. 6. Pp. 1609-1800. Gummi, Monachii. Germar, E.F. 1824. Insectorum Species Novae. 624 pp. Halae. Giglio-Tos, E. 1915. Mantidi Esotici: Generi e specie nuove. Bollettino della Societa entomo- logica italiana, 46: 31-108. Giglio-Tos, E. 1919. Saggio di una classificazione dei Mantidi. Bollettino della Societa entomologica italiana, 49: 50-87. Gorham, H.S. 1880. Materials for a revision of the Lampyridae. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 1880: 1-36, 83-112. Gorham, H.S. 1884. Biologia Centrali-Americana: Insecta, Coleoptera, Supplement to Malaco- dermata, vol. 3(2). Pp. 225-272. London. Gorham, H.S. 1898. On the serricorn Coleoptera of St. Vincent, Grenada, and the Grendaines (Malacodermata, Ptinidae, Bostrychidae), with descriptions of new species. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1898: 315-333. Green, J.W. 1948. Two new species of Lampyridae from southern Florida, with a generic revision of the Nearctic fauna (Coleoptera). Transactions of the American Entomological Society, 74: 61-73. Gyllenhal, L. 1817. In Schénherr, C.J. Appendix ad C.J. Schénherr Synonymiam insectorum, vol. 1, pt. 3. 266 pp. Lewerentziana, Scaris. Jantsch, L.J. 1999. Estudos filogenéticos em mantodeos americanos (Insecta; Pterygota; Mantodea), Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio Grande do Sul. Thesis (Ph.D.). 138 pp. Porto Alegre. Kazantsev, S.V. 2006. New firefly taxa from Hispaniola and Puerto Rico (Coleoptera: Lampyridae), with notes on biogeography. Russian Entomological Journal, 15(4): 367-392. Kirby, W.F. 1904. A synonymic catalogue of Orthoptera, (Forficilidae, Hemimeridae, Blattidae, Mantidae and Phasmidae), vol. 1. x, 501 pp. British Museum, Natural History, London. Lacordaire, J.T. 1857. Lampyrides. Genera des Coléoptéres, 4: 304-341. Lall, A.B. & Lloyd, J.E. 1989. Spectral sensitivity of the compound eyes in two day-active fireflies (Coleoptera: Lampyridae: Lucidota). Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology, 166(2): 257-260. Laporte, M.F.L. 1833. D’ une Revision du Genre Lampyre. Annales de la Société Ento- mologique de France, 2: 122-153. LeConte, J.L. 1881. Synopsis of the Lampyridae of the United States. Transactions of the American Entomological Society, 9: 15—72. 250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 Leng, C.W. & Mutchler, A.J. 1922. The Lycidae, Lampyridae and Cantharidae (Telephoridae) of the West Indies. Bulletin American Museum Natural History, 46: 413-499. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvi, Holmiae. Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae, vol. 1, part 2. Pp. 533-1327. Salvi, Holmiae. Lloyd, J.E. 1969. Signals and systematics of Jamaican fireflies: notes on behavior and undescribed species. Entomological News, 80(7): 169-176. Lloyd, J.E. 1980. Male Photuris fireflies mimic sexual signals of their females’ prey. Science, 210(4470): 669-671. Lloyd, J.E. 1998. On research and entomological education II: A conditional mating strategy and resource-sustained LEK(?) in a classroom firefly (Coleoptera: Lampyridae; Photinus). Florida Entomologist, 81(3): 261-272. Lloyd, J.E. 2002. Lampyridae. Pp. 187-196 in Arnett, R.H., Thomas, M.C., Skelley, P.E. & Frank, J.H. (Eds.), American Beetles, vol. 2. CRC Press, New York. Lombardo, F. 1999. Remarks on the genus Metriomantis Saussure & Zehntner and description of two new species and a new genus: Rehniella gen. n. (Insecta Mantodea). Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 106(2): 393-405. Lombardo, F. & Pérez-Gelabert, D.E. 2004. The mantids of Hispaniola with the description of two new species (Mantodea). Boletin de la SEA (Sociedad Entomologica Aragonesa), 34: 35-48. Lund, E.J. 2005. On the structure, physiology and use of photogenic organs, with special reference to the Lampyridae. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 11(4): 415-467. McDermott, F.A. 1964. The Taxonomy of the Lampyridae (Coleoptera). Transactions of the American Entomological Society, 90: 1-72. i McDermott, F.A. 1966. Lampyridae. Jn Steel, W.O. (Ed.), Coleopterorum Catalogus Supple- menta, pars 9 (edition secunda). 149 pp. W. Junk, ’s-Gravenhage, Netherland. McDermott, F.A. & Buck, J.B. 1959. The Lampyrid Fireflies of Jamaica. Transactions of the American Entomological Society, 85: 1-112. McElroy, W.D. & Harvey, E.N. 2005. Differences among species in the response of firefly extracts to adenosine triphosphate. Journal of Cellular and Comparative Physiology, 37(1): 83-89. Motschulsky, V. 1853. Sur les lampyrids. Etudes Entomologiques, 1: 25-58. Mutchler, A.J. 1923. Notes on West Indian Lampyridae and Cantharidae (Coleoptera) with Descriptions of New Forms. American Museum Novitates, 63: 19. Olivier, A.G. 1792. Insectes (Mantodea). Pp. 616-642 in Encyclopédie Méthodique. Histoire Naturelle. Dictionnaire des Insectes. vol. 7, Panckoucke, Paris. Olivier, E. 1895a. Essai d’une classification du genre Cratomorphus, avec descriptions de deux especes nouvelles et catalogue synonymique. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France, 1895: pp. cxlv-cxviil. Olivier, E. 1895b. Descriptions de nouvelles espéces de lampyrids du Musée de Tring. Novitates Zoologicae, 2: 29-34. Olivier, E. 1902. Description d'un Lampyride nouveau de la Jamaique (Col.). Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France, 1902: pp. 318-319. Olivier, E. 1907. Family Lampyridae. Pp. 1-74 In Wytsman, M. (Ed.), Genera Insectorum, Coleoptera, 53: 1-74. Bruxelles. Olivier, E. 1910. Lampyridae. Pp. 1-68 in Junk, W. & Schenkling, S. (Eds.), Coleopterorum Catalogus. Pars 9. W. Junk, Berlin. Olivier, E. 1911. Révision des lampyrids. Revue Scientifique Bourbonnais, 24: 63-85. Otte, D. & Spearman, L. 2005. Mantida species file. Catalog of the mantids of the world. 489 pp. Philadelphia. (Association of Insect Diversity, vol. 1). Roy, R. & Ehrmann, E. 2002. Systematische Aufstellung der Gattungen. Pp. 374-378 in Ehrmann, E., Mantodea: Gottesanbeterinnen der Welt. 519 pp. Natur und Tier Verlag, Miinster. Saussure, H. 1870. Additions au Systeme des Mantides. Mitteilungen der Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft, 3(5): 221-244. Saussure, H. 1871. Melanges Orthopterologiques — 1V Mantides. Mémoires de la Societe de Physique et d'Histoire Naturelle de Genéve, 21(2): 1-214. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 251 Saussure, H. & Zehntner, L. 1894. Fam. Mantidae. Biologia Centrali- Americana. Insecta Orthoptera, 1: 123-197. Seliger, H.H. & McElroy, W.D. 1964. The colors of firefly bioluminescence: Enzyme configuration and species specificity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 52: 75-81. Seliger, H.H., Buck, J.B., Fastie, W.G., McElroy, W.D. 1964a. Flash patterns in Jamaican fireflies. Biological Bulletin, 127(1): 159-172. Seliger, H.H., Buck, J.B., Fastie, W.G., McElroy, W.D. 1964b. The spectral distribution of firefly light. The Journal of General Physiology, 48: 95-104. Sherborn, C.D. & Griffin, F.J. 1934. On the dates of publication of the natural history portions of Alcide’Orbigny’s Voyage Amérique meéridionale. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (10)13: 130-134. Smith, D.S. 1963. The organization and innervation of the luminescent organ in a firefly, Photuris pennsylvanica (Coleoptera). Journal of Cell Biology, 16: 323-359. Stal, C. 1877. Systema Mantodeorum. Essai d’une systématisation nouvelle des Mantodées. Bihang till Kongliga Svenska Vetenskaps-akademiens Handlingar, 4(10): 1-91. Stoll, C. 1813. Représentation exactement colorée d’aprés nature des Spectres ou Phasmes, des Mantes, des Sauterelles, des Grillons, des Criquets et des Blattes qui se trouvent dans les quatre parties du monde. J.C. Sepp set Fils, Amsterdam. Svenson, G.J. & Whiting, M.F. 2004. Phylogeny of Mantodea based on molecular data: evolution of a charismatic predator. Systematic Entomology, 29: 359-370. Terra, P.S. 1995. Revisao Sistematica Dos Generos De Louva-A-Deus Da Regiao Neotropical (Mantodea). Revista brasileira de Entomologia, 39: 13-94. Viviani, V.R. & Bechara, E.J.H. 1995. Bioluminescence of Brazilian fireflies (Coleoptera, Lampyridae) — spectral distribution and pH effect on luciferase-elicited colors — compari- son with elaterid and phengodid luciferases. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 62(3): 490-495. Waldbauer, G. 2000. Millions of monarchs, bunches of beetles: how bugs find strength in numbers. 272 pp. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 64: 2. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 Case 3420 Buettneria Case, 1922 (Amphibia): proposed conservation Spencer G. Lucas, Larry F. Rinehart, Justin A. Spielmann and Adrian P. Hunt New Mexico Museum of Natural History, 1801 Mountain Road NW, Albuquerque, NM 87104, U.S.A. (e-mail: spencer.lucas@state.nm.us) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the name of the Triassic amphibian genus Buettneria Case, 1922, which is a junior homonym of Buettneria Karsch, 1888, the generic name of an extant orthopteran insect. Because the name of the amphibian has been frequently and widely used, whereas that of the insect is very little used, the suppression of Buettneria Karsch, 1888 is proposed. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Orthoptera; Amphibia; Buettneria; Stenacrop- teryx; Buettneria perfecta; Central Africa; West Africa; West Texas; Triassic; amphibian; cricket. 1. Karsch (1888, p. 444) introduced the generic name Biittneria (type and only named species B. maculiceps Karsch, 1888) for an orthopteran insect from Congo (Brazzaville) in Central/West Africa. 2. Case (1922, p. 13) introduced the generic name Buettneria (type species by monotypy B. perfecta Case, 1922 (p. 13) for a Triassic amphibian from West Texas, USA. 3. Ragge (1962, p. 11) emended Karsch’s generic name Biittneria to Buettneria. This is a justified emendation (Article 32.5.2.1 of the Code—names published before 1985 and based on German words). Buettneria Karsch, 1888 is a senior homonym of Buettneria Case, 1922. 4. Mueller (2007, p. 225) brought this homonymy to the attention of vertebrate palaeontologists and concluded that Buettneria Case, 1922 needed to be replaced by ‘the oldest available generic synonym for Buettneria based on diagnostic material, which is Koskoninodon Branson & Mehl, 1929. 5. Mueller’s (2007) conclusion applies strict priority but ignores the fact that Buettneria Karsch, 1888 is a virtual nomen oblitum, whereas Buettneria Case, 1922 is a generic name long and widely used in the technical and non-technical literature. 6. We were able to find only four examples of usage of the name Buettneria Karsch, 1888 since the time it was established: Kirby (1906), Griffini (1908) and Ragge (1962, 1968). Other than Ragge (1962), these are mere listings of the generic name in compendia of orthopteran taxa, so they should not be used to determine usage (Article 23.9.6 of the Code). Thus there is only one usage of Buettneria Karsch, 1888 relevant to Article 23.9 of the Code (Reversal of Precedence) — Ragge (1962), 45 years ago. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 253 7. In contrast, Buettneria Case, 1922 is a widely-used name in palaeontology, appearing in many articles, monographs and textbooks (see, for example, Colbert & Imbrie, 1956; Romer, 1966; Hunt, 1993; Schoch & Milner, 2000 and references cited therein). This is because the name has been frequently applied to a common Late Triassic amphibian from North America with close relatives or possible records in Europe, Africa, Madagascar and India. We have provided the Commission Secre- tariat with a sample list of 75 published usages of Buettneria Case, 1922, by more than 45 authors in the 75 year interval 1922-2007; many more can be compiled. Buettneria Case, 1922 thus meets the conditions of Article 23.9.1.2. 8. We also note that Karsch (1896, p. 339) introduced the new generic and specific name Stenacropteryx eburneiguttata for a West African cricket, and Ragge (1962, p. 12) considered this name to be a junior subjective synonym of Buettneria maculiceps Karsch, 1888. Thus, in the event of suppression of the name Buettneria Karsch, 1888, the name Stenacropteryx Karsch, 1896 is available for this genus. 9. Therefore, in the interests of stability of nomenclature, we believe that suppression of the little used name Buettneria Karsch, 1888 is advisable. We consider that continued use of the older homonym threatens the stability and universality of nomenclature and thus will cause confusion. In accordance with Article 23.9.3 of the Code, we suggest that the name Buettneria Karsch, 1888 be suppressed. 10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to suppress the generic name Buettneria Karsch, 1888 and all uses of this name for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Buettneria Case, 1922 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Buettneria perfecta Case, 1922; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name perfecta Case, 1922, as published in the binomen Buettneria perfecta (specific name of the type species of Buettneria Case, 1922); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Buettneria Karsch, 1888, as suppressed in (1) above. References Branson, E.B. & Mehl, M.G. 1929 Triassic amphibians from the Rocky Mountain region. The University of Missouri Studies, 4: 154-253. Case, E.C. 1922. New reptiles and stegocephalians from the Upper Triassic of western Texas. Carnegie Institution Publication, 321: 84. Colbert, E.H. & Imbrie, J. 1956 Triassic metoposaurid amphibians. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 110: 403-452. Griffini, A. 1908. Phasgonuridae africanae del R. Museo di Storia Naturale de Bruxelles. Memoires de la Société entomologique de Belgique, 15: 18-86. Hunt, A.P. 1993. Revision of the Metoposauridae (Amphibia: Temnospondyli) and description of a new genus from western North America. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin, 59: 67-97. Karsch, F. 1888. Orthopterologische Beitrage. III. Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift, 32: 415-464. Karsch, F. 1896. Neue Orthopteran aus dem tropischen Afrika. Stettiner Entomologische Zeitung, 57: 242-359. 254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 Kirby, W. 1906. A synonymic catalogue of Orthoptera. Volume 2. Orthoptera Saltatoria. Part I. 598 pp. British Museum, London. ; Mueller, B.D. 2007. Koskoninodon Branson and Mehl, 1929, a replacement name for the preoccupied temnospondyl Buettneria Case, 1922. Journal of Vertebrate Palaeontology, if, DSc Ragge, D.R. 1962. A revision of the genera Phlaurocentrum Karsch, Buettneria Karsch and Leiodontocercus Chopard (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Bulletin of the British Museum of Natural History. Entomology, 13: 3-17. Ragge, D.R. 1968. An index-catalogue of African Phaneropterinae (Orthoptera: Tettigonii- dae). Bulletin of the British Museum of Natural History. Entomology, 22: 76-108. Romer, A.S. 1966. Vertebrate Palaeontology 3rd edition. 468 pp. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Schoch, R.R. & Milner, A.R. 2000. Sterospondyli: Stem-Sterospondyli, Rhinesuchidae, Rhytidostea, Trematosauroidea, Capitosauroidea, Encyclopedia of Palaeoherpetology, 3B: 1-203. Acknowledgement of receipt of this publication was published in BZN 64: 137. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 255 Case 3345_ DENDROBATIDAE Cope, 1865 (1850) (Amphibia, Anura): proposed conservation Jay M. Savage Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, U.S.A. (e-mail: savy1@cox.net) Charles W. Myers Division of Vertebrate Zoology, Herpetology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024, U.S.A. (e-mail: myers@amnh.org) Darrel R. Frost Division of Vertebrate Zoology, Herpetology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024, U.S.A. (e-mail: frost@amnh.org) Taran Grant Faculdade de Biociéncias, Pontifica Universidade Catélica do Rio Grande do Sul, Ay. Ipiranga 6681, 90619-900, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil (e-mail: taran.grant@pucrs.br) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the widely used family-group name DENDROBATIDAE Cope, 1865 (1850), for a group of Neotropical frogs by giving it precedence over the senior synonym PHYLLOBATIDAE Fitzinger, 1843 whenever the two are considered synonyms. As a further protection of the family name it is proposed to suppress the generic name Hysaplesia Boie in Schlegel, 1826a, considered by some authors as a senior synonym of the generic name Dendrobates Wagler, 1830. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Amphibia; DENDROBATIDAE; Dendrobates; Phyllobates; Hylaplesia; Dendrobates tinctorius; Phyllobates bicolor; poison arrow frogs, poison dart frogs. 1. In 1982 Dubois (BZN 39: 267-278) in a lengthy discussion of application Z.N.(S).1930 (BZN 27: 262-264) proposed conservation of the generic name Dendrobates Wagler, 1830, and establishment of precedence for DENDROBATIDAE Cope, 1865 over PHYLLOBATIDAE Fitzinger, 1843. Holthuis (BZN 40: 197-198) disagreed with Dubois’ conclusion that Dendrobates was a new replacement name for Hylaplesia H. Boie in Schlegel (1826b) and saw no need for any Commission action regarding the two names. He further stated that he saw no need to give 256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 DENDROBATIDAE precedence Over PHYLLOBATIDAE. Holthuis, however, supported plac- ing the names Dendrobates and Phyllobates and their type species on the appropriate Official Lists. Dubois (BZN 40: 198-199) responded but saw no reason to modify his original proposals. The Commission never acted on any of Dubois’ proposals but we regard several of them to have merit that would contribute to stability and universality of anuran names. Consequently, we submit this new proposal to resolve the principal issues relating to the aforementioned names. 2. The generic name Hysaplesia was first published by Schlegel (1826a, p. 239) based explicitly on a manuscript by Heinrich Boie. Hysaplesia as originally conceived contained the following species: Hyla trivittata Spix, 1824; Hyla nigerrima Spix, 1824; Hyla punctata (Daudin, 1802), Hyla tinctoria (Daudin, 1800); Hyla luteola (Wied-Neuwied, 1824) and two nomina nuda, Hysaplesia achatina and Hysaplesia borbonica. The last two names were made available some years later by Tschudi (1838). They are now recognized (Frost, 2007) as valid species, Microhyla achatina and Leptophryne borbonica, in the family MICROHYLIDAE but as nomina nuda prior to 1838 have no bearing on the status of Hysaplesia. Schlegel (1826b, col. 294) published a German translation of his 1826a paper but in that subsequent publication used the spelling Hylaplesia as the generic name for the same suite of species previously allocated to Hysaplesia. Although Hysaplesia Boie, 1826 (in Schlegel, 1826a) is likely to be an original misprint for Hy/aplesia it must stand as the correct original spelling under Article 32.2 of the Code as it is not demonstrably incorrect (Article 32.5 of the Code). 3. Hylaplesia Boie, 1826 ‘(Gn Schlegel, 1826b) was considered an unjustified emendation by Dubois (1982) but it can also be interpreted as an incorrect subsequent spelling (Holthuis, 1983). Dubois dated Hylaplesia as 1827 based on Schlegel’s “Erpetologische Nachrichten’, published in Isis von Oken, vol. 20, part 3. In 1966, Brongersma, Inger & Marx (BZN 22: 303-312) noted that the signatures of parts 1-3 of vol. 20 are dated 1826. In 1968, Smith (BZN 25: 107-112) wrote that only parts 1-2 are dated on the title pages, and that part 3 ‘contains the first sections of the Literature-Register for 1827, and therefore could not have appeared in 1826’. Smith evidently was referring to the short list of titles in the “Eingegangen’ section on the back cover of part 3, where there is a single 1827 item from the Heidelberg publisher [Joseph] Engelmann. However, Smith overlooked the 1826 date in the printer’s gathering or signature title (‘Isis B XX. Heft 3. 1826’) on the bottom of every fifth page of part 3. It is likely that the aforesaid 1827 work was merely an advance notice from the publisher, as was sometimes done in the Jsis (e.g. the 1827 ‘Eingegangen entry in the penultimate part of vol. 19, 1826). Thus, there is no reliable basis for discarding the 1826 date on part 3 of vol. 20, and we accept a default date of December 31 for part 3. References to the “Nachricten’ paper, therefore, are cited as Schlegel (1826b) throughout the present application. Although we certainly sympathize with Dubois’ reasoning, in such instances Article 33.5 of the Code mandates that the name be treated as an incorrect subsequent spelling, making Hylaplesia an unavailable name but a special kind of subsequent usage of Hysaplesia. Stejneger (1937, p. 139) selected Hyla punctata Daudin, 1802 as the type species for Hylaplesia. Note that Hyla punctata (Daudin, 1802) was a new combination for the species originally described by Schneider (1799, p. 170) as Calamita punctatus. Stejneger’s selection establishes the type species of Hysaplesia as Calamita punctatus Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 257 Schneider, 1799 because an incorrect subsequent spelling (Hy/aplesia) has no status of its own but is to be treated as though the original spelling (Hysaplesia) were used at the time the type designation was made. 4. Wagler (1830, p. 202) proposed the name Dendrobates for Hyla nigerrima Spix, Hyla tinctoria Daudin and Hyla trivittata Spix. Dubois considered this name to be a new replacement name (nomen novum) for Hy/laplesia Boie, 1826 (in Schlegel, 1826b). However, the fact that it contained only three of the species originally included in Hylaplesia does not support that notion. That Wagler did not automati- cally include Hylapiesia borbonica, Hylapleisia achatina or Hyla luteola in Dendro- bates indicates that the latter is not a new replacement name but a new taxon based on a provisionally different concept. As Wagler had not seen specimens of H. borbonica and H. achatina he left open the possibility that Dendrobates might be the same as Hylaplesia once these two species were examined. It also held out the possibility that they would not fit into Wagler’s concept of Dendrobates. This was the position of Holthuis (1983), with whom we concur. The type species of Dendrobates is Hyla tinctoria Daudin, 1800 = Rana tinctoria Cuvier, 1797, by subsequent designation of Dumeéril & Bibron (1841, p. 651) as previously noted by Lescure (BZN 39: 265) and Dubois (BZN 39: 271). Because Dendrobates is not a replacement name for HysaplesialHylaplesia this designation can have no bearing on determining the type species of Hysaplesia Boie, 1826, contrary to Dubois (1982, pp. 270-271). Nevertheless, Hysaplesia has never been used as a valid generic name (except as the incorrect subsequent spelling Hylaplesia), other than in the original publication (Schlegel, 1826a). The usage of Hylapesia (Lutz, 1925, p. 139), the equivalent of Hysaplesia, negates the possibility of applying Article 23.9.2 of the Code (the nomen oblitum option) for suppression of Hysaplesia. Under the circumstances it is best to follow Dubois’ request to place Hysaplesia on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names so that it does not become a threat to stability in the future. 5. Phyllobates was first published in the binomen Phyllobates bicolor by Bibron in Sagra, 1840 (pl. 29), not by Duméril & Bibron in 1841, as asserted by Dubois in 1982 (and also 1986, p. 130). The name and illustration of the frog appeared in pl. 29 bis of Sagra’s Atlas. Duméril & Bibron referenced this plate, but not the later text, in vol. 8 of the Erpétologie générale (1841, p. 638). Smith & Grant (1958, pp. 220, 221) accepted 1840 as the latest date for Sagra’s Atlas. The Avertissement in vol. 8 of the Erpétologie générale is dated (p. 11) December 25, 1840, indicating that Sagra’s pl. 29 bis must have appeared in 1840 before that date. Phy/lobates bicolor is here sourced to the Spanish edition of Sagra, at least part of which appeared ahead of the French translation, although precise dating is difficult, as discussed by Smith and Grant (1958). 6. In regard to family-group names, Dubois (1982; BZN 39: 272-273) pointed out the following sequence by priority: PHYLLOBATAE Fitzinger, 1843 (p. 32) (type genus Phyllobates Bibron, 1840); EUBAPHIDAE Bonaparte, 1850 (type genus Eubaphus Bonaparte, 1831, an objective junior synonym of Dendrobates) used only by Bonaparte again in 1852; HYLAPLESIIDAE and subfamily HYLAPLESINA Giinther, 1858 (type genus Hylaplesia Boie, 1826 = Hysaplesia Boie, 1826) which must be considered to be incorrect original spellings of HySAPLESIIDAE and HYSAPLESINA; DENDROBATIDAE Cope, 1865 (p. 100) (type genus Dendrobates Wagler, 1830). According to Article 40 of the Code, DENDROBATIDAE Cope, 1865 (1850) is the correct citation because its 258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 objective junior synonym, EUBAPHIDAE, was replaced prior to 1961. Dubois (BZN 40: 275) documented the nearly universal use of the names DENDROBATIDAE Or DENDRO- BATINAE for these frogs from 1882 to 1982. Since that time the name DENDROBATIDAE has been used with few exceptions in a wide range of biological literature. However, as shown by Dubois (BZN 40: 272; Frost, 2007) the names PHYLLOBATIDAE or PHYLLOBATINAE have been used as family-group names by a number of authors in the late 20th century. Commission action is therefore required to preclude any future threat to stability, which has become of paramount importance in this case. The family has been the subject of intense study by many investigators since 1982, with dozens of significant publications in systematics, natural history, and breeding studies. Additionally, hundreds of medically relevant publications have resulted from the isolation and study of alkaloids sequestered in defensive skin secretions; the novel ‘dendrobatid alkaloids’ are providing important tools in neuromuscular, cardio- vascular, and CNS research. More than 800 biologically active alkaloids are currently known from frog skin, with the largest number and greatest chemical and pharma- cological diversity occurring in the DENDROBATIDAE (for overviews see Daly et al., 1987, 1999, 2005; Daly, 2003). 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly requested: (1) to use its plenary power: (a) to suppress the generic name Hysaplesia Boie in Schlegel, 1826 (gender: feminine), type species “Hyla punctata Daudin’ = Calamita punctatus Schneider, 1799 by- subsequent designation of Stejneger, 1937 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (b) to rule that the family-group name DENDROBATIDAE Cope, 1865 (1850) be given precedence over the family-group name PHYLLOBATIDAE Fitzinger, 1843 whenever the two are regarded as synonyms; to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Dendrobates Wagler, 1830 (gender: masculine), type species Rana tinctoria Cuvier, 1797, by subsequent designation by Duméril & Bibron (1841); (b) Phyllobates Bibron, 1840 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Phyllobates bicolor Bibron in Sagra, 1840; to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) tinctoria Cuvier, 1797, as published in the binomen Rana tinctoria (specific name of the type species of Dendrobates Wagler, 1830); (b) bicolor Bibron, 1840, as published in the binomen Phyllobates bicolor (specific name of the type species of Phyllobates Bibron in Sagra, 1840); to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) DENDROBATIDAE Cope, 1865 (1850) (type genus Dendrobates Wagler, 1830) with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over PHYLLOBATIDAE Fitzinger, 1843 (type genus Phyllobates Bibron in Sagra, 1840) whenever the two names are considered synonyms; (b) PHYLLOBATIDAE Fitzinger, 1843 (type genus Phyllobates Bibron in Sagra, 1840) with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over DENDROBATIDAE Cope, 1865 (1850) whenever the two names are considered synonyms; =~ i) —~ (oS) = s Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 259 (5) to place on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the genus Hysaplesia Boie in Schlegel, 1826 (gender: feminine), type species ‘Hyla punctata Daudin’ = Calamita punctatus Schneider, 1799, by subsequent designation by Stejneger (1937). References Bibron, G. 1840. Phyllobates bicolor. In Cocteau, J.T. & Bibron, G. Reptiles. Pl. 29b in Sagra, R. de la (Ed.), Historia fisica, politica y natural de la Isla de Cuba. Part 2, Historia natural, vol. 8, Atlas de Zoologia. Libreria de Arthus Bertrand, Librero Sociedad Geografica, Paris. Bonaparte, C.L. 1831. Saggio di una distribuzione metodica degli animali vertebrati. 78 pp. Boulzaler, Roma. Bonaparte, C.L. 1850. Conspectus systematum Herpetologiae et Amphibiologiae. Editio altera reformata. | pl. Brill, Lugduni Batavorum. Bonaparte, C.L. 1852. Conspectus systematum Herpetologiae et Amphibiologiae. Nuovi annali delle scienze naturali, Bologna, (3)5: 477-480. Cope, E.D. 1865. Sketch of the primary groups of Batrachia Salientia. Natural History Review, n.s., 5: 97-120. Cuvier, G. 1797. Tableau élementaire de l'histoire naturelle des animaux. 710 pp. Baudoin, Paris. Daly, J.W. 2003. Ernest Guenther award in chemistry of natural products. Amphibian skin: a remarkable source of biologically active arthropod alkaloids. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 46(4): 445-453. Daly, J.W., Garaffo, H.M. & Spande, T.F. 1999. Alkaloids from amphibian skin. Pp. 1-161 in Pelletier, S.W. (Ed.), Alkaloids: chemical and biological perspectives, vol. 13. Pergamon, New York. Daly, J.W., Myers, C.W. & Whittaker, N. 1987. Further classification of skin alkaloids from Neotropical poison frogs (Dendrobatidae), with a general survey of toxic/noxious substances in the Amphibia. Toxicon, 25(10): 1023-1095. Daly, J.W., Spande, T.F., & Garaffo, H.M. 2005. Alkaloids from amphibian skin: a tabulation of over eight-hundred compounds. Journal of Natural Products, 68: 1556-1575. Daudin, F.M. 1800. Histoire naturelle des quadrupéds ovipares. 24 pp. Marchant et Cie, Paris. Daudin, F.M. 1802. Histoire naturelle des rainettes, des grenouilles et des crapauds. Quarto ed. 108 pp. Bertrandet, Paris. Dubois, A. 1986. Living amphibians of the world: a first step towards a comprehensive checklist. Alytes, 5(3): 99-149. Dumeril, A.M.C. & Bibron, G. 1841. Erpétologie générale ou histoire naturelle complete des Reptiles, vol. 8. vil, 792 pp. Roret, Paris. Fitzinger, L. 1843. Systema Reptilium. Fasciculus primus. Amblyglossae. 106, ix pp. Braumiller & Seidel, Vindobonae. Frost, D.R. 2007. Amphibian species of the world: an online reference. Version 5.0 (1 February, 2007). Electronic database accessible at http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/ index.php. American Museum of Natural History, New York. Lutz, A. 1925. Batraciens du Brésil. Comptes Rendus Société de Biologie, Paris, 93(21): 137-139. Schlegel, H. 1826a (October). Notice sur l’erpetologie de Vile de Java; par M. Boicé. (Ouvrage manuscrit.). Bulletin des Sciences Naturelles et de Géologie (Paris), 9(2): 233-240. Schlegel, H. 1826b (December 31). Erpetologische Nachrichten. [sis von Oken, 20(3): columns 281-294. Schneider, I.G. 1799. Historiae Amphibiorum naturalis et literariae, vol. 1. xv, 266 pp. lena. Smith, H.M. & Grant, C. 1958. The proper names for some Cuban snakes: an analysis of dates of publication of Ramon de la Sagra’s Historia Natural de Cuba, and of Fitzinger’s Systema Reptilium. Herpetologica, 14(4): 215-222. Spix, J.B. 1824. Animalia nova, sive species nove Testudinum et Ranarum quas in itinere per Brasiliam, annis 1817-20. 29 pp. Monachii. Stejneger, L. 1937. Designation of genotype for Hylaplesia Boie. Copeia, 1937: 139. 260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 Tschudi, J.J. 1838. Classification der Batrachier, mit Berucksichtigung der sesstge Thiere dieser Artheilung der Reptilien. 102 pp. Petitpierre, Neuchatel. Wagler, J.G. 1830. Natiirliches System der Amphibien mit vorangehender Classification der Sdugthiere und Végel. Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Zoologie. vi, 354 pp. J.G. Cotta, Miinchen, Stuttgart & Tubingen. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 62: 125. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 261 Comment on the proposed precedence of Buprestis angustula Mliger, 1803 (Insecta, Coleoptera) over Buprestis pavida Fabricius, 1793 Ted C. MacRae Monsanto Co. 700 Chesterfield Parkway West, Chesterfield, Missouri, 63017, U.S.A. (e-mail: ted.c.macrae@monsanto.com) I would like to comment on Case 3388, ““Buprestis angustula Mliger, 1803 (Insecta, Coleoptera) ...’’, by E. Jendek (2007, BZN 64(3): 178-180). I support the proposed precedence of the specific name over that of Buprestis pavida whenever the two are considered synonyms. I agree with the author that the interest of stability is best served by maintaining precedence of this long-used name for a common, widely- distributed species. Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 (Aves) by designation of a neotype (Case 3390; see BZN 64: 1-3) Paul M. Barrett & Angela C. Milner Department of Palaeontology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. We write in support of Bock & Buhler’s proposal to set aside the holotype specimen of Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 and to conserve this name by designation of a neotype specimen BMNH 37001 (the ‘London specimen’), for the following reasons. Firstly, the holotype specimen is a single feather preserved in part and counterpart (see Buhler & Bock, 2002). Although it could be argued that this could have been sufficiently diagnostic to form the basis for a new taxon at the time of description, as no other birds were then known from Mesozoic deposits and therefore the mere presence of feathers could have been used as a diagnostic character, new discoveries have rendered any potentially diagnostic features of this specimen obsolescent (sensu Wilson & Upchurch, 2003). These include the discoveries of spectacularly preserved Mesozoic birds and non-avian dinosaurs with very similar feathers from the Lower Cretaceous Jehol Biota of China (e.g. Chang et al., 2003): as a result, the presence of feathers alone can no longer be regarded as potentially diagnostic. Furthermore, these finds demonstrate that isolated feathers are not sufficiently distinct in terms of morphology to permit referral to any particular Mesozoic bird taxon. As a result, it is possible that the holotype specimen of Archaeopteryx lithographica may not be referable to the same taxon as that represented by the skeletal specimens usually referred to this species. This is particularly important as some authorities contend that several bird species lived alongside A. lithographica in the Solnhofen environ- ment on the basis of osteological evidence (e.g. Elzanowski, 2002). 262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 Secondly, BMNH 37001 represents the first skeletal specimen to be discovered (Owen, 1863), so in terms of ‘priority’ could be regarded as the obvious choice of neotype specimen if the holotype feather is set aside. This choice is corroborated by von Meyer’s (1861) comment, noted by Elzanowski (2002), on hearing of the discovery of the first skeletal specimen that ‘Archaeopteryx lithographica is a name | deem appropriate for the designation of the animal’. On this basis, Elzanowski (2002) recommended that the London specimen should be recognised as the holotype. Thirdly, BMNH 37001 has often been regarded as the type specimen in the past (e.g. Elzanowski, 2002), albeit mistakenly (see Buhler & Bock, 2002), so there is already precedence for nominating the London specimen as the neotype. Fourthly, BMHH 37001 has habitually been referred to as Archaeopteryx litho- graphica in the literature (De Beer, 1954; Mayr et al., 2007) and has no other valid names associated with it. This is in contrast to some other specimens of Archaeop- teryx, such as the “Berlin specimen’ (MB 1880/1881), which is currently designated as the type specimen of Archaeopteryx siemensii Dames, 1897. Similarly, several other bird specimens from Solnhofen (usually considered to be additional specimens of Archaeopteryx) also bear potentially valid names, including Archaeopteryx bavarica Wellnhofer, 1993, and Wellnhoferia grandis Elzanowski, 2001. Selection of BMNH 37001 as the neotype would therefore represent the simplest solution to issues of taxonomic priority that would arise if the holotype specimen were set aside. In summary, setting aside the holotype feather in favour of a neotype skeleton with associated feather impressions (BMNH 37001) would finally stabilise the taxonomy of this species and would be entirely consistent with current and historical usage of the binomen Archaeopteryx lithographica. Additional references Chang, M.-M., Chen, P.-J., Wang, Y.-Q. & Wang, Y. (Eds.). 2003. The Jehol Biota: the emergence of feathered dinosaurs, beaked birds and flowering plants. 208 pp. Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers, Shanghai. Dames, W. 1897. Uber Brustbein, Schulter- und Beckengitrtel der Archaeopteryx. Sitzungs- berichte der Koniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1897: 818-834. De Beer, G. 1954. Archaeopteryx lithographica. 68 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. Elzanowski, A. 2001. A new genus and species for the largest specimen of Archaeopteryx. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 46: 519-532. Elzanowski, A. 2002. Archaeopterygidae (Upper Jurassic of Germany). Pp. 129-159 in Chiappe, L.M. & Witmer, L.M. (Eds.), Mesozoic birds: above the heads of dinosaurs. University of California Press, Berkeley. Mayr, G, Pohl, B., Hartman, S. & Peters, D.S. 2007. The tenth skeletal specimen of Archaeopteryx. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 149: 97-116. Owen, R. 1863. On the Archaeopteryx of von Meyer, with a description of the fossil remains of a long-tailed species, from the lithographic limestone of Solenhofen. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 153: 33-47. Von Meyer, H. 1861. Archaeopteryx lithographica (Vogel-Feder) und Pterodactylus von Solnhofen. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geologie und Palaeontologie, 1861: 678-679. Wellnhofer, P. 1993. Das siebte Exemplar von Archaeopteryx aus den Solnhofener Schichten. Archaeopteryx, 11: 1-47. Wilson, J.A. & Upchurch, P. 2003. A revision of Titanosaurus Lydekker (Dinosauria— Sauropoda), the first dinosaur genus with a ‘Gondwanan’ distributrion. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, 1: 125-160. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 263 OPINION 2185 (Case 3340) Heliacus d’Orbigny, 1842 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): conserved Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the name of the nominal genus Heliacus d’Orbigny, 1842 is conserved by the suppression of the name of its subjective synonym Torinia Gray, 1842. The relative precedence of the two names is unresolved for a group of gastropod molluscs. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; ARCHITECTONICIDAE; Heliacus; Torinia, Heliacus cylindricus; sundial shell; Western Atlantic. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the generic name Torinia Gray, 1842 is suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Heliacus d’Orbigny, 1842 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Solarium heberti Deshayes, 1830 (an incorrect subsequent spelling of herberti), a junior subjective synonym of Trochus cylindricus Gmelin, 1791, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name cylindricus Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Trochus cylindricus, senior synonym of Solarium herberti Deshayes, 1830, specific name of the type species of Heliacus d’Orbigny, 1842, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Torinia Gray, 1842, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of Case 3340 An application to conserve the generic name Heliacus d’Orbigny, 1842 was received from R. Bieler (Department of Zoology, Field Museum of Natural History, 1400 S. Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60605, U.S.A.) and R.E. Petit (806 St. Charles Road, North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, U.S.A.) on 14 January 2005. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 63: 163-166 (September 2006). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On | June 2007 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals submitted in BZN 63: 165. At the close of the voting period on | September 2007 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 18: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bouchet, Fautin, Grygier, Halliday, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Mawatari, Ng, Papp, Patterson, Pyle, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol and Zhang. Negative votes — 5: Bogutskaya, Brothers, Kerzhner, Lim and Pape. No vote was received from Song. Minelli was on leave of absence. 264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 Voting for the proposal, several Commissioners suggested that greater efforts could have been made in establishing the exact dates of publication of the key works. Voting for the proposal, Ng added the caveat that Torinia should not be placed on the Official Index as both generic names should be available for future taxonomic studies. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the rulings given in the present Opinion: cylindricus, Trochus, Gmelin, 1791, Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae, Ed. 13 vol. 1, pt. 6 (Vermes). p. 3572. Lipsiae. Heliacus d’Orbigny, 1842, Mollusques. In Sagra, R., Histoire physique, politique, et naturelle de l'Ile de Cuba, vol. 2, parts 1-7. p. 68 Bertrand, Paris. Torinia Gray, 1842, Mollusca. p. 60 in: Synopsis of the contents of the British Museum, Ed. 44. Woodfall and Son, London. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 : 265 OPINION 2186 (Case 3349) Gnorimus Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828, and Osmoderma Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828 (Insecta, Coleoptera, SCARABAEIDAE): conserved Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the names of two well-established genera of scarab beetles Gnorimus Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828, and Osmoderma Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828, are conserved by suppression of their two respective senior synonyms Aleurostictus Kirby, 1827, and Gymnodus Kirby, 1827. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; SCARABAEIDAE; Gnorimus; Osmoderma; Aleurostictus; Gymnodus; Acari; ASCIDAE; scarab beetles; mites; Palaearctic; North America. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the following names are suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (a) Aleurostictus Kirby, 1827; (b) Gymnodus Kirby, 1827. The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Gnorimus Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828 (gender: mascu- line), type species by subsequent designation by Blanchard (1845) Scara- baeus nobilis Linnaeus, 1758; (b) Osmoderma Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828 (gender: neuter), type species by subsequent designation by MacLeay (1838) Scarabaeus eremita Scopoli, 1763. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) eremita Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus eremita (specific name of the type species of Osmoderma Le Peletier de Saint- Fargeau & Serville, 1828); (b) nobilis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus nobilis (specific name of the type species of Gnorimus Le Peletier & Serville, 1828). The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Aleurostictus Kirby, 1827, as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) Gymnodus Kirby, 1827, as suppressed in (1)(b) above; (c) Gnorimus Chaudhri, 1975, a junior homonym of Gnorimus Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828. (2 — (4 — 266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 History of Case 3349 An application to conserve the generic names of two well-established genera of scarab beetles, Gnorimus Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828, and Osmo- derma Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828, was received from F.-T. Krell (Natural History Museum, Department of Entomology, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.), A. Ballerio (clo Museo Civico di Scienze Naturali “E. Caffi’, Piazza Cittadella 10, I-24129 Bergamo, Italy), A.B.T. Smith (Canadian Museum of Nature, P.O. Box 3443, Station D, Ottawa, ON, KI1P 6P4, Canada) and P. Audisio ( Universita degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza’, Dipartimento di Biologia Animale e dell’Uomo (sezione Zoologia), Viale dell Universita 32, I- 00185 Roma, Italy) on 10 March 2005. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 63: 177-183 (September 2006). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. Comments in support of the case were published in BZN 63: 274, 64: 66-67 and 64: 122. Decision of the Commission On | June 2007 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals submitted in BZN 63: 179-180. At the close of the voting period on | September 2007 the votes were as follows: ; Affirmative votes — 22: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, Halliday, Kerzhner, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Mawatari, Ng, Pape, Papp, Patterson, Pyle, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol and Zhang. Negative vote — 1: Lim. No vote was received from Song. Minelli was on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the rulings given in the present Opinion: Aleurostictus Kirby, 1827, Zoological Journal, 3: 157. eremita Scopoh, 1763, Entomologia carniolica exhibens Insecta Cornioliae indigena..... Trattner, Vindobonae, p. 7 Gnorimus Chaudhni, 1975, Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 12: 100. Gnorimus Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828, Latreille, Encyclopédie Methodique. Histoire Naturelle. Entomologie, ou histoire naturelle des crustacés, des arachnides et des insectes. 10. Agasse, Paris, p. 702. Gymnodus Kirby, 1827, Zoological Journal, 3: 157. nobilis Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae. Ed. 10, p. 353. Osmoderma Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828, Latreille, Encyclopédie Methodique. Histoire Naturelle. Entomologie, ou histoire naturelle des crustacés, des arachnides et des insectes. 10. Agasse, Paris, p. 702. The following are the references for the designation of Scarabaeus nobilis Linnaeus, 1758, and Scarabaeus eremita Scopoli, 1763 as the type species of Gnorimus Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828, and Osmoderma Le Peletier de Saint- Fargeau & Serville, 1828, respectively: Blanchard, E. 1845. Histoire des Insectes. Hyménopteéres et Coléoptéres, p. 233. MacLeay, W.S. 1838. Illustrations of the zoology of South Africa, p. 16. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 267 OPINION 2187 (Case 3330) Nectarinia senegalensis cruentata Rippell, 1845 (Aves, Passeriformes): subspecific name not conserved Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the name Nectarinia senegalensis cruentata Ruippell, 1845 (family NECTARINIDAE) for a subspecies of African sunbird is not conserved. The name is a junior objective synonym of Cinnyris proteus Ruppell, 1840. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; NECTARINIIDAE; Nectarinia; Nectarinia senega- lensis cruentata; Cinnyris proteus; sunbirds; Ethiopia; Southeast Sudan; Eritrea. Ruling (1) It is hereby ruled that the subspecific name cruentata Ruppell, 1845, as published in the trinomen Nectarinia senegalensis cruentata, is not conserved. (2) The name cruentata Ruppell, 1845, as published in the trinomen Nectarinia senegalensis cruentata, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology (a junior objective synonym of Cinnyris proteus Ruppell, 1840). History of Case 3330 An application to conserve the subspecific name of Nectarinia senegalensis cruentata Riippell, 1845 was received from F.D. Steinheimer (Museum fiir Naturkunde, Berlin, clo Sylter Strasse 18, 90425 Niirnberg, Germany) on 24 August 2004. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 63: 42-45 (March 2006). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On | December 2006 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals submitted in BZN 63: 43. At the close of the voting period on | March 2007 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 15. Negative votes — 13. In accordance with Article 12 of the Constitution, the proposals were resubmitted to the Commission on | June 2007. At the close of the voting period on | September 2007 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 6: Halliday, Mawatari, Ng, Papp, Patterson and Zhang. Negative votes — 17: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, Kerzhner, Kottelat, Krell, Kullander, Lamas, Lim, Pape, Pyle, Rosenberg, Stys and van Tol. No vote was received from Song. Minelli was on leave of absence. Commissioners voting against the proposal favoured following priority. Several suggested that selection of a lectotype for Cimnyris proteus Rippell, 1840 would provide the best solution to any remaining nomenclatural problems. 268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 Original reference The following is the original reference to the name placed on the Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: cruentata, Nectarinia senegalensis, Rtippell, 1845, Systematische Uebersicht der Vogel Nord- Ost-Afrika’s nebst Abbildungen und Beschreibungen von fitinfzig theils unbekannten, theils noch nicht bildlich dargestellten Arten. VIII, pp. 26-27, L pls. Schmerber’sche Buchhandlung, Frankfurt am Main. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 269 Closure of cases The following cases, for which receipt as new applications to the Commission were published though the cases were never published in full, are now closed: IXODIDAE Bonaparte, 1838 (Aves, Passeriformes): proposed emendment of spelling to IXOSIDAE to remove homonymy with rxopmpAE C.L. Koch, 1844 (Acari, Parasiti- formes). J.E. Keirans & W.J. Bock (Case 3391; acknowledgement of receipt published in BZN 63: 154). Neoromicia Roberts, 1926 (Mammalia, vVESPERTILIONIDAE): proposed correction of gender. M. Riccucci & B. Lanza (Case 3397; acknowledgement of receipt published in BZN 63: 221). Tragolytoceras Spath, 1924 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): proposed conservation. J. Palfy & R. Tomas (Case 3409; acknowledgement of receipt published in BZN 64: 78). Dasyatis americana Hildebrand & Schroeder, 1927 (Chondrichthyes, Myliobati- formes, DASYATIDAE): proposed conservation. H.R.S. Santos & M.R. de Carvalho (Case 3411; acknowledgement of receipt published in BZN 64: 78). John Latham’s ‘Supplementum Indicis ornithologici sive Systematis Ornithologiae’: proposed determination of date of publication. R. Schodde, W.J. Bock, W.E. Boles, L. Christidis & F. Steinheimer (Case 3414: acknowledgement of receipt published in BZN 64: 78) Megalopta ecuadoria Friese, 1926 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of the name over Megalopta centralis Friese, 1926. W.T. Wcislo & S.M. Tierney (Case 3421: acknowledgement of receipt published in BZN 64: 137) Chaetocnema Stephens, 1831 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of usage by designation of Altica hortensis Geoffroy, 1785 as the type species. V.V. Grebennikov, A.S. Konstantinov & S.W. Lingafelter (Case 3423: acknowledgement of receipt published in BZN 64: 138) The following published cases are now closed: Curculio assimilis Paykull, 1789 (currently Ceutorhynchus assimilis; Insecta, Coleop- tera): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 3298; acknowledgement of receipt published in BZN 60: 262; case published in BZN 63: 31-32. D.V. Alford submitted a proposal to conserve the specific name assimilis Paykull, 1789. The fact that the name was already both conserved and designated as the type species of Ceutorhynchus in 1989, under Opinion 1529 (Case 2219) had been overlooked. 270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 Pachyramphus G.R. Gray, 1840 (Aves, Passeriformes): proposed conservation. (Case 3347; acknowledgement of receipt published in BZN 62: 125; case published in BZN 63: 194-196). S.M.S. Gregory, E.C. Dickinson and F.D. Steinheimer submitted a proposal to conserve the generic name Pachyramphus Gray, 1840. After careful consideration of all available facts by the Commission, they have concluded that no ruling is necessary for the problem discussed in the Case, and the authors have withdrawn it. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 271 Book Review Index of the Books and Authors cited in the Zoological Works of Linnaeus Compiled by John L. Heller and edited by John M. Penhallurick. October 2007, The Ray Society, U.K. Publication No. 168. xlix, 174, liti-lxi pp. Hardback, A4. ISBN 0 903874 33 4. Distributed by Scion Publishing Ltd., Bloxham Mill, Barford Road, Bloxham, Oxfordshire OX15 4FF, U.K. (www.scionpublishing.com, tele- phone +44 (0)1295 722873, FAX +44 (0)1295 722875). Price £60.00. Postage and packing £3.00 in the U.K./£5.00 overseas for the first copy, £1.50 in the U.K./£2.50 overseas for every subsequent copy. Anthea Gentry “Littlewood”, Copyhold Lane, Cuckfield, Haywards Heath, West Sussex, RH17 SEB, U.K. (e-mail: alantgentry@aol.com) After long delays in both preparation and printing, John Heller’s comprehensive study of Linnaeus’s references to zoological authorities has at last been published. I am fortunate to have had a typescript copy of the work for the past four years and have found it invaluable in tracking the sources cited by Linnaeus and in providing a key to their understanding. Linnaeus complained a number of times during his lifetime of the high cost of illustrated publications and advocated the use of word descriptions only. As a result many of his descriptions are brief and ambiguous in the light of modern taxonomy and the sources cited by him must be studied in order to discover the identity of the taxon. Indeed, Article 72.4.1 of the Code states that ““The type series of a nominal species-group taxon consists of all the specimens included by the author in the new nominal taxon (whether directly or by bibliographic reference) ...”’ and it makes clear that the references cited by Linnaeus form an integral part of his description and that material on which the descriptions and/or illustrations of the other authors was based is syntypic, whether or not it was examined by Linnaeus and whether or not it still exists. Thus, Linnaeus’s own specimens, those of the earlier authors, his description and those of previous authors cited by him are all of equal status and together they form what botanists call the “protologue”. The Index was compiled by John Heller, a student and teacher of classical languages and literature. Born in Riegelsville, Pennsylvania, in 1906, Heller joined the classics faculty of the University of Illinois in 1949 and served as head of the department until 1966. In 1975 he became an emeritus professor. He was a member of the Society for the History of Natural History and developed a particular interest in the works of Linnaeus and the sources used by him. In 1959 Heller produced an index to the botanical sources used by Linnaeus (Index auctorum et librorum a Linnaeo (Species Plantarum 1753) citorum), published in the Appendix to volume 2 of the Ray Society’s fascimile edition of the Species Plantarum) and he adopted the same model for the zoological index. In 1979 Heller noted that compilation of the latter had been in progress for 20 years and that he had begun well before publication 272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 of the botanical index—but even he could not have foreseen that it would be another 28 years before publication of the zoological index. Heller died in 1988 before completion of his work and responsibility for bringing it to publication was taken on by John Penhallurick in 1999. Associate Professor Penhallurick had a career in communication at the University of Canberra and has an interest in ornithology. He edited photocopies of Heller’s typescript sent to him from Illinois and, while searching for a publisher, was referred to the Ray Society in London. He then discovered that the Council of the Society had approved publica- tion of the work in 1994, based on a later copy sent by Heller to Alwyne Wheeler, head of the Fish Section in the Natural History Museum, London, and a Past President and Council Member of the Society. Penhallurick has skillfully combined the two versions and filled some of the gaps in the typescripts. Heller began his compilation with the references to the books and authors cited in the first volume of the 10th edition of Systema Naturae (1758) but later enlarged it to cover the Fossilia Petrificata, pp. 156-174 in volume 3 of the 12th edition (1768), volume | of the 12th edition (1766-1767), and the Appendix Animalium, pp. 223-228 in volume 3 (1768). Heller included descriptions of the books and biographical data for all the authors mentioned by Linnaeus, references to contemporaneous and modern discussions of their works, and added entries for the authors that Linnaeus did not mention, i.e. part authors or editors of books, and authors of articles in learned journals and dissertations. Persons mentioned in footnotes, in introductory sections to the whole volume and to each of the six classes of animals, and in the descriptive notes which often supplement the synonymies and supply the name of an informant concerning a particular species and its habitat, were all incorporated. Finally, Heller made the coverage complete for all Linnaeus’s zoological works by adding the references cited in the Regni Animalis Appendix, pp. 521—552 in the 2nd edition of the Mantissa Plantarum (1771), the two editions of the Fauna Svecica (1746 and 1761), earlier editions of the Systema Naturae (Ed. 2 of 1740 and Ed. 6 of 1748), the principal museological works such as Amphibia Gyllenborgiana (1745) and Museum Adolphi Friderici (1754), and Linnaeus’s first extensive listing of species, Animalia per Sveciam observata, pp. 97-138 in Acta Upsaliensis, vol. 4 (1742). During a number of sabbaticals and visits to the U.K., Heller consulted publica- tions in the British Museum, the Natural History Museum in London, the Wellcome Medical Library and the Linnean Society of London. He estimated that his Index included citations to 380 books (probably more if reprints, later editions and translations were counted), about 340 articles and dissertations, and some 610 names of persons. Linnaeus owned a considerable number of the books that he cited (which are now housed in the archives of the Linnean Society of London), including a number of expensive richly-illustrated publications. As Heller has noted, Linnaeus would have had access to other volumes in the libraries of the Swedish Royal family and of Count Carl Tessin. A further source, not mentioned by Heller, was the library of the University of Uppsala, where he was permitted to see the books but not to take them home for study alongside his specimens. Linnaeus also relied for descriptions on his own and others’ observations of living animals made in the field and communicated by letter, and on preserved specimens in the museums to which he had access (listed under Collectanea in the prefix to Ed. 10 of Systema Naturae). Other books he did Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 273 not own were cited second hand (for example, Lister’s Conchyliorum historia cited in Systema Naturae, 1758, p. 744). Linnaeus’s citations are always abbreviated and often obscure in today’s world. He was not always consistent in his citations and it is sometimes a puzzle to find the edition of the work that he saw. I commend Heller and Penhallurick’s publication to all those who have the task of deciphering Linnaeus’s intentions and am confident that they will join with me in thanking the two professors. Reference Heller, J.L. 1979. Bibliotheca Zoologica Linnaeana. Svenska Linnéséllskapets Arsskrift, 1978: 240-264. 274 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 AUTHORS IN VOLUME 64 (2007) AkamaseAnn a Secciers os. yutivecea eee ae ae 54 Jones= DAD i tacked cies aes 83 Allsopp, P.G. . . So eee ae) Alonso-Zarazaga, M. A. avs. Mey Eee eee ALLS Kadolsky De 2") 2S ee 7 Ami orisSi Rk Pe ARR RD MURS! RR ee raea2() Katoh Tes Su Se ee ee 238 Kerzhnern, GMs .3 i 4 aes Bach "Ge a) ee oe OSS Kol ges INT on. tah ee 15 Baldizzoney Garena near nO Kohn. Aud, go %).s. 4 sty ee Tekno, IMIWoIlLs 5 0 0 5» 5 6 oo 122 KohnowNet ss 6 eee pee, DIMI, 6 55.0 0 0 0 a 0 ol AO Keottelatsy Mii) 42"... <:) ae a eee OO [Beles WEIMIG a elo go 5 oo 8 0 0 OO) Krellivkt=Deic kb. tse OO POTS Bellamy, ©, > 5 3 3). — 4337124" 1911 Kerishinas, Keagesye-aies cs hee 230 BilyasSs cys ee so, Peel 2A ea ON Bock Wak Ses ca oy Ge Gets Ceo nO. TWandry. Be. spc cute cs ce oO Bonato,L. ...... . 160; 166, 227 MeeeitGe ee he cee ee eee BouchetwP Geeaey 4 eee eee nalts Lexa 2, Salo Branco, T.. . ee Kea ee Oe EO Linde, K. van ee ne el, a ees Branham, M. ea Pek Meet ge abe 243 Loser? Hen bs palena, 6) heey eee 79 Buhle roe ce oe ee oe in tae eel OD. Lucas: SiGe. oes ie eae cu ee undbengss Gav) cee CamsoellhID; «o.oo. 04 0 6 119 Ghani VR aes 20 Ee OPES 15'S MacRae iC. Oe aaa ae 64, 261 Gurletti Gay ies, See eo eee, PLS Marnell sik s1 oo) 8, 0) MaliierjAl@) wos alse. Ae Ol Dankattipalcul sess men een tease Minellis AS 2) ee GON G6N22F7 DeiPrinse, ais meh os fe aay ZO Myers, ‘CiWe oe 2 45 Slag ee IDe Paine, Woo oo 2 6 6 oo 6 oo NAG IDromeeein, WM, 0 5 0 oo oo oo NO Ng.) UEDA oS SAPO OE ORS re eer) INeaiNaKs wit) &) Sas Reb SS) Ekacem a te., Siena cy: te peas ee eR OA Ng RsKulinn ait Wht ace OTA ORiSp) en pel NS na ehnes Ses soe cg ue . 230 Nieukerken} EJE van’ - 5 =. 2 3 4) 120 lIBwemMloute, INL, 6 6 o 6 6 6 6 6 € . 124 Nilsson. cAVNG cs, = G0 Ss ee 87 Renyebiy Area reid Sta 5b ed Oswald J-Dsn 52:35. SRS AW HosteniG- ye) esate Seer, 120 IDIOM ID EINSMGe co cunt een lator cake) Pasteels, JM. . . coun cd eels Perez-Goodwyn, P. 7 5 iy Sethe Cera eS Gentin-: Age ere ent oe cae Til Petit, IReB oe, fa 5 racy Cae) eee Giribeti Gate eee ee ee eee PaO: Petrov, PN. See MRPs sn SS 7/ Grantl> EOP es eh ee 5 255 Grube sen aaa ee eee > o GF Ratchitte Bi Gana) 4 i anne OO Riberas i soe as is lke 3 Oa bla COCK IG Aa el) iene orm pee Oi Rehan as) a Ae eee aul er OF, lnASEEA Wo 6 6 5 og oo oe eo oo «NNB Rinehart, 1esh i. ea sue eee eee lalolinwie, ILI, 2 2 o po 2 a oo 8 ol Il) IR@alngure,, Will, oe 9 6 0 6 6 ee 2 AY Hoogmoed, M.S....... IPD 60 Roisin, VeF Res eee EI aTSS) Ino, ISLIFS 6 5 6 5 0 6 0 a 5 oo OY) Pls WV e= Gerretse tal 8 Salama aa cov: G2 IER te AU a ets ae ies reg 2 na DD SHENAE, UalMls so 9 5» o © 0 c 60, 68, 255 SeapyRaR Ye ce cong pul ee ech JachsMVivAe ene o. Are ti en: ude Peller odes Snyernd@, IkIW>5 oo 6 oo 6 ye 20 Jager, P. . B MERE, 2h OF 164 Smetana’. Ay Tee eae See Leech sts) Tavessn. A. WwW. Sey ME LeR of Sees 24 SmithwAsBelw hich se Pa Boers ie Jendckaa: aan fiadecyys PLES Smith: sWels paseo ee cee eran eels Sparks, J.S. Spicer, G.S. Spielmann, LA. ‘ Spies, M. Staines, C.L. . Stebnicka, Z.T. . Strother, M.S. Sundholm, A. Svenson, G.J. Thomson, S.A. . Toda, M.J. Triberti, P. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 Page 45, 103 238 Uliana, M. Vink, D.L.N. Walker, G. Watts, C.H.S. Westcott, R.L. . Willan, R.C. . . Willems, W.R. . Zabransky, P. Zhang, W.-X. 276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 NAMES AND WORKS PLACED ON OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES OR EMENDED IN RULINGS OF THE COMMISSION PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 64 (2007) Names and Works placed on the Official Lists and Indexes in Volume 64 are listed below. Entries on the Official Lists are in bold type and those on the Official Indexes in non-bold type. acus, Sphyraena, Lacépéde, 1803 (Teleostei) Op. 2169 alba, Colias, Ruhl, 1893 (Lepidoptera) Op. 2180 Aleurostictus Kirby, 1827 (Coleoptera) Op. 2186 alfacariensis, Colias, Ribbe, 1905 (Lepidoptera) Op. 2180 armata, Oceania, KOlliker, 1853 (Cnidaria) Op. 2166 barbata, Nais, Miller, 1774 (Annelida) Op. 2167 bidens, Turbo, Linnaeus, 1758 (Gastropoda) Op. 2176 croesella, Phalaena, Scopoli, 1763 (Lepidoptera) Op. 2181 cruentata, Nectarinia, Ruppell, 1845 (Aves: Passeriformes) Op. 2187 curtistylus, Psectrocladius, Goetghebuer, 1921 (Diptera) Op. 2179 cylindricus, Trochus, Gmelin, 1791 (Gastropoda) Op. 2185 eremita, Scarabaeus, Scopoli, 1763 (Coleoptera) Op. 2186 flexuella, Spaniotoma, Edwards, 1929 (Diptera) Op. 2179 fulvipes, Castianeira, Simon, 1896 (Araneae) Op. 2177 geoffroyi, Ateles, Kuhl, 1820 (Primates) Op. 2184 germari, Chrysobothris, Gory & Laporte, 1838 (Coleoptera) Op. 2174 Gnorimus Chaudhri, 1975 (Coleoptera) Op. 2186 Gnorimus Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828 (Coleoptera) Op. 2186 greeni, Lachnus, Schouteden, 1905 (Hemiptera) Op. 2172 Gymnodus Kirby, 1827 (Coleoptera) Op. 2186 Heliacus d’Orbigny, 1842 (Gastropoda) Op. 2185 ignipes, Chrysobothris, Gory & Laporte, 1838 (Coleoptera) Op. 2174 maculata, Viverra, Gray, 1830 (Mammalia) Op. 2183 meridionalis, Colias, Krulikowsky, 1903 (Lepidoptera) Op. 2180 Mesosmittia Brundin, 1956 (Diptera) Op. 2179 NAIDIDAE Ehrenberg, 1828 (Annelida) Op. 2167 Nais Miller, 1774 (Annelida) Op. 2167 nexus, Baetis, Navas, 1918 (Ephemeroptera) Op. 2171 nobilis, Scarabaeus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 2186 occidualis, Halipegus, Stafford, 1905 (Digenea) Op. 2170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 277 Oceania Péron & Lesueur, 1810 (Cnidaria) Op. 2166 OCEANIDAE Escholtz, 1829 (Cnidaria) Op. 2166 OCEANIIDAE Escholtz, 1829 (Cnidaria) Op. 2166 Osmoderma Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828 (Coleoptera) Op. 2186 Palamopus E. Hitchcock, 1845 (Ichnotaxa, Reptilia?) Op. 2182 Palamopus Hitchcock, 1848 (Ichnotaxa, Reptilia?) Op. 2182 palmatus, Ornithichnites, E. Hitchcock, 1836 (Ichnotaxa, Reptilia?) Op. 2182 projecta, Cercaria, Willey, 1930 (Digenea) Op. 2170 Pseudorthocladius Edwards, 1932 (Diptera) Op. 2179 Pseudorthocladius Goetghebuer, 1943 (Diptera) Op. 2179 punctulatus, Staphylinus, Paykull, 1789 (Coleoptera) Op. 2173 sareptensis, Colias, Alphéraky, 1875 (Lepidoptera) Op. 2180 sexsignata, Buprestis, Say, 1839 (Coleoptera) Op. 2174 tenellum, Eudendrium, Allman, 1877 (Hydrozoa) Op. 2175 Torinia Gray, 1842 (Gastropoda) Op. 2185 Tubifex Lamarck, 1816 (Annelida) Op. 2167 tubifex, Lumbricus, Miller, 1774 (Annelida) Op. 2167 TUBIFICIDAE Vejdovsky, 1876 (Annelida) Op. 2167 tujafilina, Lachniella, Del Guercio, 1909 (Hemiptera) Op. 2172 278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 KEY NAMES PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 64 (2007) Page acus, Sphyraena, Lacépéde, 1803 (Osteichthyes) ............... 15 acus, Tylosurus, (Lacépéde, 1803) (Osteichthyes) ............... 75 alba, Colias hyale, Ruhl, 1893 (Lepidoptera) ................ 200 Aleurostictus Kirby, 1827 (Coleoptera). .................. 265 alfacariensis, Colias hyale, Ribbe, 1905 (Lepidoptera). ........... 200 alternans, Dactylozodes, Chevrolat, 1838 (Coleoptera) ............ 43 americana, Dasyatis, Hildebrand & Schroeder, 1927 (Chondrichthyes)... . 269 angulatus, Araneus, Clerck, 1758 (Arachnida) ................ 15 angustula, Buprestis, Illger, 1803 (Coleoptera) .......... 178, 191, 261 angustulus, Agrilus, (Illiger, 1803) (Coleoptera)... .......2.2... 178, 191 Aphodinus Motschulsky, 1862 (Coleoptera). ...........2... 39, 123 Aphodius Mligers Wi98i(Coleoptera) menace en iene eee 123 Airave Jbmmacus, 7/53 (Amaenmice) . 5565605000007 ob coo oe ooo 15 NUNNia (Clare, 753 Vick) 5 6 55 66 50 ooh ee he 15 ARANEIDAE Clerck, 1758 (Arachnida). .................... 15 Araneusi ClerckenlW58) (Arachnida) ee eee nner ne 15 arator, Scarabaeus, Fabricius, 1775 (Coleoptera) ...........2.... 90 arator, Scarabaeus, Mliger, 1803 (Coleoptera). . ............... 90 armata, Oceania, Kolliker, 1853 (Hydrozoa) ................. 69 ascanius, Scarabaeus, Kirby, 1819 (Coleoptera). ...........2.2... 29 assimilis, Ceutorhynchus, (Paykull, 1789) (Coleoptera) ........... 269 assimilis, Curculio, Paykull, 1789 (Coleoptera) ..........2..... 269 Ataenius Harold, 1867 (Coleoptera) .................. 39, 123 atra, Fidia, Motschulsky, 1860 (Coleoptera) ................. 35 Aline ‘Nader, WAS (Reale) ¢ 6 6 6 5 5 oto 60 balamuthi, Mastigamoeba, Chavez, Balamuth & Gong, 1986 (Protista) .. . 213 balamuthi, Phreatamoeba, (Chavez, Balamuth & Gong, 1986) (Protista) . . . 213 barbataNaisaniulleremlwidaa(Amive lia) eens ne ee 71 bernardina, Pseudocoenia, @Orbigny, 1850 (Scleractinia) ........... 79 bicolor, Phyllobates, Bibron, 1840 (Amphibia) ............... 255 bidens, Turbo, Linnaeus, 1758 (Gastropoda) ................ 195 Bothynussdlopesslssiig (Coleoptera) eae enn nner 29 Brachyplatystoma Bleeker, 1862 (Osteichthyes) ................. 54 Brachyura Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822 (Reptilia) ........2.2...... 60 browni, Eretmoptera, Kellogg, 1900 (Diptera) ................ 45 Buetinenial€aseys 9225 (Amphibia) een eaten cance nnn anne 252 Buettneria Karsch, 1888 (Amphibia). ................... 252 carolinus, Hybosorus, LeConte, 1847 (Coleoptera) .............. 90 castanicolor, Aphodius, Motschulsky, 1858 (Coleoptera). ........... 39 centralis, Megaloptera, Friese, 1926 (Hymenoptera). ............ 269 Chaetocnema Stephens, 1831 (Coleoptera) ................-. 269 Chlorodiella Rathbun, 1897 (Decapoda) ................... 19 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 279 CHLORODIELLINAE Ng & Holthuis, 2007 (Decapoda). ............. 22 CHLORODIINAE Dana, 1851 (Decapoda) .................... 21 Chlorodius Milne Edwards, 1834 (Decapoda). ................ 21 Cisseis Gory & Laporte de Castelnau, 1839 (Coleoptera) ........... 67 CLORODOIUINNS DAMA, NSS (Decaypeck)) s 555600055 o oo eo oo ooo 21 Clorodius Desmarest, 1823 (Decapoda) ................... 19 Clhrmo \slaleleny, 1350 (DWBIET)) 5 6 5 co coo hoo eo 45 CLUINIONINAS, Xneitere, ING (Ditism)) 26555500 ob oo obo 45 collier ChelodinasGrayeulss6) (Reptilia) ia eee eee eee 68 contractus, Ceutorhynchus, (Marsham, 1802) (Coleoptera). ......... 122 contractus, Curculio, Marsham, 1802 (Coleoptera) ........... 67, 122 coriacea, Cambalida, Simon, 1909 (Arachnida) .........2.2.2.2.2.. 196 costatus, Silurus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) .............. 100 crassipes, Pterodactylus, von Meyer, 1857 (Aves) .............. 182 croesella, Adela, (Scopoli, 1763) (Lepidoptera) .............2.. 202 croesella, Phalaena, Scopoli, 1763 (Lepidoptera) .............. 202 cruentata, Nectarinia senegalensis, Riyppell, 1845 (Aves) .......... 267 Curis Gory & Laporte de Castelnau, 1838 (Coleoptera)... ......... 67 curtistylus, Psectrocladius, Goetghebuer, 1921 (Diptera) .......... 198 cylindricus, Trochus, Gmelin, 1791 (Gastropoda) .............. 263 Dactylozodes Chevrolat, 1838 (Coleoptera). ..........2.2... 43, 124 decaocto, Streptopelia, (Frivaldszky, 1838) (Aves) ............. 108 Dendrobates Wagler, 1830 (Amphibia). .................. 255 DENDROBATIDAE Cope, 1865 (1850) (Amphibia) ...........2.... 255 dentatuss Cancerwaerbst) lS) (Decapoda)is 4 an a4). 0 5 5 4 05) a 19 diadematus, Araneus, Clerck, 1758 (Arachnida). ..........2.2.2.2.. 16 discretus, Hydroporus, Fairmaire & Brisout de Barneville, 1859 (Coleoptera) 87, 120 Drosophilapkiallentel(&S2i(Diptena) eee cy ene en en Caen lc 238 BatoniellanDalleal86n(Gastropoda) asc eee 7 EATONIEDLIDAE Ponders 1965)\(Gastropoda)) 5 2a ea 02) see se a 7 eccentricus, Halipegus, Thomas, 1939 (Digenea) .............. 129 ecuadoria, Megaloptera, Friese, 1926 (Hymenoptera) ............ 269 egmontianum, Cardium, Shuttleworth, 1856 (Bivalvia) ......... 12, 185 egmontianum, Trachyardium, Shuttleworth, 1856 (Bivalvia) ....... 12, 185 elegans, Hemerobius, Guerin-Méneville, 1844 (Neuroptera) ......... 174 elegans, Hemerobius, Stephens, 1836 (Neuroptera) ............. 174 elegans, Sympherobius, (Stephens, 1836) (Neuroptera) ........... 174 elegans, Vieira, (Guérin-Méneville, 1844) (Neuroptera) ........... 174 eremita, Scarabaeus, Scopoli, 1763 (Coleoptera) .............. 265 lacing \.) 5.5.5 -...25-- 187 TRACHISIDAE Laporte, 1835 (Coleoptera) ...............-20. 187 TRACHY DING EItters | OIlt(Coleopterd) ya eee eee eee: 187 TRACHYINAE Gavoy, 1897 (Coleoptera). .................. 187 TRACHYINI Kerremans, 1893 (Coleoptera) ............-+.:-:+.-..-. 187 MVACsNANTINN LXimaZ, Iso) (COWOMIEE)) ss oc600 00 ooo eo oo 187 284 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 liachy spRabriciusslts OlK(Coleopicia) amen ene nnn 64, Tragolytoceras Spath, 1924 (Cephalopoda). .......... AA 2 SS TRIGONOSTOMIDAE Graff, 1905 (Platyhelminthes) .............. TRIGONOSTOMINA Ohaus, 1912 (Coleoptera). ................ Trigonostomum Burmeister, 1844 (Coleoptera) ............... Trigonostomum Schmidt, 1852 (Platyhelminthes) .............. Trigonostomus Brenske, 1893 (Coleoptera) ................. TRIGONOSTOMUSINA Ohaus, 1912 (Coleoptera). ............... AOS, AliRorennS, (IRENE) 5 5 oo oe MubifexolvannanckegltSilGx (Auarrelicla) een nen enn nnn tubifex, Lumbricus Miller, 1774 (Annelida) ................. TUBIFICIDAE Vejdovsky, 1876 (Annelida) ................... TUBULANIDAE Burger, 1904 (1874) (Nemertea) ............... vaillantii, Platystoma, Valenciennes, 1840 (Osteichthyes) ........... viticida, Fidia, Walsh, 1867 (Coleoptera) ................... vitrea, Mantis, Burmeister, 1838 (Mantodea) ................ VitneawViantismStollaltsin(Mantodea) einem ean nen ntelne ine nn aint ane Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 285 INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Com- mission; other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be prepared in the format of recent parts of the Bulletin; manuscripts not prepared in accordance with these guidelines may be returned. General. Applications are requests to the Commission to set aside or modify the Code’s provisions as they relate to a particular name or group of names when this appears to be in the interest of stability of nomenclature. Authors submitting cases should regard themselves as acting on behalf of the zoological community and the Commission will treat all applications on this basis. Applicants should discuss their cases with other workers in the same field before submitting applications, so that they are aware of any wider implications and the likely reactions of other zoologists. Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting out the details of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal proposals to the Commission. Text references should give dates and pages in parentheses, e.g. ‘Daudin (1800, p. 49) described ...’. References. These should be given for all authors cited. Where possible, ten or more reasonably recent references should be given illustrating the usage of names which are to be conserved or given precedence over older names. The title of periodicals should be in full and in italics; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be in italics and followed by the number of pages and plates, the publisher and place of publication. More detailed instructions on the preparation of references are given on the ICZN website. Submission of Application. One copy should be sent to: Executive Secretary, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. The typescript should be accompanied by a disk with copy in IBM PC compatible format, or the script sent via e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ within the message or as an attachment (disks and attachments to be in Word, rtf or ASCII text). Applications should be accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references if at all possible. The Commission’s Secretariat is very willing to advise on all aspects of the formulation of an application. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 PUBLICATION DATES AND PAGINATION OF VOLUME 64 (2007) Part No. Pages in Part Date of publication 1-76 31 March 2007 2 77-136 30 June 2007 3 137-208 30 September 2007 4 209-286 20 December 2007 INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER The present volume should be bound up as follows: Title page, Table of Contents (I-VI), 1-286 Note: the covers of the four parts should be bound with the volume The Bulletin Zoological Nomenclature IC. ZING The Official Periodical of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Volume 64, 2007 Published on behalf of the Commission by The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature clo The Natural History Museum Cromwell Road London, SW7 5BD, U.K. ISSN 0007-5167 © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature oh mo Pi wt Vil jpesiwo mh _ rhe ke: . heatiey vid oes ato Meade ath sutulonsinn Vi iesigetooS 16+ JebiF ‘tant en “ala peer allt (ohh tema Ht ee eh oe ae ay ane He : f ahr ee ae esau . ‘xolee | 7 velo sue Anstgajoas wl neu —_ ametal © Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Notices . : New appliemions ( to the Commasion The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Members of the Commission : The International Trust for Zoological iNomenclanee Members of the Trust . The Commission’s website : The International Code of Veclorical iNomenelatare : The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Publications . Applications Eatoniella Dall, 1876 and EATONIELLIDAE Ponder, 1965 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation. D. Kadolsky ‘ Cardium egmontianum Shuttleworth, 1856 (cumenity Tete Aiea De Onan Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposed conservation of usage. H.G. Lee & R.E. Petit . ARANEIDAE Clerck, 1758, Araneus Clerck, 1758 and Tegenaria Latreille, 1804 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed conservation. N.J. Kluge . Etisus H. Milne Edwards, 1834 and Chlorodiella Rathbun, 1897 (Crusineaga, Dec poda, Brachyura): proposed conservation of the generic names by suppression of the generic name Clorodius A.G. Desmarest, 1823. P.K.L. Ng & L.B. Holthuis . Phyllomorpha Laporte, 1833 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed conservation of apeti ing and existing usage. I.M. Kerzhner . : Bothynus Hope, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera, SCARABAEIDAE): mropoced conservation oi usage by designation of Scarabaeus ascanius Kirby, 1819 as the type species. B.C. Ratcliffe & A.B.T. Smith . : Onthophagus sycophanta Fairmaire, 1887 (inessia, Coleoptera mropercd conserva- tion of the specific name. F.-T. Krell Fidia Baly, 1863 and Lypesthes Baly, 1863 (ines, Chicana proposed conser- vation of usage. M.S. Strother, V.M. Bayless & C.L. Staines . Ataenius Harold, 1867 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed PESeSeaCe over Aphodinus Motschulsky, 1862. H.F. Howden & A. Smetana. : Dactylozodes Chevrolat, 1838 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Brepnse conservation oi usage. C.L. Bellamy & T.M. Rodriguez . ORTHOCLADIINAE Kieffer, 1911 and Oniocladias van den Wulp, 1874 (lineeetan Diptera, CHIRONOMIDAE): proposed conservation of subfamilial name and fixation of type species. M. Spies . Brachyplatystoma Bleeker, 1862 (Oxstinines, Gilunionmes): aropoued precedence over Piratinga Bleeker, 1858 and Piramutana Bleeker, 1858. A. Akama & J.G. Lundberg . Atractus Wagler, 1828 and Acneteits ir sBzcatins Weller, 1828 (Reptilia, Serpentes) proposed conservation. M.S. Hoogmoed & J.M. Savage . : es Comments On the proposed conservation of Oncopus Thorell, 1876 and oNcopopiDAE Thorell, 1876 (Arachnida, Opiliones). G. Giribet; P. Jager, J. Gruber & P. Dankittipakul. On the proposed fixation of the feminine gender of the genus Trachys Fabricius, 1801 (Insecta, Coleoptera) and the form of derivation of family-group names based on Trachys. T.C. MacRae; J. Rifkind; R.L. Westcott; P. Zabransky. Page Annb BH N NK 45 54 60 64 64 II Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 On the proposed conservation of the generic names Gnorimus Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828 and Osmoderma Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828 (Insecta, Coleoptera). B.C. Ratcliffe : On the proposed conservation of Cisseis Gory & Laporte de Chstislinem, 1839 al Curis Gory & Laporte de Castelnau, 1838 (Insecta, Coleoptera). A. Sundholm . On the proposed conservation of Curculio contractus Marsham, 1802 (Insecta, Coleoptera). G. Hancock . Shh On the proposed conservation of usage af Rew 0c eellata Linacre 1758 (epee Anura). J.M. Savage. On the proposed precedence af @ieloding rugosa Oxi 1890 (carenitty WWerahe elodina rugosa; Reptilia, Testudines) over Chelodina oblonga Gray, 1841. J.M. Savage . Lea AD od Ft dcp lat Min eyes Rulings of the Commission OPINION 2166 (Case 3304). Oceania Péron & Lesueur, 1810 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): usage conserved by the designation of Oceania armata KOlliker, 1853 as the type species Bre Ae ea ere Matte alerts | hill Pine roe tiTn a 0 -@ +o OPINION 2167 (Case 3305). NAIDIDAE Ehrenberg, 1828 eect serail precedence over TUBIFICIDAE Vejdovsky, 1876 maintained OPINION 2168 (Case 3292). Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890, Microcerotermes Skies 1901 and NASUTITERMITINAE Hare, 1937 (Insecta, ay col application to conserve names not approved . ve, OPINION 2169 (Case 3297). Spiyrcenen acus [Larabee 1803 (Guia Tilo acus; Teleostei, BELONIDAE): reinstated as a valid name ; CO LOWOSE RANE: Notices . - New appileations t to the Common Applications Pseudocoenia d’ Orbigny, 1850 (Coelenterata, Scleractinia): proposed conservation of usage by the designation of a lectotype for the type species. H. Loser. Termes serratus Froggatt, 1898 (currently Microcerotermes serratus) and Reins serrula Desneux, 1904 (currently Microcerotermes serrula) (Insecta, Isoptera, TERMITINAE): proposed conservation of the specific names. D.T. Jones. Hydroporus discretus Fairmaire & Brisout de Barneville, 1859 (Insecta, @oleontera). proposed conservation of the specific name. M.A. Jach, H. Fery, A.N. Nilsson, P.N. Petrov & I. Ribera J SEES 0 OS A Re 2 Hybosorus illigeri Reiche, 1853 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation by giving 1t precedence over Hybosorus roei Westwood, 1845. P.G. Allsopp & T. Branco . ; Lithocolletis aaneaatarinar Ray 1855 (Gusenily ipayliononverer assgnataanrtiecs iineeerat Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name by giving it an over Lithocolletis pomonella Zeller, 1846. P. Triberti Mystus Scopoli, 1777 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): proposed sonvenmaiion oF usage by designation of Bagrus halepensis Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840 as the type species. M. Kottelat & H.H. Ng. Gobius lagocephalus Pallas, 1770 (currently Sicyopterus Ieegoagpivaltoss Gaisieniives. Teleostei, GOBIDAE): proposed suppression of the specific name. W.L. Smith & JS. Sparks . gods “es ee. Bee eels Beara Columba _ roseogrisea Gundevalll 1857 (currently eS} roseogrisea; Aves, COLUMBIDAE): proposed conservation. T.M. Donegan . Cornwallius tabatai Tokunaga, 1939 (currently Paleoparadoxia tabatai; ‘Mleweammeltn. Desmostylia): proposed conservation of usage of the specific name by the designation of a neotype. Y. Hasegawa & N. Kohno . 66 67 67 68 68 69 71 73 75 77 77 79 87 90 96 100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 Comments On the proposed conservation of Gigantopecten Rovereto, 1899 and Lissochlamys Sacco, 1897 (Mollusca, Bivalvia, PECTINIDAE). P. Bouchet On the proposed conservation of Obovaria Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca, Bivalvia bby the designation of Unio retusa Lamarck, 1819 as the type species. D. Campbell . On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Hydroporus discretus Fairmaire & Brisout de Barneville, 1859 (Insecta, Coleoptera). R. Angus; E.J. van Nieukerken; G. Foster; C.H.S. Watts; F. Marnell; H.V. Shaverdo . sil On the proposed conservation of the generic names Gnorimus Le Peletier ée Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828 and Osmoderma Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828 (Insecta, Coleoptera). M.V.L. Barclay On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Curculio contractus Werden, 1802 (currently Ceutorhynchus contractus; Insecta, Coleoptera). M.V.L. Barclay . On the proposed precedence of the generic name Afaenius Harold, 1867 over Aphodinus Motschulsky, 1862 (Insecta, Coleoptera). Z.T. Stebnicka ; On the proposed conservation of usage of the name Dactylozodes Chevrolat, 1838 (Insecta, Coleoptera). C.L. Bellamy; S. Bily . On the proposed conservation of the subfamilial name ORTHOCLADIINAE ikeetion 191 f and on the proposed type-species fixation for Orthocladius van der Wulp, 1874 (Diptera, CHTRONOMIDAE). M. Spies & N.L. Evenhuis; T. Ekrem . On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Lithocolletis onewaaerniliae rhe, 1855 (currently Phyllonorycter oxyacanthae; Insecta, Lepidoptera) by giving it precedence over Lithocolletis pomonella Zeller, 1846. G. Baldizzone; J. De Prins & W. De Prins; B. Landry On the proposed precedence of Oraliachan p rugosa 2 Oxy 1890 (monty Meare: chelodina rugosa; Reptilia, Testudines) over Chelodina oblonga Gray, 1841. S.A. Thomson . FR ico Naat enc eM Wan co mr i aR Mls ath me vo la Rulings of the Commission OPINION 2170 (Case 3300). Halipegus occidualis Stafford, 1905 and Cercaria projecta Willey, 1930 (Digenea, HEMIURIDAE): priority maintained ise sens OPINION 2171 (Case 3322). Baetis pentaphlebodes Uyhelyi, 1966 (Insecta, Ephemeroptera): not given precedence over Baetis nexus Navas, 1918. OPINION 2172 (Case 3326). Lachniella tujafilina Del Guercio, 1909 (currently Cinara (Cupressobium) tujafilina; Insecta, Hemiptera, APHIDIDAE): given pre- cedence over Lachnus oe Schouteden, 1905 ee Cinara (Cupressobium) greeni) . mo Be be OPINION 2173 (Case 3299). Stopiniiens Penance “Pavan 1789 (currently Gyrohypnus punctulatus; Insecta, Saakeaae STAPHYLINIDAE): eer name conserved . é OPINION 2174 (Case 3302). uprer estis coxeataaaita Say. 1839 (ined, G@oleoptera): given precedence over Chrysobothris ignipes Gory & Laporte, 1838 and Chryso- bothris germari Gory & Laporte, 1838 . “hie Notices . : ‘ New apysitonullons to the Cormmniesion wy Call for nominations for new members oe the Tieton Connmaston on Zoological Nomenclature . ! General Session of the Connection, Washington DC, 9- 3 “May, 2007, “ik conjunction with the 29th TUBS General Assembly . ne et Ee Applications Conus jaspideus Gmelin, 1791 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the specific name by designation of a neotype. A.J. Kohn & D.L.N. Vink Ill 118 119 120 144 IV Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 Cancer setosus Fabricius, 1798 (currently Pseudograpsus setosus; Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed Sse of a ae by a neotype. N.K. nee P.K.L. Ng Heterocarpus anon Bate, 1888 (Gaserceal Decapoda PANDAUIDAR): arososed replacement of the holotype by a neotype. X. Li, T.-Y. Chan & P.K.L. Ng Geophilus linearis C.L. Koch, 1835 and Geophilus sorrentinus Attems, 1903 (currently Stenotaenia linearis and S. sorrentina; Chilopoda): proposed conservation of the specific names. L. Bonato & A. Minelli Mecistocephalus Newport, 1843 and Pachymerium Koch, 1847 ‘(Chilopoda): pro- posed conservation of current usage by designation of Mecistocephalus punctifrons Newport, 1843 as the type species of Mecistocephalus Newport, 1843. L. Bonato & A. Minelli. Hemerobius elegans Stephene! 1836 (connanity Swicaatnarobion olleegaes) andl jalan aii elegans Guérin-Meéneville, 1844 (currently Vieira elegans) (Insecta, Neuroptera): proposed conservation of the specific names. J.D. Oswald . Buprestis angustula Mliger, 1803 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed arses tones oF the specific name over that of Buprestis pavida Fabricius, 1793. E. Jendek Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 (Aves): proposed conservation of usage by designation of a neotype. W.J. Bock & P. Buhler Comments : On the proposed conservation of usage of Cardium egmontianum Shuttleworth, 1856 (currently Trachycardium egmontianum; Mollusca, Bivalvia). R.C. Willan On the proposed conservation of Termes serratus Froggatt, 1898 (currently Micro- cerotermes serratus) and Termes serrula Desneux, 1904 (currently Microcerotermes serrula) (Insecta, Isoptera, TERMITINAE). Y. Roisin & J.M. Pasteels . fits On the proposed fixation of the feminine gender of the genus and the form ai derivation of family-group names based on Trachys (Insecta, Coleoptera). M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga . On the proposed preeience of Bare estis seramuninl Illiger, 1803 ((meesia, Colcopter) over Buprestis pavida Fabricius, 1793. C.L. Bellamy; G. Curletti; S. Bily. On the proposed conservation of Columba roseogrisea Sundevall, 1857 (currently Streptopelia roseogrisea; Aves, COLUMBIDAE). P. Salaman. Rulings of the Commission OPINION 2175 (Case 3315). Eudendrium tenellum Allman, 1877 (Cnidaria, Hydro- zoa): proposed designation of a neotype not accepted . OPINION 2176 (Case 3319). Helix papillaris Miller, 1774 (G@uneniy Weapilefera papillaris; Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific name not conserved : OPINION 2177 (Case 3331). Castianeira fulvipes Simon, 1896 (Arachnida, Aianeney: precedence over Cambalida coriacea Simon, 1909 maintained . ns 3 OPINION 2178 (Case 3346). Misumena nepenthicola (currently Henriksenia nepen- thicola; Arachnida, Araneae, THOMISIDAE): proposed attribution of authorship to Pocock (1898) not approved . : OPINION 2179 (Case 3344). Pseudorthoc nai Gocleheonen 1943 ard Mesosinitin Brundin, 1956 (Insecta, Diptera, CHIRONOMIDAE): generic names conserved . OPINION 2180 (Case 3334). Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, PIERIDAE): given precedence over Colias hyale sareptensis Alphéraky, 1875, Colias hyale alba Ruhl, 1893 and Colias hyale meridionalis Krulikowsky, 1903 . OPINION 2181 (Case 3342). Phalaena croesella Scopoli, 1763 (currently Adela croesella; Insecta, Lepidoptera): usage conserved by designation of a neotype. OPINION 2182 (Case 3348). Palamopus E. Hitchcock, 1845 (Ichnotaxa, Reptilia?): conserved . no La A ai A arle, e er ee Se sete S 149 155 160 166 174 178 182 185 185 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 OPINION 2183 (Case 3204). Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 (currently Genetta maculata, Mammalia, Carnivora): specific name not.conserved . Ease OPINION 2184 (Case 3373). Ateles 5 SERED: \ (Mammalia, Primates): authorship attributed to Kuhl, 1820 . Spt Lys th OP, aa OS Hy RENO Official Correction TUBULANIDAE Birger, 1904 (1874) (Nemertea) . Notices . : New craiteattone t to the Conmiaston Financial Report for 2006 Applications Phreatamoeba balamuthi Chavez, Balamuth & Gong, 1986 (currently Mastigamoeba balamuthi; Protista, Pelobiontida): proposed conservation of the specific name. G. Walker. Wi OTN Ole She REN, ae, AO TAL, TES SA tat). OL Trigonostomum Schmidt, 1852 (Platyhelminthes, TRIGONOSTOMIDAE) and Trigonos- tomus Brenske, 1893 (Coleoptera, SCARABAEIDAE), proposed conservation of the generic names and proposed emendation of the current spelling of TRIGONOSTOMINA Ohaus, 1912 (Coleoptera, SCARABAEIDAE) to remove homonymy with TRIGONOSTO- MIDAE Graff, 1905 (Platyhelminthes). W.R. Willems & F.-T. Krell . ; Atlanta lesueurii Souleyet, 1852 (Mollusca, Gastropoda, PTEROTRACHEOIDEA, ATLANTI- DAE): proposed conservation of the specific name. A.W. Janssen & R.R. Seapy . Geophilus holstii Pocock, 1895 (currently Arrup holstii; Chilopoda, MECISTOCEPHALI- DAE): replacement of the holotype by designation of a neotype. M. Uliana, L. Bonato & A. Minelli pes Reticulitermes Holmgren, 1913 (Insecta, ieoper propoced aresstlanes over aVicresa Giebel, 1856. M.S. Engel & K. Krishna F Belostoma annulipes Herrich-Schaeffer, 1845 (currently Werrorer US earaines Tinssin, Heteroptera, BELOSTOMATIDAE): proposed conservation of usage of the pee name by designation of a neotype. P.J. Perez-Goodwyn . : Drosophila Fallén, 1832 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation om usage. ie van der Linde, G. Bachhi, M.J. Toda, W.-X. Zhang, T. Katoh, Y.-G. Hu & G:S. Spicer. PHOTININI LeConte, 1881 (Insecta, Coleoptera) and PHOTININAE Giglio-Tos, 1915 (Insecta, Mantodea): proposed resolution of HO DOLD between poy eae names. G.J. Svenson & M.A. Branham 58 Buettneria Case, 1922 (Amphibia): proposed consgmvetiion, S. G. ‘Laer, are Rinehart, J.A. Spielmann & A.P. Hunt : DENDROBATIDAE Cope, 1865 (1850) (Amphibia, Anura): proposed sonnenetion. J. M. Savage, C.W. Myers & D.R. Frost . Sh AEES 0 a ae Comments On the proposed precedence of Buprestis angustula Illiger, 1803 (Insecta, Soe over Buprestis pavida Fabricius, 1793. T.C. MacRae : é On the proposed conservation of usage of Archaeopteryx lihoeraaiiec von Meyer, 1861 (Aves) by designation of a neotype. P.M. Barrett & A.C. Milner Rulings of the Commission OPINION 2185 (Case 3340). Heliacus d’Orbigny, 1842 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): precedence over Torinia Gray, 1842 maintained : OPINION 2186 (Case 3349). Gnorimus Le Peletier de Saint- Bacon & Semille: 1828. and Osmoderma Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828 (Insecta, Coleop- tera, SCARABAEIDAE): conserved . i) = ies) 261 261 VI Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 64(4) December 2007 OPINION 2187 (Case 3330). Nectarinia senegalensis cruentata Riippell, 1845 (Aves, Passeriformes): subspecific name not conserved tes OE GU ae es Notice of closure of cases. Book review Index of the Books and Authors cited in the Zoological Works of Linnaeus. Anthea Gentry . Indexes etc. Authors in volume 64 (2007) : Names and works placed on Official Lists and ecenes or -gmencaal | in the avllings a the Commission published in volume 64 (2007) 6 S Key names in Applications and Comments published in volume 64 (2007) . Information and Instruction for Authors . Publication dates and pagination of volume 64(4) Instructions to binder . Table of Contents of volume 64 (2007) hay | PPE: Pan y >4ake a hi Nein tf porn poe te aS Hie) cou eit, Then or fui : ae) ' nen Cin, Tuihwih off Puitiacs yo h Ay alesse here cashed eer * Pil ie , Viker Cop erieeieeae He ely eae a fiesta Prieta te ot R (eo ree — on Contents — continued Book review Index of the Books and Authors cited in the Zoological Works of Linnaeus. Anthea Gentry . Indexes etc. Authors in volume 64 (2007) ; Names and works placed on Official Lists and iadexes or gmended | in the suiting ai the Commission published in volume 64 (2007) : Key names in Applications and Comments published in volume 64 (2007) . Information and Instruction for Authors . Publication dates and pagination of volume 64(4) Instructions to binder . Table of Contents of volume 64 (2007) CONTENTS SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIES INOTIECES Se ae en Mil iil || Ih) New applications to the Commission . . ._. _3 9088 01388 9332 _ Financial Report for 2006 : Applications _ Phreatamoeba balamuthi Chavez, Balamuth & Gong, 1986 (currently Mastigamoeba balamuthi; Protista, Pelobiontida): proposed conservation of the specific name. G. Walker. Trigonostomum Schmidt, 1852 (Ghigagkmoes “ARISEN GETONED) el TA tomus Brenske, 1893 (Coleoptera, SCARABAEIDAE), proposed conservation of the generic names and proposed emendation of the current spelling of TRIGONOSTOMINA Ohaus, 1912 (Coleoptera, sCcARABAEIDAE) to remove homonymy with TRIGONOSTO- MIDAE Graff, 1905 (Platyhelminthes). W.R. Willems & F.-T. Krell . 4 Atlanta lesueurii Souleyet, 1852 (Mollusca, Gastropoda, PTEROTRACHEOIDEA, ATLANTI- DAE): proposed conservation of the specific name. A.W. Janssen & R.R. Seapy . Geophilus holstii Pocock, 1895 (currently Arrup holstii; Chilopoda, MECISTOCEPHALI- DAE): replacement of the holotype by designation of a neotype. M. Uliana, L. Bonato & A. Minelhi 3 Pe Reticulitermes Holmgren, 1913 (Insecta, ‘Igapieeae proposed precedence 0 over Svan esa Giebel, 1856. M.S. Engel & K. Krishna d Belostoma annulipes Herrich-Schaeffer, 1845 (currently Tehocer us ee ieecees Heteroptera, BELOSTOMATIDAE): proposed conservation of usage of the ee name by designation of a neotype. P.J. Perez-Goodwyn . Drosophila Fallén, 1832 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation aft usage. ike van der Linde, G. Bachli, M.J. Toda, W.-X. Zhang, T. Katoh, Y.-G. Hu & G:S. Spicer. PHOTININI LeConte, 1881 (Insecta, Coleoptera) and PHOTININAE Giglio-Tos, 1915 (Insecta, Mantodea): proposed resolution of Sa between ee names. G.J. Svenson & M.A. Branham ae Buettneria Case, 1922 (Amphibia): proposed conservation. S. G. ineag, L.F. Rinehart, J.A. Spielmann & A.P. Hunt DENDROBATIDAE Cope, 1865 (1850) (Amphibia, Anne Pronocedn conservation. a M. Savage, C.W. Myers & D.R. Frost . SECC eae CoN Ties Comments On the proposed precedence of Buprestis angustula Mliger, 1803 (Insecta, sitet over Buprestis pavida Fabricius, 1793. T.C. MacRae 5 , On the proposed conservation of usage of Archaeopteryx lithogr Haine von Meyer 1861 (Aves) by designation of a neotype. P.M. Barrett & A.C. Milner Rulings of the Commission OPINION 2185 (Case 3340). Heliacus d’Orbigny, 1842 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): precedence over Jorinia Gray, 1842 maintained . : OPINION 2186 (Case 3349). Gnorimus Le Peletier de Saint- Eee & Serille 1828, and Osmoderma Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828 (Insecta, Coleop- tera, SCARABAEIDAE): conserved . OPINION 2187 (Case 3330). Nectarinia Seneealenae cruentata Rappell 1945 One, Passeriformes): subspecific name not conserved : Notice of closure of cases. Page 209 209 211 269 Continued on Inside Back Cover Printed in the United Kingdom by Henry Ling Limited, at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, DT] 1HD SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIES Ti 3 9088 01