4
arith

sh;

®

ian

ates

Set sates

Sime y

ates

SESey

te
he ote

erties
Reet SSes at

ine
as

teh
tite =

4

at

tots 5 parte -f
Baten

Sree) iri
bites se

pers

“ey43
ethar
“
vesasetes

Lsitiin.
a
$38}?
+
ea
= og

$y) Eta he es web ert

fot eerie ee bord

Bt

Ht

é

dis pr yeueent
: siplp sess

feteiots ‘ 81

ceseray
tattitts

testi eass

Sr ate yey ate tye
aed

sisait

eS
t
a

peltioishs

wT

eitrasss

se Seiad ys)

RUE DS OF 706156):
ie RIE NE A CLIn

Van, . ; mebise 4. red ey of

oo aes at C3 “ ‘h i. 5h, ek MES ‘ iy
Se Be ica’ a die “SE a tie te

oe Ne dl 2 5
a. ie. a os
y= e na ean! 7
b +7 # ss, Ril a ks ky
+ 4 Mr. i be
« —
Hi) Ui Ait Tt ei i I
* * +
vi v he ae? at’ ‘

ge ee ah Behe te $
an t
co Tiga EDINNG, “Ci He 8_¥.

1 ie Brann vest Crrpieliaten: ov set dil A eat ede

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

VOLUME 11

Edited by

FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature:

LONDON :
Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
and

Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological:
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office-
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.

1955—1956

(AU rights reserved)

pitt rs na

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION DURING THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE
PUBLICATION OF THE PRESENT VOLUME

A. The Officers of the Commission

Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl JorpaAn (British Museum (Natural History),
Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England)

President: Professor James Chester BRapLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.,
U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)

Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio po Amarat (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August
1953)

Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (27th July 1948)

B. The Members of the Commission

(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most
recent re-election as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)

Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether-
lands) (lst January 1947)

Senor Dr. Angel CaBrera (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948)

Mr. Francis Hemuine (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)

Dr. Joseph PrEarson (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July
1948) (pp. 1-286 only)

Dr. Henning Lemcue (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark)
(27th July 1948)

Professor Teiso Esaxi (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)

Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)

Mr. Norman Denbigh Ritey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June
1950)

Professor Tadeusz JaczEwsKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences
Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950)

Professor Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum wu. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg,
Frankfurt a.m., Germany) (5th July 1950)

Professor Erich Martin Herine (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldi-Universitat
zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950)

Senhor Dr. Afranio po Amarat (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-
President)

Professor J. R. Dymonp (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August
1953)

Professor J. Chester BrapiEy (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th
August 1953) (President)

Professor Harold E. Voxres (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New
Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)

IV

B. The Members of the Commission (continued)

Professor Béla Hanx6é (Mezdégazdaségi Museum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August
1953)

Dr. Norman R. Srouu (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y.,
U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)

Mr. P. C. SyLvESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August
1953)

Dr. L. B. Houruuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(12th August 1953)

Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation,
Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954)

Dr. Alden H. MitterR (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California,
U.S.A.) (29th October 1954)

Doe. Dr. Ferdinand Pranti (Narodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia)
(30th October 1954)

Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kitsunettr (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna,
Austria) (6th November 1954)

Professor F. S. Boprnnemmer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th
November 1954)

Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954)

Professor Enrico ToRTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ‘‘ G. Doria’, Genoa, Italy)
(16th December 1954)

C. The Staff of the Secretariat of the Commission

Honorary Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemmrine, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Honorary Personal Assistant to the Secretary: Mrs. M. F. W. HEMMING
Honorary Archivist: Mr. Francis J. Grirrin, A.L.A.

Consulting Classical Advisor : Professor the Rev. L. W. GRENSTED, M.A., D.D.

Administrative Officer: Mrs. S. C. Watxins, M.A. (to 29th April 1955)
Mrs. N. M. A. Guzeian (from 20th June 1955)

“Official Lists”’ Section: Miss D. N. Noaxgs, B.Sc.
“Régles”” Section: Mrs. A. F. Wixson, M.A. (formerly Miss A. F, Kerr)

Mrs. J. H. NeEwMan

Mrs. B. M. Werpema, A.L.A.
Secretariat: < Miss C. W. Kirton

Mrs. I. SattMAN

Mrs. J. B. MANTELL

Indexer : Miss M. Cosu, M.A.
Translator: Mrs. R. H. R. Hopkin

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

Chairman: The Right Hon. Walter Exxtiort, C.H., M.C., F.R.S., M.P.
Managing Director and Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemmine, C.M.G., C.B.E.
Publications Officer : Mrs. C. RosNER

Addresses of the Commission and the Trust

Secretariat of the Commission : 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1
Officers of the Tust : 41 Queen’s Gate, London, 8.W.7

FOREWORD

The present is the first complete volume of the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature devoted to the publication of applications relating to individual
nomenclatorial problems to be published after the close of the Fourteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. Publication commenced
in January 1955 and proceeded steadily during the year. It was only owing
to the trade dispute in the London Printing trade that the last Part (Part 11),
leaving aside the Index Part, was not published during the year.

2. In addition to the scientific matter referred to above the present volume
contains also a Report dated 15th January 1955 on the work carried out by
the Office of the International Commission from the close of the Copenhagen
Congress in August 1953 up to the end of the calendar year 1954. It contains
also the Report and Accounts of the International Trust for Zoological
Nomenclature for the year 1954. Particulars are given also (a) of the election
of Professor Enrico Tortonese (at the time of his election of the Istituto e
Museo di Zoologia della Universita di Torino) to be the Italian member of the
Commission in the place of Professor Lodovico di Caporiacco (deceased) ;
(b) of the appointment of Professor the Reverend L. W. Grensted as from
Ist January 1955 to the newly created part-time appointment of Consulting
Classical Adviser to the International Commission and (c) of the retirement
of Mrs. Sheila Craig Watkins in April 1955 from the post of Administrative
Officer in the Office of the International Commission which she had held with
great distinction since the establishment of that post in November 1953.

3. The present volume contains 510 pages (T.P.—X XVIII, i-xviii, 1-464.
1 plate and 2 text-figures) and is comprised of 145 papers of which 76 are
original applications submitted to the International Commission for decision
and 69 are comments by specialists on applications submitted by other authors.
Of these 69 comments, 59 relate to applications in the present volume and
10 to applications in other volumes of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

4, Of the 76 original applications referred to above, one deals simultaneously
with proposals relating to two Classes of the Animal Kingdom and another
deals simultaneously with five Classes of the Animal Kingdom. For practical
purposes therefore this volume contains 81 applications submitted for decision.
Similarly, three of the applications are submitted by two or more joint authors
and when account is taken of this fact the number of applicants is seen to be 82.

VI

5. Of the 81 applications published in the present volume, ten asked for
Declarations (or equivalent rulings) on the meaning of particular provisions
in the Régles. Further, five applications relate to the status of certain
books. Thus the number of applications exclusively concerned with names
is 66. However, two of these 66 applications are in connection with the same
name (Jumala) and therefore the final number of proposals regarding individual
names is 65.

6. Forty-nine (60 per cent.) of the applications published in the present
volume are applications by specialists for the use by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers. Of these cases
47 were concerned with individual names, one was concerned with the status
of books and another with a Declaration.

7. The 65 applications relating to individual names published in the present
volume, when grouped by reference to the Classes of the Animal Kingdom
to which the genera or species concerned belong, are distributed as follows :—

TABLE 1

Distribution of applications by Classes of the Animal Kingdom

Name of Class Number of applications

Acanthocephala
Crustacea
Trilobita
Myriapoda
Insecta
Arachnida
Gastropoda
Pelecypoda
Cephalopoda
Bryozoa
Brachiopoda
Cyclostomata
Pisces
Amphibia
Reptilia

Aves
Mammalia

OPNNH RK WWR OR RR Re Dee

Total

>
on

vil

8. When the 82 applicants are arranged by reference to the countries in
which they are resident, applications are seen to have been received from
specialists in the following countries :—

TABLE 2

Distribution of applicants by country of residence

Country of Residence | Number of applicants

Argentina
Canada
France
Germany
Netherlands
New Zealand
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States of
America

Owerm do wwe bo

~

Total

9. The following table gives particulars of the proposals contained in
applications in the present volume for addition of names to the Official Lists

Vil

of valid names and works and to the corresponding Official Indexe: of rejected
and invalid names and works :—

TABLE 3

Proposals for additions to the ‘* Official Lists ’’ and “ Official
Indexes ’’ respectively

Official Lists (valid
names and works Official Indexes
Category approved as available (rejected and invalid
for zoological names and works)
nomenclature)

Specific names 183 47

Generic names 159 107

Family-Group names 42 43

Order-Class-Group _—
names

Titles of works 3

Totals 200

10. Of the 69 comments published in the present volume, one relates to
two applications, thus making the total number of comments on applications 70.
Of these four were comments on proposed Declarations and three were comments
relating to the status of books. The remaining 63 comments relate to
applications concerning individual names.

11. If the comments relating to individual names are grouped according
to the Class of the Animal Kingdom to which the taxa concerned belong,
the distribution of the comments is found to be as follows :

TABLE 4

Distribution of comments on applications relating to names, by
Classes of the Animal Kingdom

Name of Class Number of Comments

Crustacea 6
Trilobita 3
Myriopoda 13
Insecta 18
Arachnida
Gastropoda
Cephalopoda
Bryozoa
Brachiopoda
Cyclostomata
Pisces
Reptilia
Osteichthyes
Aves
Mammalia

i PO Oe

Total

jor)
ow

12. The 69 comments published in the present volume included three
submitted by joint authors. When this is taken into account, it is found
that the total number of specialists submitting comments was 72.

13. When the authors of comments published in this volume are grouped
by reference to their country of residence, the distribution is found to be as
follows :

TABLE 5

Distribution of authors of comments by country of
residence of the authors concerned

Country of Residence | Number of authors
of comments

Canada

Czechoslovakia

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Hawaii

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom

United States of
America

ee el ol el OS oP

bo

14. For the preparation of the authors’ and subject indexes of the present
volume the Commission is again indebted to Miss Mary Cosh, M.A.

FRANCIS HEMMING
Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

28 Park Village East,
Regent’s Park,
London, N.W.1.

5th August 1956.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature :

Balance Sheet as at 31st December 1954 and Income and Expenditure
Accounts for the year 1954, with ze of Committee of Manage-
ment thereon .. : d a fa as es

Personnel of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.
Election of Commissioner Enrico Tortonese, Italy

Schedule to be provided in the revised Régles relating to the trans-
literation of words from the Cyrillic alphabets into the Latin
alphabet. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Ks

On the treatment of words written with Cyrillic characters, for the
purposes of zoological nomenclature, bibliography, reference indices,
etc. By aa Almasov and Esteban ue a ae Aires,
Argentine) . ay Ke a)

Request for a Declaration defining the status of a generic name published
conditionally. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. adie:
to the International Commission on Zoological N. SE Pe

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers (1) to validate the generic name
Pleurotomaria Sowerby (J.), 1821 (Class Gastropoda), if it is judged
that that name is invalid, (2) to validate the name anglicus Sowerby
(J.), 1818, as published in the combination Trochus anglicus and
(3) to designate the species so named to be the type species of
the genus Pleurotomaria Sowerby, 1821. By L. R. Cox, M.A., Sc.D.,
E.RS. (British Museum (Natural History), London) .. : nfs

Appendix : Designation of a neotype for the nominal species T'rochus
anglicus Sowerby (J.), 1818 eee Trochus similus iste}
Sowerby (J.), 1816) :

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name
Pachyceras Bayle, 1878 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea ;
Jurassic) by suppressing the generic name Pachyceras Ratzeburg,
1844 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera ; Living). By W. J. Arkell,
M.A., D.Sce., F.R.S. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University)

Request for a Declaration as to the type species of a nominal genus
established as a substitute for a previously established nominal genus
but with a designated type species different from that of the nominal
genus so replaced. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. ecg
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

Page

21

35

XII

Proposed suppression under the Plenary Powers of the generic name
Achorutes Templeton, 1835, and designation under the same Powers
of a type species for the genus Hypogastrura Bourlet, 1839 (Class
Insecta, Order Collembola) in harmony with accustomed usage. By
Hermann Gisin (Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle, Geneva) iy

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name
Crenophilus as from d’Orchymont, 1942, to preserve the names
Anacaena Thomson, 1859, and Paracymus Thomson, 1867, for use
in their accustomed sense and to validate the specific name aeneas
Germar, 1824, as published in the combination Hydrophilus aeneus
(Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By J. Balfour-Browne, M.A.
(British Museum (Natural History), London) es :

Proposed determination of the authorship to be attributed to the
catalogue published anonymously in 1798 under the title Museum
Boltenianum (problem supplementary to Opinion 96). By Francis
Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Ni onibmcladire) oe ~ : a

On the authorship of the work entitled Musewm Boltenianum published
anonymously in 1798. By L. R. Cox, Se.D., F.R.S. baapey: Museum
(Natural History), London) ; ue

Request for the suppression of the generic name Jumala Friele, 1882
(Class Gastropoda) on the ground that it consists of a word, the use
of which as such is calculated to give offence on religious grounds.
By Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.)

Request for the suppression of the generic name Jumala Friele, 1882
(Class Gastropoda) as a name calculated to give offence on religious
grounds. By A. Myra Keen (Stanford University, California)

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Rhino-
pteraspis Jaekel, 1919, by suppressing the name Archaeoteuthis
Roemer, 1855 (Class Ostracodermi). By Errol I. White, Ph.D., D.Sc.
(Department of Geology, British Museum (Natural History), London),
and H. W. Ball, B.Sc., Ph.D. an of i ad British Museum
(Natural History), London) hy ; eve

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate a type species for
Anurophorus Nicolet, [1842] (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), in
harmony with accustomed usage. By Hermann Gisin (Muséum
d Histoire Naturelle, Geneva) :

Page

49

58

59

61

Support for Dr. Gisin’s proposal to designate, under the Plenary Powers,
a type species for Anurophorus Nicolet, [1842] (Class Insecta, Order
Collembola). By Harlow B. Mills (State Natural H story Survey
Division, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) we * oo nfs

Comment on the proposal to designate, under the Plenary Powers, a type
species for Anurophorus Nicolet, [1842] (Class Insecta, Order
Collembola). By Frederick Laing (British Museum (Natural H: istory),
London) .. sya “6 wy oe tis o sha -

Objection to the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate a type
species for Anurophorus Nicolet, [1842] (Class Insecta, Order
Collembola). By F. Bonet (Escuela Nacional de Ciencias Biologicas,

Support for the designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a type species
for Anurophorus Nicolet, [1842] (Class Insecta, Order Collembola).
By John T. Salmon (Victoria University College, Department of
Zoology, Wellington, New Zealand) as i ~ = nl

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name
Entomobrya Rondani, 1861 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola). By
Hermann Gisin (Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Geneva) ‘ a

Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the
generic name Entomobrya Rondani, 1861 (Class Insecta, Order
Collembola). By Harlow B. Mills (State Natural History Survey
Division, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) e. rb 32 3

Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the
generic name Entomobrya Rondani, 1861 (Class Insecta, Order
Collembola). By Frederick Laing (British Museum (Natural
History), London) .. =e ~ i ar cp re a

Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the
generic name Entomobrya Rondani, 1861 (Class Insecta, Order
Collembola). By John T. Salmon (Victoria University College,
Wellington, New Zealand) 0 aN - an ae wd

Proposed suppression under the Plenary Powers of the generic name
Iphis Meigen, 1800, for the purpose of validating the generic name
Iphis Leach, 1817 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) (Proposed
correction of an error in Opinion 73). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G.,
C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature) aa < pa me wa ae ip

Page

70

71

71

72

75

77

78

73

79

XIV

Objection to the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the
generic name [phis Meigen, 1800, for the purpose of validating the
generic name Iphis Leach, 1817 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda).
By Alan Stone (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research
Branch, U.S. National Museum, Washington, U.S.A.) :

Proposed validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic name
Homalaspis Milne Edwards (A.), 1863 (Class Crustacea, Order
Decapoda) (Proposed validation of an error in Opinion 85). By
Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International
Commission on Zoological MN omenclature) “3 a

Proposed adoption of a Declaration clarifying Rule (g) in Article 30 in
relation to the selection of the type species of a genus in a case where
the nominal species so selected, though not itself cited at the time
of the establishment of the genus in question, is objectively identical
with another nominal species which was so cited. By Francis
Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclahure) = é ss 2 ee

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to standardize the current use of
Monticulipora d’Orbigny, 1849 (Class Bryozoa, Order Cyclostomata
or Trepostomata, Family MONTICULIPORIDAE Nicholson). By R. S.
Bassler (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) and
Helen Duncan (United States sae aiid Washington, DC's
U.S.A.) es ‘

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the specific name obscura
Berezowsky & Bianchi, 1891, as published in the combination
Larvivora obscura (Class Aves). By Charles Vaurie ene American
Museum of Natural History, New York)

Objection to the proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of
certain generic names as from Renier, [1804], Prospetto, consequent
upon the rejection of that work for nomenclatorial purposes. By
Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California)

Proposed rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of Eberhard (J.P.), 1768,
Versuch eines neuen Entwurfs der Thiergeschichte. By T. C. 8S.
Morrison-Scott, D.S.C., M.A., D.Sc. (British Museum (Natural
History), London) . : : os se % Me =

Objection to Dr. Arkell’s proposed Declaration that a generic or specific
name based solely upon the Aptychus of an Ammonite (Class
Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) be excluded from availability
under the Régles. By Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California). .

Page

82

83

86

93

95

Support for Dr. Arkell’s proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress
the generic name T'rigonellites Parkinson, 1811 (Class Cephalopoda,
Order Ammonoidea). By Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California)

Proposed addition of the name Phorodon Passerini, 1860 (Class Insecta,
Order Hemiptera), to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
and of humuli Schrank, 1801, as published in the binominal com-
bination Aphis humuli, to the Official List of Specific Names in tn
By F. C. Hottes (Grand Junction, Colorado, U.S.A.) . et

Proposed rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of Bartram (W.), 1791,
Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West
Florida and of later editions of the same work (a proposal based upon
the papers of the late James Lee Peters). By Francis Hemming,
C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoo-
logical Nomenclature) : we G4, is Ae Fe:

Support for Dr. Gisin’s proposed suppression under the Plenary Powers
of the generic name Achorutes Templeton, 1835, and designation of a
type species for Hypogastrura Bourlet, 1839 (Class Insecta, Order
Collembola). By Harlow B. Mills (State Natural Hi. ee pate
Division, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) :

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to prevent the disappearance in
synonymy of the name used for the Astrakan Horned Lark for the
last eighty years by the substitution therefor of the name bei
published for that bird by Ridgway in 1874 as the result of the mis-
reading of a museum label. By Richard Meinertzhagen, D.S.O.
(London) He ae es pe 3 a

Report on the work of the Office of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature in the Period from the close of the Four-
teenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, to
31st December 1954. First Periodical Report in the Period between
the Fourteenth and Fifteenth International Congresses of Zoology.
By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International
Commission on Zoological Ni cmenclature)

Proposed adoption of a Declaration regarding the specific name to be
adopted for the type species of a genus in cases where that species
possesses two or more objectively synonymous such names. By
Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) a * x

\

XV

Page

96

97

102

103

107

112

XVI

Proposed revision of the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology regarding the generic name Homarus Weber, 1795 (Class
Crustacea, Order Decapoda) (Proposed revision of an entry made by
the Ruling given in Opinion 104). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G.,
C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature) - aes = “43 og: es oy

Request for a Ruling as to the species to be accepted as the type species
of the genus Laqueus Dall, 1870 (Class Brachiopoda). By Joshua
L. Baily, Jr., Sc.D. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) .. a ua

On the type species of the Brachiopod genus Laqueus Dall, 1870. By
Helen Muir-Wood, D.Sc. (British Museum (Natural History),

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the specific name dingo
Meyer, 1793, as published in the combination Canis dingo, as the name
for the Dingo (Class Mammalia). By G. H. H. Tate (The American
Museum of Natural History, New York) es oe vd ba

Proposed acceptance of the specific name australis Kerr, 1792, as
published in the combination Canis australis as the name for the
Falkland Islands Wolf. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

Further consideration on the question of the availability of the specific
name acuta Davidson, 1863, as published in the combination Spirifera
acuta (Class Brachiopoda). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

Annexe : Revised proposals relating to the specific name to be used
for the species to which in 1809 Martin (W.) gave the invalid
name Conchyliolithus Anomites acutus ns ou s%

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to conserve the generic name
Bombina Oken, 1816 (Class Amphibia, Order Anura). By Robert
Mertens (Forschungs-Institut und Natur-Museum Senckenberg,
Frankfurt a. Main, Germany) : a Be rs

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate for the genus Scolopendra
Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Myriapoda) a type species in harmony with
accustomed usage. By Ralph E. Crabill, Jr. (Saint Louis University,
St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.) a" ii ie we

Page

114

117

120

121

124

131

132

134

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers for the purpuse (a) of validating
the currently accepted emendation Sphenodon of the generic name
Sphaenodon Gray (J.E.), 1831 and (b) of validating the family-group
name SPHENODONTIDAE Cope, 1870 (Class Reptilia). By Robert
Mertens (Forschungs-Institut und Natur-Museum Hong: pees |
Frankfurt a. Main, Germany)

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name
Hemiprocne as from Nitzsch, 1829 (Class Aves). By John T.
Zimmer (The American Museum of Natural History, New York)

Request for a Declaration defining the expression monotypical genus.
By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Sectetary to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Pe

Proposed addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the
specific name vulgaris Moll, 1803, as published in the combination
Eschara vulgaris, as determined by the lectotype selection made by
Brown (D.A.) in 1952 (Class Ectoprocta). By D. A. Brown (Uni-
versity of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand) : Ae ae 33

Proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of Fistulipora McCoy,
1849 (Class Bryozoa, Order Cyclostomata, family FISTULIPORIDAE).
By Helen Duncan (United States Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.), Alfred R. Loeblich, Jr. (United States National Museum,
Washington, D.C.) and co Soar C. Moore so o ee
Lawrence, Kansas) :

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to preserve the generic name
Aucella Keyserling, 1846 (Class Lamellibranchiata, Order Anisomy-
aria, family AVICULIDAE) and the specific name of its type species
Avicula mosquensis von Buch, 1884, and to suppress the generic
name Buchia Rouillier, 1845. By J. A. J ep! pretest ap
of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) ..

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the well-known generic
name Muntiacus in the Class Mammalia first published by Rafinesque
in 1815. By T. C. S. Morrison-Scott, D.S.C., M.A., D.Sc. (Depart-
ment of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History), London). . Hf

Support for Dr. Tate’s proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate
the specific name dingo Meyer, 1793, as published in the combina-
tion Canis dingo, as the name for the Dingo (Class Mammalia). By
T. C. S. Morrison-Scott, D.S.C., M.A., D.Sc. eer: Museum
(Natural History), London)

K

Page

139

142

146

153

155

158

167

168

XVIII

Proposed rejection of the generic and specific names published for the
so-called “ Piltdown Man”. By Sir Gavin de Beer, M.A., D.Sc.,
F.R.S. (Director, British Museum (Natural History), London)

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the specific name
europaeus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Scorpio
europaeus, and to designate for the genus Scorpio Linnaeus, 1758
(Class Arachnida a type species in harmony with accustomed
usage (amendment of a Ruling given in Opinion 104). By Francis
Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission

on Zoological Nomenclature) 2% cfs es ote a

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate for Ozxypoda
Mannerheim, 1831, a genus based upon a misidentified type species,
a type species in harmony with current usage (Class Insecta, Order
Coleoptera). By C. E. Tottenham, M.A. (Zoological Museum,
Cambridge University, Cambridge) : & ai Os “4

Request for a Declaration prescribing the combination to be attributed
to the specific name of a nominal species established as belonging
to one genus but for which at the same time another nominal genus
is established conditionally. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the
generic names Seriola Cuvier (G.), [1816], and Cubiceps Lowe
(R.T.), 1843 (Class Actinopterygii). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G.,
C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature)

Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the
generic name Mormoops Leach, 1821 (Class Mammalia). By T.C.S.
Morrison-Scott, D.S.C., M.A., D.Sc. (British Museum (Natural
History), London) . e Ne we ia wa

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of designating for
the genus Heliosciwrus Trouessart, 1880, a type species in harmony
with accumstomed usage and for validating the specific name
gambianus Ogilby, 1835, as published in the combination Sciurus
gambianus, as the name for the Sun-Squirrel (Class Mammalia). By
T. C. S. Morrison-Scott, D.S.C., M.A., D.Sc. (British Museum
(Natural History), London) oy Aa aa

Support for the counter-proposal that the generic name Notropis
Rafinesque, 1818 (Class Osteichthyes) should be accepted as being
of the feminine gender. cs Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego,
California) val ; si at o% ea ‘ids sy

Page

171

173

176

179

18]

183

186

188

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the specific name
silvestris Schreber, [1777], as published in the combination Felis
(Catus) silvestris, for the European Wild Cat. By T. C. 8S. Morrison-
Scott, D.S.C., M.A., D.Sc. (British Museum (Natural History),

Baoncsad use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Phaco-
choerus as from Cuvier (F.), 1826, as the generic name for the Wart
Hog. By T. C. S. Morrison-Scott, D.S.C., M.A., D.Sc. ag oe
Museum (Natural History), London) f F

Second report on the status of the generic names Odobenus Brisson, 1762,
and Rosmarus Brinnich, 1771 (Class Mammalia) (a report prepared at
the request of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Paris, 1948). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the
International Commission on Zoological N aracncbarure)

Designation of a type genus for the nominal order AaMMONOIDEA Zittel,
1884, and proposed addition of that name to the Official List of Names
in the Order-Class Group in Zoology. By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc.,
F.R.S. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)

Appointment of Professor the Rev. L. W. Grensted as Consulting
Classical Adviser to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature

Retirement of Mrs. S. C. Watkins, Administrative Officer, Secretariat
of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the
names of one hundred and two genera of Caridea (Class Crustacea,
Order Decapoda), including proposals for the use of the Plenary
Powers (a) to validate the emendation to Gnathophyllum of the
generic name Gnatophyllum Latreille, 1814, and (b) to validate the
family-group names HIPPOLYTIDAE Bate, 1888 and EUGONATONOT-
IDAE Chace, 1937. By L. B. Holthuis IEEE van N. ree
a Leiden, The Netherlands)

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate and protect the family-
group name MAYAITIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1928 (Class Cephalopoda,
Order Ammonoidea). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Sedg-
wick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) P x

Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to preserve the
generic name Helicella Férussac, 1821, for use in its accustomed
sense. By Horace B. Baker (Zoological SEAT aie ‘epost: of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, U.S.A.) ..

XIX

Page

189

191

196

199

203

203

204 -

229

231

xx

Support for Dr. Gisin’s proposals for the suppression, under the Plenary
Powers, of the generic name Achorutes Templeton, 1835, and the
designation of a type species for the genus Hypogastrura Bourlet,
1839 in harmony with accustomed usage (Class Insecta, Order
Collembola). By John T. Salmon (Victoria ceeooiiutas er
Department of Zoology, Wellington, New Zealand)

Support for the proposed uses of the Plenary Powers (1) to validate the
specific name rufa Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the combination
Formica rufa, and (2) to validate the generic name Upogebia Leach,
1814. By Julian S. Huxley, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (London) .. ‘

Request for a Declaration clarifying the meaning of Article 21 of the
Régles in relation to the authorship to be attributed in certain special
circumstances to zoological names and to actions taken under the
Régles affecting the status of such names. By Francis Hemming,
C.M.G., C.B.E. ae to the International Commission on beet
Nomenclature)

Proposed determination of the nominal species to be Phin as the
type species of the genus Inoceramus Sowerby (J.), 1814 (Class
Pelecypoda) and proposed addition of that name to the Official List
of Generic Names in Zoology. By L. R. Cox, Sc.D., F.R.S. oe
Museum (Natural History), London) .. :

Request for a Declaration clarifying the status under Article 25 of names
for taxa published in the indexes of works in the text of which those
taxa were described only under vernacular names. By Francis
Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Ni omenclature) el “4 rs

Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to preserve the generic
name Helicella Férussac, 1821, for use in its accustomed sense. By
C. R. Boettger (Zoologisches Institut der Technischen Hochschule
Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany). .

Proposed entry on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for
Zoological Nomenclature of the title of Dru Drury’s Illustrations of
Natural History and determination of the dates to be attributed to
the names published in the several volumes of that work. By
Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International
Commission on Zoological N omenclature)

Proposed designation, under the Plenary Powers, for the generic name
Lernaeocera (emend of Lerneocera) Blainville, 1822 (Class Crustacea,
Order Copepoda) of a type species in harmony with current nomen-
clatorial usage. By Paul L. Illg (Department of a pleissiiis
of Washington, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.) ..

Page

232

232

235

239

249

252

Support for Dr. I. H. H. Yarrow’s proposal for the rephrasing of the
decision taken by the International Commission regarding the name
of the type species of Formica Linnaeus, 1758. By H. Bischoff
(Kustos am Zoologischen Museum der Humboldt-U niversitat, Berlin)...

_ Proposed adoption, under the Plenary Powers, of a Declaration con-
ferring upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature power to prescribe for groups of generic names or for indi-
vidual generic names, a gender different from that grammatically
appropriate to the word concerned, in cases where such action is
needed in order to avoid changes in accepted nomenclatorial practice ;
and matters incidental thereto. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G.,
C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature) es aie i. bi Bx i a ai

Proposed determination, either direct under the normal Plenary Powers
procedure or indirectly through the modified procedure recommended
in Application Z.N.(S.) 938, of the gender to be attributed to one
type of name in the Class Aves, to two types of name in the Class
Crustacea (Order Decapoda) and to the name of four genera belonging
to the Classes Acanthocephala, Amphibia, Crustacea and Pisces
respectively. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature it vi

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to determine for the generic name
Varuna Milne Edwards (H.), 1830 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda)
* agender in harmony with accustomed usage. By Francis Hemming,
C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoo-
logical Nomenclature) Ng mg! ae ry me ae

Comment on Mr. A. E. Ellis’s proposed use of the Plenary Powers to
preserve the generic name Helicella Férussac, 1821 (Class Gastropoda)
for use in its accustomed sense. By Lothar Forcart (Custos, Zoo-
logical Department, Natur-historisches M useum, Basel, Switzerland). .

Objection to the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the
generic name Achorutes Templeton, 1835 (Class Insecta, Order
Collembola). By Jiri Paclt (Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava,

Support for the proposal by Dr. R. 8. Bassler and Miss Helen Duncan
for the use of the Plenary Powers to standardise the current usage
of Monticulipora d’Orbigny, 1849 (Class Bryozoa). By Madeleine
A. Fritz (Royal Ontario Museum of Zoology and Palaeontology,
Toronto, Canada) hs ii re ue Se bs we

Page

255

260

263

264

265

xx

Support for the proposal by Dr. E. I. White and Dr. H. W. Ball for the
use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Rhino-

Page

pteraspis Jackel, 1919 (Class Ostracodermi). By B. L. Dinely ~

(University College of the South West, a and Leonard V. Wills
(Birmingham)

Support for Dr. Hermann Gisin’s proposals for the use of the Plenary
Powers for the generic names Hypogastrura Bourlet, Anurophorus
Nicolet, [1842] and Entomobrya Rondani 1861 (Class Insecta, Order
Collembola). By Kenneth A. Christiansen peace Massa-
chusetis, U.S.A.) ..

Support for Dr. A. Myra Keen’s proposed suppression under the Plenary
Powers of the generic name Jumala Friele, 1882 (Class Gastropoda).
By Allyn G. Smith Sameer aca of Sciences, San Francisco,
California, U.S.A.) : ‘

Support for Professor F. C. Hottes’s proposal for the addition of the
names Phorodon Passerini, 1860 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera)
and Humuli Schrank, 1801, as published in the combination Aphis
humuli, to the Official Lists. By Miriam A. Palmer iteleee A and
M College, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.)

Support for Dr. Ralph E. Crabill’s proposal for the use of the Plenary
Powers to designate for the genus Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758 (Class
Myriapoda) a type species in harmony with accustomed usage. By
Nell B. Causey (University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas,
U.S.A.); Clarence J. Goodnight (Purdue University, Lafayette,
Indiana, U.S.A.) ; Katherine V. W. Palmer (Paleontological Research
Institution, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) ; Mont A. Cazier, C. H. Curran,
Willis J. Gertsch and Frederick H. Rindge (The American Museum
of Natural History, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.); J. L. Cloudsley-
Thompson, M.A., Ph.D., F.L.S., F.R.E.S. (University of London,
King’s College, London) ; John D. Dwyer, Ph.D. (Saint Louis Uni-
versity, Saint Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.) ; W. Wayne Boyle (University

of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii) ; George E. Ball (University of Alberta, -

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) ; Otto Kraus (Senckenbergische Natur-
forschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) ; T. J. Spilman
and Curtis W. Sabrosky (United States Department of Agriculture,
U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) ; John C. Martin
Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Belleville,
Ontario, Canada); Ernst Palmén sia Institute, Helsinki
University, Helsinki, Finland) .. ..

266

266

267

267

XXIII

Support for the validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic
name Pleurotomaria Sowerby (J.), 1821 (Class Gastropoda). By W.
J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge
University) a ¥ * i ¥ id a) 2

Support for the proposed validation, under the Plenary Powers of the
generic name Carinifex Binney, 1865 (Class Gastropoda). By
Horace B. Baker (Zoological Laboratory, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, U.S.A.) .. 2 wt i ie - -

Proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name
Bithynia Leach, 1818 (Class Gastropoda). By A. E. Ellis (Epsom
College, Epsom, Surrey, England) oe - a ee :

Support for the validation under the Plenary Powers of Bithynia Leach,
1818 (Class Gastropoda). By Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego,
California, U.S.A.) Ad vd “a. a: sii - i

On the proposed adoption of a Declaration clarifying the status of names
published in the indexes of works. By E. M. Hering (Zoologisches
Museum der Humboldt-Universitat, Berlin, Germany)... ~ ae

Proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of Osmerus (Class
Actinoptergii) as of subgeneric status as from Linnaeus, 1758 (pro-
posed validation of an erroneous entry on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology made by the Ruling given in Opinion (ip RR eg
Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) at a 0.

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name
Phillipsella Oehlert, 1886, and proposed addition of the name
Phillipsinella Novak, 1886 (Class Trilobita) to the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology. By H. B. Whittington, D.Sc. (Museum
of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, U.S.A.) .. os 23 gy mM ts 22 ad

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name
Acinacea Bory de St. Vincent, 1804, and the specific name notha
Bory de St. Vincent, 1804, as published in the combination Acinacea
notha, for the purpose of making the generic name Gempylus
Cuvier, 1829, and the name serpens Cuvier, 1829, as published in the
combination gempylus-serpens, the oldest available names for the
genus and species concerned (Class Pisces). By Denys W. Tucker,
BSc. (British Museum (Natural History), London) .. i si

272

272

275

279

280

281

283

285

XXIV

Request for a Ruling as to the specimen to be accepted as the lectotype of
of Megathymus aryxna Dyar, 1905 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera).
By Cyril P. dos Passos, LL.B. (Research Associate, American Museum
of Natural History, New York ; Research Associate, Carnegie Museum,
Pittsburgh) and Ernest L. Bell (Research RENT American Museum
of Natural History, New York) . Ae oh -

Support for the dos Passos-Bell proposal relating to the name Mega-
thymus aryxna Dyar, 1905. By Brigadier W. H. sored CSL,
C.LE., D.S.0. (British Museum (Natural History), London) .

On the question of the lectotype of Megathymus aryxna Dyar, 1905.
By Don B. Stallings and J. R. Turner (Caldwell, Kansas, U.S.A.) ..

Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate for the
genus Scorpio Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Arachnida), a type species in
harmony with accustomed usage. By Otto Kraus (Forschungs-
Institut und Natur-Museum menaneenen iii a. Mate
Germany) - ; ,

Proposed suppression under the Plenary Powers of the family-group
name SEGUENZICERATIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1924 (Class Cephalopoda,
Order Ammonoidea). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. sg
wick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)

Support for the proposed designation of a type genus for the nominal
order AMMONOIDEA Zittel, 1884. Dae D. T. Donovan (University of
Bristol, England) . = is ; ye a: a a

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to prescribe for the generic name
Lepisma Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Thysanura), a gender
in harmony with accepted usage. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G.,
C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature) <i ; ‘ ; ,

Support for the proposal to use the Plenary Powers to prescribe for the
generic name Lepisma Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order
Thysanura), a gender in harmony with accepted usage. By Theresa
Clay, D.Sc. (British Museum (Natural Ringe and M. if isichs
(University of Glasgow, Scotland) ,

Page

289

294

295

296

297

298

299

Support for the proposed adoption, under the Plenary Powers, of a
Declaration conferring upon the International Commission power to
prescribe for generic names a gender different from that grammatic-
ally appropriate to the word concerned, in cases where such action
is needed in order to avoid changes in accepted nomenclatorial
practice. By Sir Gavin de Beer, D.Sc., F.R.S. (British Museum
(Natural History), London) ite aig ay an ae

Support for the proposal to prescribe for generic names in the Class
Aves having the termination ‘‘-rhynchus” a gender in harmony
with accepted usage. By Finn Salomonsen (Universitetets Zoologiske
Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark)

On the proposal to prescribe for generic names in the Order Decapoda
(Class Crustacea) having the terminations “ -opsis ” and “ -gnathus ”
and for the generic name Nephrops [Leach], [1814], a gender in
harmony with accepted usage. By L. B. Holthuis mee ir aan van
Naturlijke, Leiden, the Netherlands) :

Support for the proposal to prescribe for the generic name Sygnathus
Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pisces), a gender in harmony with accepted
usage. By eo W. Tucker, B.Sc. rig Museum inant
History), London) . ae 2 ;

Support for the proposal to prescribe for the generic names Syngnathus
Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pisces), and Desmognathus Baird, 1850 (Class
Amphibia), a gender in harmony with accepted usage. By Robert
Mertens (Forschungs-Institut und Natur-Museum Senckenberg,
Frankfurt a. Main, Germany) - co i ais

Support for the proposal for the use of the Plenary Powers to validate
the generic name Fistulipora McCoy, 1849 (Class Bryozoa). By
Madeleine A. Fritz (Royal Ontario Museum iy wie and Palae-
ontology, Toronto, Canada)

Support for the proposed adoption of a Declaration clarifying the
meaning of Article 21 of the Régles in relation to the authorship to be
attributed in certain special circumstances to Zoological names,
and to actions taken under the Régles affecting the status of such
names. By L. R. Cox, M.A., Se.D., F.RS. on ak Museum
(Natural History), London) e. .-

L

XXV

Page

301

301

301

302

302

303

303

XXVI

Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate (a) the
emendation Sphenodon of the generic name Sphaenodon Gray (J.E.),
1831, and (b) the family-group name SPHENODONTIDAE Cope, 1870
(Class Reptilia). By Prof. Dr. T. Jaczewski sre ivi v ik cr
Polish Aacaemy of Sciences, Warsaw) . ;

Application for a decision regarding the status of the generic name
Pagurus Fabricius, 1775 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) and
application for the use of the Plenary Powers in regard thereto in
certain circumstances. By J. Forest (Muséum National d’ Histoire
Naturelle, Paris, France) and L. B. Holthuis sp ig van
Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, the Netherlands) . §;

Proposition pour le rejet definitif des noms de genres Pagurus
Fabricius, 1775, et Pagurus Latreille, 1803 ; proposition d’accepter
definitivment Hupagurus Brandt, 1851 (sub. gen.) et Dardanus
Paulson, 1875, comme noms de genres. Par Robert Ph. Dollfus
(Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris). .

Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the
generic name Chama Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pelecypoda). By L. R.
Cox, Se.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History), London)

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to preserve the generic name
Turbinella Lamarck, 1799, as the name for the sacred chank shell of
India. By Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.)

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate a type species in
harmony with accustomed usage for Terrakea Booker (F.W.), 1930
(Class Brachiopoda), a genus based upon a misidentified type species
and to validate the name currently used for the species so to be
designated. By W. G. H. Maxwell, B.Se., Ph.D. (Beit Scientific
Research Fellow, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London)

Support for the validation under the Plenary Powers of Bithynia Leach,
1818 (Class Gastropoda). By B. Hubendick (Naturhistoriska Stock-
holm) and C. O. Regteren Altena Gere venta van phi A!
Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) : . .:

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the currently accepted
usage of the generic name Unio Philipsson, 1788 (Class Foley Poa
By A. E. Ellis (Epsom College, Epsom, England) 4

Page

304

307

322

327

333

336

337

XXVII

Proposed suppression for nomenclatorial purposes under the Plenary
Powers of a pamphlet by R. B. Horniman entitled Preliminary
Descriptions of some new birds and bearing the date January 1940.
By Charles Vaurie (The American Museum of Natural History,
New York) a? 4a ye ae ene +5 ri

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to preserve the generic name
Elaphe Fitzinger, 1833 (Class Reptilia). By Robert Mertens
(Natur-Museum und Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.
Main, Germany) a si ~ wi es ais

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to secure the interpretation of the
nominal species Palaeopsylla daea, Dampf, 1910 (Class Insecta,
Order Siphonaptera) in a manner consistent with the universally
accepted use of that name. By G. H. E. Hopkins, O.B.E., M.A.
(British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring,
Herts) Ae ae ne afd 7 cH xe iS

Support for Dr. Charles Vaurie’s proposal for the rejection of the so-
called Horniman Pamphlet. By Dean Amadon (The American
Museum of Natural History, New York). . ae oP Ae

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate a type species for the
genus Torquesia Douvillé, 1929 (Class Gastropoda). By J. Marwick
(Geological Survey of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand). .

Comment on the Forest-Holthuis proposals relating to Pagurus Fabricius,
1775 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By J. D. Macdonald
(British Museum (Natural History), London); R. B. Pike (Marine
Station, Millport, Isle of Cumbrae, Scotland) ; and D. I. Williamson
(Marine Biological Station, Port Erin, Isle of Man) : Be

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate a type species in
harmony with generally accepted usage for the genus Ptychopyge
Angelin, 1854 (Class Trilobita). By Valdar Jaanusson (Paleonto-
logiska Institutionen, Uppsala U niversitet, Sweden) oe oe

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the specific name
convexa de Haan, [1835], as published in the combination Ocypode
(Chasmagnathus) convexa, the name of the type species of the
genus Chasmagnathus de Haan, [1835] (Class Crustacea, Order
Decapoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 85. By Francis Hemming,
C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature) . . A 1 “ie a a

Page

344

347

349

352

353

356

359

362

XXVIII

Support for Dr. Jaanusson’s proposal regarding the generic name
Ptychopyge Angelin, 1854 (Class Trilobita). By Gunnar Hennings-
moen (Paleontological Musewm, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway)
and Leif Stormer (Paleontological Institute, University of Oslo, Oslo,
Norway) ‘4 si a - 4p of A.

Corrigenda

Index to authors of applications and of comments on applications

Subject Index ..

Particulars of dates of publication of the several Parts in which the
present volume was published ..

Instructions to binders

Page

INTERNATIONAL TRUST
FOR
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR 1954

iii

FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT
OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN-
CLATURE FOR THE YEAR 1954

(Report approved and adopted by the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature in Annual General Meeting)

The year 1954 was marked by bold innovations which it was recognised
carried considerable risks but which were deliberately entered upon by the
Trust because in its view it was only by taking such risks that it could hope
materially to reduce the arrears of work in the Office of the Commission, arrears
which had accumulated owing to the fact the total volume of work in that
Office had grown to an extent that the business involved could no longer be
dealt with by an Honorary Secretary unassisted by staff, even if that Officer
was willing to give the whole of his time to the service of the Commission.
That the Trust was able to enter upon this venture without incurring undue
financial risks was that through the large gift to its funds made by Mr. Hemming
in 1953 to which reference was made in the Report for that year it had at its
disposal sufficient funds to enter upon this venture. Accordingly, in the early
part of 1954 the Trust made two further salaried appointments on a part-time
basis, the first, to a post, the duties of which were to assist the Administrative
Officer (Mrs. S. C. Watkins) who had been appointed at the end of 1953, the
second, to a post of copying typist. For a body placed as is the Trust even
these modest appointments involved a considerable additional outlay. It
was confidently expected from the outset these additions to the staff of the
Office of the Commission would enable the Secretary to make substantial
inroads into the arrears of work in that Office, but it was not clear how far
this would lead to an increase during the year in the total volume of published
output. It was the hope of the Committee of Management that the number
of published items would show some rise and that, as a small profit was to be
expected on each item published, there would be some set-off from this source
to be set against the expenditure incurred in employing the newly appointed
staff. These hopes were more than justified, for the increase in the number
of items published during the year was so great that the small profit obtained
from each sufficed in the aggregate not only to cover in full the expenditure
involved through the appointment of additional staff but also to provide a
small net accession to the funds of the Trust. In a second field also the Trust
broke new ground in 1954 by creating a whole-time post of Research Assistant,
the duties of the holder of this post being to prepare under the directions of
the Secretary to the Commission a volume containing full particulars of all
entries so far made on the Official Lists and Official Indexes. This was a
project for which it was evident there was a strong demand but was one which
in spite of the large amount of work which had already been carried out could
not be brought to completion without a whole-time assistant. The expenditure
involved in making this appointment did not create a new charge on the

iv

general reserves of the Trust, being met from the fund built up in previous
years in the “‘ Official List (Publication) ’’ Suspense Account which had been
established for this purpose.

2. Scope of the publications issued in 1954: The first section of work in
the Office of the Commission to be tackled under the plan for wiping off accumu-
lated arrears was that concerned with the promulgation of decisions already
taken by the Commission on individual nomenclatorial problems but on which
Opinions had not as yet been published. This led to a great change in the
Publications Programme for the year 1954. For, whereas since 1947 the
publications of the Trust had consisted entirely of instalments of the Bulletin
of Zoological Nomenclature, the greater part of the publications in 1954 con-
sisted of Opinions. At the same time however efforts were made to maintain
at least a modest flow of new Parts of the Bulletin. Towards the end of the
year also there was established a new series styled ‘‘ Directions ”’ for the purpose
of recording decisions supplementary to those previously taken in earlier
Opinions. In another direction also old arrears were wiped off, for during the
year concluding index Parts were issued for three volumes of the Bulletin
which had previously been otherwise complete, thus rendering possible the
binding-up of the volumes concerned. At the same time also indexes and
title pages were provided for six out of the seven volumes of the “ Opinions ”’
Series published in 1954 and the preparation of the eighth was well advanced
by the close of the year. Particulars of the publications issued in 1954 and
of the income obtained from sales are given in the following paragraphs.

3. Publication in 1954 of ‘‘ Opinions ”’, “‘ Declarations ’’ and “‘ Directions ”’
and income obtained from sales : During the year 1954 the number of Opinions
published reached the very high total of one hundred and twenty-four (Opinions
195—318). In addition, nine Directions (Directions 1—9), three Declarations
(Declarations 13, 18, 19) and three Index Parts were issued. For the preparation
of these Indexes the Trust is indebted once more to Miss Joan Kelley, B.Sc.,
its part-time indexer. Altogether therefore one hundred and thirty-nine
Parts of the “ Opinions ’’ Series were published during the year. Leaving aside
the three Index Parts, the number of units published in 1954 thus exceeded
by three the total number (133) published in the period 1910—1936. The
Parts so published, which comprised 2,280 pages, were the following :—

Vol. 2: 7 Parts (Directions 2, 4—9), 106 pp.

Vol. 3: 19 Parts (Opinions 195—210 ; Directions 1, 3; Index), 274 pp.
Vol. 4: 30 Parts (Opinions 211—239 ; Index), 410 pp.

Vol. 5: 30 Parts (Opinions 240—268 ; Index), 440 pp.

Vol. 6; 16 Parts (Opinions 269—282 ; Declarations 18, 19 ; Index), 308 pp.
Vol.7: 1 Part (Opinion 283), 226 pp.

Vol. 8: 28 Parts (Opinions 284—311), 374 pp.

Vol. 9: 8 Parts (Opinions 312—318 ; Declaration 13), 142 pp.

Vv

4. Commencement in 1954 of the review of “ Opinions ”’ published prior
to 1948 prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris :
An important feature of the publications in the ‘“‘ Opinions ”’ Series in 1954 is
represented by the publication of Directions 1—3, for in these Directions the
Commission carried out, so far as concerns the Opinions embodying decisions
taken in the period 1935—1947, the general review of previously published
Opinions which it was instructed to make by a General Directive issued to it
by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948. The purpose
of this review was to complete the Rulings given in the Opinions concerned
(a) by placing on the appropriate Official Lists all names dealt with in the
Opinions in question which were accepted by the Commission as the oldest
available names for the taxa concerned, (b) by placing on the appropriate
Official Indexes all objectively invalid names similarly dealt with, and (c)
by assigning an appropriate gender to each generic name placed on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology in the Opinions in question. By the Rulings
given in the three Directions published in 1954 the Rulings given in the sixty-one
Opinions concerned (Opinions 134—194) were brought up to the same level
of completeness as that attained in the new Opinions published during the
year under review.

5. In view of the fact that seven years had elapsed since the last previous
Opinion (Opinion 194) had been published it was inevitable that the sub-
scription list for Opinions should be somewhat out of date. For this reason
and also because of the very large number of Opinions published during the
year it was inevitable that in the opening months there should be a number of
cancellations of old standing orders for publications in this series. During
the year these losses were however more than offset by new subscriptions
received. The variety of the institutions from which these orders were received
and the geographical dispersion of the institutions concerned bore striking
witness to the growing importance attached by zoologists to the work of the
Commission. Income from the sales during the year of Opinions, Directions
and Declarations, including a number of orders for complete back sets received
from new subscribers, reached the very high total of £5,703 16s. 3d.

6. Publication in 1954 of further instalments of the “ Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature ’? and income obtained from sales : Nine Parts of the Bulletin
of Zoological Nomenclature were published in the year 1954. These Parts
reflect the twofold policy of the Trust in relation to the Bulletin. For, while
six of these Parts contained further instalments of applications on individual
cases submitted by specialists for decision, the remaining, three Parts were
the concluding Parts of volumes which in other respects had already been
finished. The Parts containing new applications were Parts 6@—11 of volume 9,
which was thus completed except for Title Page and indexes. The remaining
Parts published in 1954 contained the concluding instalments of volumes 6,
8 and 10. The publication of these Index Parts was warmly welcomed by
many subscribers. Income from sales (including income from the sale of back

vi

Parts) amounted to £2,225 3s. 2d., as compared with £2,754 in 1953 and £2,466
in 1952. Thus, although in 1954 the publication of the Bulletin represented
only a minor part of the Trust’s Publications Programme, the income obtained
from sales was not far from that obtained in previous years when the entire
resources of the Trust had been devoted to the publication of this serial.

7. Income received from the sales of the work “‘ Copenhagen Decisions
on Zoological Nomenclature ’’ : In view of the fact that the work Copenhagen
Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature, embodying the decisions taken by the
Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, was published at the very
end of 1953, it was to be expected that the bulk of the sales of this volume
would take place in 1954. The income so obtained during the year amounted
to £164 3s. Od. These sales almost exhausted the stock of this book and,
by the end of the year, it was clear that it was unlikely that any appreciable
number of further orders were to be expected. The edition in which this
book had been published had consisted of 1,000 copies. Of these upwards
of 100 were issued on a complimentary basis to the Members of the Commission,
to the zoologists who had taken part in the Colloquium at Copenhagen in 1953,
to the authorities of the Copenhagen Congress and to the International Union
for Biological Sciences and to U.N.E.S.C.0. The number of copies available
for sale was thus about 900. From the point of view of financial
policy in relation to the pricing of the normal publications of the Trust, it is
instructive to note that in spite of the very low (almost nominal) price charged
and notwithstanding also the great importance of the work Copenhagen
Decisions and the special efforts made by a number of zoologists in the United
States and in Europe to promote sales, the total number of copies sold fell
short of 1,000. The Trust takes this experience as providing clear evidence
that, however low might be the prices charged either for Opinions or for Parts
of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, the sales to be expected, owing to
the much more limited, because much more specialised, interest of those
publications, would fall far short even of that secured by the Copenhagen
Decisions. The Trust is confirmed therefore in its view that it is a delusion to
suppose that the provision of the funds needed for maintaining the work of the
Commission is to be looked for from a policy of issuing publications in large
editions at very low prices. The Trust accordingly remains of the opinion
that it will not be practicable to place its normal publications on sale at low
prices until by the adoption of some co-operative scheme of guaranteed annual
grants to its funds by the leading zoological institutions of the world, it is
placed in a position both to meet its essential overhead expenditure and in
addition to meet from income the loss to be expected by the sale of its pub-
lications at uneconomic prices. In the experiment represented by the price
fixed for the Copenhagen Decisions, sales in 1953 and 1954, which (as already
explained) almost exhausted the edition printed, amounted to £192 11s. 10d.,
as against a production cost of £620 5s. 3d. The net loss on this publication
thus amounted to £427 13s. 5d. In other words, less than one-third of the
original cost was recovered through sales at the low price charged. That a

Vii

loss would be involved in the publication of this work had always been expected
by the Trust. It was considered however at the time, and is still so considered,
that the experiment of charging no more than a nominal price would be
justified as providing a means for testing the validity of the contention that
the adoption of very low prices for its publications would provide a sovereign
means for financing the work of the Commission. Moreover, the loss involved
was, it is considered, fully justified by the importance of securing the widest
possible distribution for this book in view of its exceptional interest and
importance.

8. Total income from sales of publications : Total income from the sale
of publications in 1954 amounted to £8,093 2s. 5d., an increase of £5,302 4s. 8d.
over the income obtained from this source in 1953 (£2,790 17s. 9d.). The
very high level of income obtained from sales in the year under review is directly
attributable to the fact that the Honorary Secretary was working on a full-time
basis and for the first time had the assistance of a salaried staff.

9. Donations received : Total donations received during the year amounted
to £32 5s. 10d. These include a gift of £25 from the Royal Entomological
Society of London and smaller gifts from Professor F. C. Hottes (Grand
Junction, Colorado, U.S.A.) and Dr. Ethelwynn Trewavas (British Museum
(Natural History), London). To all of these the grateful thanks of the Trust
are offered. The donations received in 1954 were slightly higher than in recent
years with the exception of 1953 in which, as explained in the Report for that
year, a benefaction of over £1,700 was received from a single source.

10. Grant received through the International Union for Biological Sciences
from U.N.E.S.C.O. : In the year 1954 the Trust continued to receive financial
assistance from U.N.E.S.C.O. through the International Union for Biological
Sciences. The grant so received amounted to $400, which realised £142 17s. 2d.
In making this gift, the International Union expressed its regret that, owing
to the reduction in the subvention made to it by U.N.E.S.C.O., it was not in a
position to make a larger grant. The Trust gratefully acknowledges the
assistance so afforded and desires at the same time to express its appreciation
of the sympathetic interest in its work shown by the International Union.

11. Total Income in 1954: Total Income in 1954 made up of the items
described in the preceding paragraphs, amounted to £8,268 5s. 5d. or
£3,715 16s. Od. more than in 1953 (£4,552 9s. 5d.). The income secured in
1954, which is greater by far than that achieved in any previous year since
the establishment of the Trust, is extremely gratifying in that it shows in the
clearest possible way both the importance attached to the work of the Com-
mission and the wide welcome accorded to that work when as in 1954 it is
possible to arrange for that work to be conducted on a scale more consistent
than hitherto with the needs of systematic zoology.

12. Administrative expenses: The great increase in the scale of the
activities of the Office of the Commission in 1954 as compared with any previous
year in its history is necessarily reflected by an increase in administrative
expenses incurred during the year. The principal item affected was naturally
that in respect of salaries which amounted to £777 6s. 6d., an increase of
£541 17s. ld. over the expenditure similarly incurred in 1953 (£235 9s. 5d.).
The Committee of Management is of the opinion that this increase must be
regarded as small in view of the fact that, whereas in previous years expendi-
ture under this head arose only in connection with the salary payable to the
Publications Officer and in respect of payments on casual typing assistance,
it was necessary in 1954 to meet the salaries payable not only to the Publications
Officer but also to the Administrative Officer (Mrs. 8. C. Watkins) appointed
in December 1953, to her chief assistant Mrs. J. H. Newman, who joined the
staff in January 1954 and also throughout the year to a typist regularly em-
ployed on a half-time basis. The other item under the head of administrative
expenses which showed a substantial increase in 1954 over 1953 was that in
respect of general office expenses. This item amounted to the sum of
£498 17s. ld., an increase of £312 17s. 7d. over the amount incurred in 1953
(£185 19s. 6d.). In part, this increase represents the growth of office expenses
inevitably associated with a substantial increase in staff with its consequent
increase in the demand for stationery and office requisites generally. In part,
however, this increase is attributable also to the greater output in 1954 of
Voting Papers issued to the Commission for the purpose of obtaining decisions
on questions submitted for decision, for in 1954 these amounted to no less than
124 as compared with only seven in 1953. Thus the total number of Voting
Papers issued was more than twice as great as in 1952, the year which previously
held the record in this matter, when sixty Voting Papers were issued. It
will be readily appreciated that the production and distribution of over 2,500
individual Voting Papers to the Members of the Commission involved a con-
siderable increase in outlay, more especially in view of the fact that in numerous
cases it was necessary to prepare and distribute also explanatory documents
in mimeographed form. Moreover, this increase in the rate of activity led also
to a marked rise in expenditure on postage, having regard to the fact that
under a Directive given to the Commission by the International Congress of
Zoology all Voting Papers for addresses outside Europe are required to be
sent by airmail. The Audit Fee amounted to £31 10s. 0d., the same figure
as in 1953. Total gross expenditure on administrative services thus amounted
to £1,307 13s. 7d. After deducting £40 representing expenditure on common
services incurred on behalf of the Official List Suspense Account (see paragraph
18 below), total net administrative expenses amounted in 1954 to £1,267 13s. 7d.,
an increase of £814 14s. 8d. over 1953. Having regard to the large volume
of output in 1954 the administrative expenses incurred must be regarded as
being very modest, partly because the salaries paid were for the most part very
low and partly because Mr. Hemming, as whole-time Secretary to the Com-
mission, received no remuneration and provided Office accommodation in his
private residence without charge to the Commission. The subsidy so provided
was, it will be appreciated, considerable, for quite apart from the fact that

ix

it would be necessary to offer a substantial salary in order to obtain the services
of a salaried whole-time Director, the increase in the staff in 1954 required the
regular use of four rooms, the rent for which would have been considerable if it
had been necessary for the Trust to rent equivalent accommodation on a
commercial basis. To an even greater extent than in previous years the Trust
and through it the Commission and zoologists generally are under a deep
financial obligation to Mr. Hemming.

13. Depreciation of Office Equipment : During the year 1954 the sum of
£19 8s. 2d. was appropriated towards depreciation of office equipment. This
was slightly more than the amount so appropriated in 1953 (£18 8s. 6d.).

14. Expenditure on printing scientific publications : During 1954 the sum
of £5,110 3s. 5d. was expended on the printing of Opinions, Declarations and
Directions. As has already been explained (paragraph 2) this is an item on
which no expenditure was incurred in 1953. In 1954 also the sum of
£1,210 15s. lld. was expended on printing further instalments of new
applications in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This is substantially
more than the amount (£684 10s. 11d.) so expended in 1953. For the present
purposes however the year 1953 cannot be regarded as comparable, for in it a
large instalment of the Bulletin (the greater part of volumes 8 and 10) was
allocated for the Agenda of the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature held
at Copenhagen that year, the expenditure on which was shown in the Special
Account opened that year for financing the Colloquium. For the purpose of
comparing expenditure on the printing of the Bulletin in 1954 with that incurred
in a normal year a better basis is afforded by looking at the expenditure so
incurred in 1952 which amounted to £2,829. It will be seen therefore that
expenditure on the Bulletin in 1954 was less than half that normally so incurred.
This was due to the fact that, as already explained, it was deliberately decided
in 1954 that in that year the preparation of instalments of the Bulletin should
take second place to the preparation of Opinions embodying decisions already
taken by the Commission which were then awaiting promulgation in this
manner.

15. Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature, Copenhagen, 1953 : During
the year 1954 arrangements were made for the publication of the concluding
Part of volume 8 and of the corresponding Part of volume 10 of the Bulletin,
the two volumes which had been allocated in 1953 for the publication of the
Agenda for the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature held in Copenhagen
that year. If it had been possible to publish these two Parts in 1953 the
expenditure so involved would have been charged to the Colloquium Account,
the grant to which from the general funds of the Trust would have had to be
correspondingly increased. In view however of the fact that, as shown by
the Accounts for 1953, the Colloquium Account was closed as at the end of
that year, the expenditure incurred in 1954 on the publication of the concluding
Parts of the foregoing volumes was charged direct to the Publications Sub-Head
of the Accounts for that year.

x

16. Balance carried down, being the Excess of Income over Expenditure
in the year 1954: It will be seen from the particulars given above that in
1954 total income (£8,268 5s. 5d.) exceeded total expenditure (£7,608 1s. 1d.)
by the sum of £660 4s. 4d., the amount which therefore was carried down.

17. Work carried out in 1954 in connection with the preparation of the
** Official Lists ’’ and ‘‘ Official Indexes ’’ for publication in book-form : As has
already been explained, consideration was given in the summer of 1954 to the
question of the measures needed to secure the publication at a reasonably
early date of a volume containing particulars of the names so far placed by
the Commission on the Official Lists of valid names and the titles of books
accepted as available for zoological nomenclature and on the Official Indexes
of names and of the titles of books rejected as invalid for the purposes of
zoological nomenclature. The main task involved was threefold :—(1) Under
a General Directive issued by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Paris, 1948, the Commission is under instructions to review all the Opinions
(Opinions 1—194) published up to that date for the purpose of completing the
action required (a) by placing on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
every name accepted in those Opinions as the oldest available name for the
genus concerned in cases where such action was not taken in the Opinions
in question, (b) by placing on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the
name of the type species of every genus, the name of which had been placed
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, except where that name was
not the oldest available name for the species concerned, in which case the
oldest name, whatever that name might be, was to be placed on the foregoing
Official List, (c) by placing on the appropriate Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Names all generic and specific names rejected by the Commission as
being objectively invalid, and (d) by assigning an appropriate gender to every
name so far placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (2) Under
further Directives issued by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Copenhagen, 1953, the Commission was instructed to take corresponding
action in relation to the additional Official Lists and Official Indexes established
by that Congress, including the Official List of Works Approved as Available
for Zoological Nomenclature and the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Works in Zoological Nomenclature. (3) The investigations carried out by
Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, in the years 1943—1946 showed that the entries
made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Rulings given in
the Opinions adopted prior to the Session of the Commission held in Lisbon
in 1935 (Opinions 1—133) lacked the required bibliographical references, in
the majority of cases contained no particulars as to how the type species of the
genera concerned had been determined under Article 30, and in a minority
of cases contained errors requiring correction. A great deal of work on these
early entries had already been done by Mr. Hemming but a great deal still
remained to be done. It was evident to the Trust from communications
received from zoological institutions and from individual specialists in different
parts of the world that there was strong and growing desire that the Official

xi

Lists and Official Indexes, as so far compiled, should be published in book-form
with as little further delay as possible. It was evident also however that the
calls on Mr. Hemming’s time made by other parts of the work of the Com-
mission were so heavy that, unless he could be provided with assistance, there
was no early prospect of the publication of the volume containing the Official
Lists and Indexes. The Trust accordingly decided to establish, in the first
instance for a period of one year, a post of Research Assistant, the holder
of which would devote his or her whole time to this task. After consultation
with the Professors of Zoology at certain of the Colleges of London University,
the Trust appointed Miss D. N. Noakes, B.Sc., a graduate of Bedford College,
London University, to this new post. Miss Noakes took up her duties in
September 1954 and already by the end of the year had made promising

progress.

18. Expenditure incurred in 1954 in connection with the preparation of
the “‘ Official Lists ’’ and ‘* Official Indexes ’’ for publication in book-form :
During the year 1954 the sum of £186 Os. 2d. was incurred on the preparation
of the Official Lists and Official Indexes for publication in book-form. This
expenditure was made up as follows :—(a) Salary for Research Assistant,
£117 3s. 2d. ; (b) purchase of a typewriter, card indexes, and other equipment,
£28 17s. Od. ; (c) contribution towards the general funds of the Trust in respect
of the provision of common services. The expenditure so incurred was charged
to the “ Official List ’’ Suspense Account.

19. Transfer to the “ Official List ’’ Suspense Account : At the close of
1954 the Trust transferred the sum of £400 from its general funds to the
“ Official List ’’ Suspense Account. The balance remaining in this Account
at the end of the year, following the foregoing transfer, amounted to £636 Is. 6d.

20. Balance carried down: The balance at 3lst December 1953 of the
Trust’s Income and Expenditure Account brought forward to 1954 amounted
to £2,846 6s. 9d. At the end of the year 1954 this was increased by the excess
of income over expenditure during the year (£660 4s. 4d.), which brought the
total up to £3,506 lls. ld. At the same time it was necessary however to
make a deduction of £400 to take account of the transfer of a sum of that
amount to the “ Official List’ Suspense Account (paragraph 19 above).
Accordingly, at 3lst December 1954 the sum carried forward to the Balance
Sheet amounted to £3,106 11s. 1d.

21. Balance Sheet as at 3ist December 1954: At 3lst December 1954
_ the Trust’s total Revenue Reserves amounted to the sum of £3,840 9s. 3d.
- made up as follows :—(a) ‘“ Official List’ Suspense Account, £636 Is. 6d. ;
(b) Office Equipment Reserve, £97 16s. 8d.; (c) Income and Expenditure
Account, Balance, £3,106 lls. ld. Other items on this side of the Balance
Sheet were (i) a sum of £811 18s. 6d., representing the provision made for
meeting the cost of the revision of the Régles (International Code of Zoological

xii

Nomenclature), being the balance remaining in the “ International Code ”
(Publication) Suspense Account ; (ii) liabilities to sundry creditors, amounting
to £1,506 9s. 1d. As regards this latter item, almost the whole amount was
in respect of sums owing to the printers in respect of instalments of the
“‘ Opinions ’’ Series and of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature which had
been published near the close of 1954 and for which accounts had not been
received by the end of the year. The items set out above amounted to a
total of £6,158 16s. 10d. On the other side of the Balance Sheet the foregoing
items were matched by (a) Fixed Assets entered at cost, less depreciation,
£174 13s. 4d.; (b) Current Assets, amounting to £5,984 3s. 6d. This latter
item was made up of two parts of which the first was the sum of £1,775. This
sum represented the estimated value of amounts due for sales of publications.
The high level of this figure was attributable to the large number of items
published in December 1954 for which there had not been time for many
subscribers to pay before the end of the year. The second part consisted
of an item of £4,209 3s. 6d. being the balance at the bank and cash in hand at
3lst December 1954.

22. The situation disclosed by the Accounts for 1954: The Accounts for
1954 have definitely established a proposition which has long had the support
of the Trust but which hitherto it had been impossible to put to the test. This
proposition was founded on the belief that with an Honorary Secretary working
full-time it should be possible greatly to increase the published output of
the Trust by incurring the relatively small expenditure needed to employ a
small staff which would be able to relieve the Secretary of those duties formerly
necessarily performed by himself which were of a nature which could be dele-
gated to others, thus increasing the amount of time available for the discharge
of those parts of his duties in respect of which such delegation was not possible.
At the same time it was the hope of the Trust that the increase in the total
number of separate publications issued would provide at least some net con-
tribution to the funds of the Trust. The experience of 1954 showed that these
anticipations were well-founded. It must not however be concluded from
this experience that in 1955 and later years the continuation of this policy
will be possible without some depletion of the Trust’s reserves. The year
1954 must be accounted fortunate in that during it the steady rate of output
achieved was not disturbed either by sickness or by changes in staff. It
cannot be expected that these favourable circumstances will always be present.
While therefore the Trust fully intends to continue this policy, it feels it neces-
sary to strike this warning note, in order to avoid the risk of disappointment
if in some future year circumstances are such as to make it impossible to repeat
the outstanding results secured in 1954.

23. The further outlook: The year 1954 was one of achievement and
success but in its financial setting it was a success secured in a situation which
remained as precarious and as unsound as in previous years. It was a success
achieved in spite of the total lack by the Trust of any permanent source of

xiii

income and was secured only by the maintenance by the Trust of a very high
level of prices for its publications. Even so, the success secured in 1954 would
not have been achieved if it had not been that Mr. Hemming was able and
willing to work as a whole-time official without remuneration and in addition
provided the Trust with a subsidy represented by the provision of free office
accommodation. It is a matter of great regret to the Trust that circumstances
have made it necessary for it to continue its high-price policy for its publications.
For this policy suffers from the serious disadvantage that it restricts the cir-
culation of the Trust’s publications and in addition imposes a substantial
burden on the library funds of the subscribing institutions. Nevertheless,
' a8 was recognised by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology at
Copenhagen in 1953, this policy is inevitable in existing circumstances and
will remain so until such time as the zoologists and palaeontologists of the
world, acting through the institutions at which they work, devise some co-
operative basis for financing the work performed for them by the International
Commission.

24. Presentation of the Accounts for the Year 1954 and Balance Sheet as at
31st December 1954: With the foregoing explanations, the Committee of
Management has pleasure in presenting to the Trust the Accounts for the
Year 1954 and the Balance Sheet as at 3lst December 1954. In doing so, the
Committee of Management has again to record its thanks to Mr. Francis
Hemming, the Honorary Managing Director and Secretary of the Trust, for
the continuous vigilance with which he has controlled day-to-day expenditure,
and to Mrs. Sheila Watkins, Administrative Officer, who acted as Sub-Accountant
during the year. Mrs. C. Rosner, who has continued in charge of the Trust’s
Publications Office in South Kensington, has discharged with her customary
assiduity and care the duties falling on the Publications Office which in the year
just closed were heavier than in any previous year owing to the great increase in
the number of individual items published. Finally, the thanks of the Trust
are due to its Auditors, Messrs. W. B. Keen & Co., Chartered Accountants,
and to their representative, Mr. R. W. M. Taylor, for assistance and advice
rendered during the year under review.

Offices of the International Trust
for Zoological Nomenclature,

41 Queen’s Gate,
London, 8.W.7, England.

Xiv

INTERNATIONAL TRUST
Incorporated under the Com}

Balance S

1953
£ £ £\. sad £
Revenue Reserves (per separate accounts)—
422 “* Official List ’’ Suspense Account via .--! | 6362SN6
98 Office Equipment Reserve rr Ae te 97 16 8
2,846 Income and Expenditure Account—Balance ... 3,106 11 1
3,366 = —— a
Provision for Cost of Revision of International Code—
** International Code (Publication) ’’ Suspense
812 Account (per separate account) se
Lnabilities—
2,030 Sundry Creditors
£6,208 £6,158 1

We have obtained all the information and explanations which to the best of our knowledge and beli
from our examination of those books. We have examined the above Balance Sheet and accompanying Ir
our information and according to the explanations given us, the said accounts give the information required I
Trust’s affairs at 31st December 1954, and the Income and Expenditure Account gives a true and fair view

Fiysspury Circus Hovsz,
BLOMFIELD STREET,
Lonpon, E.C.2.

3rd March 1955.

xV

SICAL NOMENCLATURE
) (Limited by Guarantee)

mber 1954.

Fixed Assets—
Office Equipment—

112 Book Value at Ist July 1948 ee Peerage tty Mi at by fain 1
157 Additions since at cost one safe «ey | LEG) StS
269 298 0 9
103 Less : Depreciation... see bre lls bt, 6

= —————- 174 13 4

Current Assets—
193 Amounts due for Publications ete., Valued at ... 1,775 0 0

6,849 +BalanceatBankandCashinHand ...__... 4,209 3 6

a —__———— 6,984 3 6
4 (Note—Stock of Publications not valued)

Members of the Committee

of Management.

FRANCIS HEMMING
FRANCIS J. GRIFFIN

£6,158 16 10

purposes of our audit. In our opinion proper books of account have been kept, so far as appears

e Account, which are in agreement with the books of account. In our opinion and to the best of

1948 in the manner so required, and the Balance Sheet gives a true and fair view of the state of the
acome over Expenditure for the year ended on that date.

(Signed) W. B. KEEN & CO.,
Chartered Accountants.

xvi

£4,552
628 To
2,228 >

£2,856

To

To

Income and Expenditure Aceot

INCOME

Sales of Publications—
Opinions and Declarations ei
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomen-
clature ae

Donations
Grant from U. N. E.S. C. oO. per the Inter-
national Union for Biological Sciences

Balance brought down
Balance at 31st December | 1953 brought
forward es : :

Transfer from Income and es SiR BS
Account

Balance at 31st December | “1953 brought
forward ,

Balance at 3lst December 1953 eer
forward : :

Balance at 3lst December 1953 ee
forward ; :

... 9,103 1673
. 2,225 3 2

£ ig seu behs £

164 3 0

Se - Account

EXPENDITURE
2 Bk ar |

By Administration Expenses—

Salaries—
11 Administrative Officer 216 0 O
205 Publications Officer .. DIRS) 9
20 Others +e aoe we -9

Office Expenses

Audit Fee

Less :

By

nds ase allocated to ‘‘ Official
List ” : ao as

Depreciation of Office Equipment

Publications—
Opinions and Declarations A
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature,
Copenhagen—

Expenditure Se a deta ee Agenda
and Decisions)

Less : Donations per the "International
Union for Biological Sciences

Balance carried down, being Excess of
Income over Expenditure for year ... :

Additional Audit Fee 1952 ... oe
Transfer to “‘ Official List ’’ Suspense Account
Balance carried forward per Balance Sheet

Expenditure ee ie Och
Salaries
Equipment ..
Proportion of Administration aoe

Balance carried forward per Balance Sheet

By Balance carried forward per Balance Sheet

P steam Account

By Expenditure during year

Balance carried forward per Balance S Sheet

7717 6
498
31 10

1,307 13

40 0

Oo. LEO

1,210

117 3
28 17
40 0

Xvil

orm

1,267
TORS ii 2

6,320

660 4 4

£8,268 5 5

400 0 0
3,106 11 1

£3,506 11 1

oorw

186 0 2
636 1 6

£822 1 8

£97

“ euyat ty

A,
" y, aw
eat) oP

Cr ee ee

Di eel ee De ed

—

fees

j
:

ls

Nols pred ye nto ong

_ Nomenclature be nail Trt a

ent" spe apres
1955

# of

sina

Petes Oe,
sw.

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

A. The Officers of the Commission

Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Musewm (Natural History), Zoological
Museum, Tring, Herts., England)

President: Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(12th August 1953)

Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953)

Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948)

B. The Members of the Commission

(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent
re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)

Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmusewm van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(1st January 1947)

Senor Dr, Angel Cabrera (Zva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948)

Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)

Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948)

Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)

Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)

Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th June 1950)

Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw,
Poland) (15th June 1950)

Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur Musewm u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt
a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950)

Professor Dr. Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zw Berlin,
Germany) (5th July 1950)

Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President)

Professor J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953)

Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
(President)

Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th
August 1953)

Professor Béla Hanké (Mezogazdasdégi Muzewm, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)

Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th
August 1953)

Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)

Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th
August 1953)

Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra,
A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954)

Dr. Alden H. Miller (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California,
U.S.A.) (29th October 1954)

er Ferdinand Prantl (Ndérodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October

Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kiihnelt (Zoologisches Institut, Der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th
November 1954)

Professor F. S. Bodenheimer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954)

Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954)

Professor Enrico Tortonese (Istituto e Museo di Zoologia della Universita di Torino, Torino,
Italy) (16th December 1954)

YRAL Wise

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 11, Part 1 (pp. 1—32; 1 pl., 2 text-figs.) 3lst January 1955

NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY

The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the
recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56, 57—59), by the Thirteenth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
5 : 5—13, 131).

(a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published
in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’

Noricz is hereby given that normally the International Commission will
start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-

4 _ elature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of

publication in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who
may desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present
Part (Vol. 11, Part 1) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing
to the Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible and in any case, in
sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secretariat
of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above.

(b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain cases

Norice is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers is involved in

2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued)

applications published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature in relation to the following names :—

(1) Pleurotomaria Sowerby (J.), 1821, validation of, if that name is judged
to be invalid ; validation of the specific name anglicus Sowerby (J.),
1818, as published in the combination T’rochus anglicus ; and designa-
tion of a type species for the genus Pleurotomaria Sowerby (J.), 1821
(Class Gastropoda) (Z.N.(S.) 604) ;

(2) Pachyceras Bayle, 1878, validation of (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammo-
noidea ; Jurassic) (Z.N.(S.) 670).

2. Attention is also drawn to the proposed adoption of the under-mentioned
Declarations :—

(a) Declaration relating to the transliteration of words normally written
in Cyrillic characters (Z.N.(S.) 310) ;

(b) Declaration defining the status of a generic name published conditionally
(Z.N.(S.) 833).

3. Comments received in sufficient time will be published in the Bulletin :
other comments, provided that they are received within the prescribed period
of six calendar months from the date of publication of the present Part will
be laid before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at
the time of commencement of voting on the application concerned.

4. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon at the Session held by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 56), corresponding Notices have been sent
to the serial publications Nature and Science.

FRANCIS HEMMING

Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park,
Lonpon, N.W.1, England.

31st January 1955.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3

PERSONNEL OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION
‘ ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Election of Commissioner

In accordance with the procedure prescribed by the International Congress
of Zoology, the following election to the Membership of the Commission has
been made by the Executive Committee of the Commission, with effect from the

- date shown below :—

Enrico Tortonese, Professor of Zoology, Istituto e Museo di Zoologia,
Université di Torino, Italy, in the room of Professor Lodovico di
Caporiacco (deceased) (16th December 1954)

FRANCIS HEMMING

Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature

28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park,
Lonpon, N.W.1, England.

16th December 1954.

4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

SCHEDULE TO BE PROVIDED IN THE REVISED “ REGLES ”’

RELATING TO THE TRANSLITERATION OF WORDS FROM

THE CYRILLIC ALPHABETS INTO THE LATIN ALPHABET :
A NOTICE TO ZOOLOGISTS AND PALAEONTOLOGISTS

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.) 310)

The purpose of the present note is to remind zoologists and palaeontologists
that one of the matters connected with the revision of the Régles which is still
outstanding but on which a decision will need to be taken before the revised
edition of the Régles can be published is the scheme to be adopted for the
transliteration into the Latin alphabet of words belonging to languages using
Cyrillic alphabets. I give below a brief account of the decisions by the
Thirteenth (Paris, 1948) and Fourteenth (Copenhagen, 1953) International
Congresses of Zoology which bear on this matter. At the same time I explain
the way in which it is proposed that this matter should dealt with.

2. Two decisions affecting the present case were taken by the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948. These were :—

(a) The Congress decided to make it clear in the Régles that the provisions
in the existing annexe till then styled ‘‘ Appendix ” but which it was
then decided to convert into a Schedule are not mandatory but are
in the nature of recommendations as to good nomenclatorial practice
(1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 73).

(b) It was further decided that there should be added to the Schedule
which is to replace the former Appendice a Section “ setting out the
manner in which words belonging to languages using the Cyrillic
alphabet should be transliterated into the Latin alphabet for the
purpose of forming zoological names in accordance with the provisions
of Article 3” (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 229).

3. When after the Paris Congress I came to investigate this matter, I
found that the problems involved were much more complicated than I—or, I
believe also—the Congress had supposed. First, there is no general agreement
of an international character on the question of transliteration methods.
Second, all, or almost all, the currently accepted transliteration systems
involve the use of diacritic marks. Third, although the languages using
Cyrillic characters have substantially similar alphabets, each possesses one or
more letters not common to the others. The first and third of these difficulties,
though involving complicated issues, were clearly not insuperable, and neither

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 1. January 1955.

“Jae 2 ee

sa Eee
=

7

“Nn ee Pe!

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5

of them raised issues affecting the Régles themselves. It was otherwise with the
second of the difficulties noted above, for already by that time there was clear
evidence of a desire on the part of some zoologists to call in question the
provision in Article 20 of the Régles which prescribed that diacritic marks were
to be used in printing names consisting of words derived from languages in
which such marks were attached to certain letters in order to distinguish them
from other letters which, apart from the use of diacritic marks, would be
indistinguishable. It would clearly have been a waste of time and effort
for the International Trust to have employed some specialist in the Slav
languages to draw up a transliteration plan until it was known whether or not
the use of diactitic marks would be permitted. It was accordingly decided to
take no further action in this matter until a decision on this prior question
had been taken by the next (Copenhagen, 1953) International Congress of
Zoology.

4, The question of the possible deletion from Article 20 of the provision
requiring the use of diacritic marks in the case of names based upon words
bearing such marks was entered as Item No. 20 of the Agenda prepared for the
meetings of the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature and of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to be held at Copenhagen in July
1953. Five documents were included under this Item (1953, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 10 : 241—251), but, in fact, the documentation submitted was much
more extensive, for many authors had expressed views on this question when
submitting observations on the proposed amendment of Article 19 (Law of
Emendation), which figured as Item No. 5 on the Copenhagen Agenda (1953,
ibid. 10 : 61—166). Prominent among these latter documents was a paper
by Dr. Rudolf Richter who was strongly opposed to the continued recognition
of diacritic marks in connection with zoological names and who in this paper
had deliberately set himself to show the almost insuperable typographical
difficulties involved outside the Slav countries in a strict adherence to the
provisions of Article 20 as it then existed (1953, ibid. 10 : 91—100). When the
Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, came to
consider this matter, it decided, on the recommendation of the International
Commission supported by the Colloquium, to delete the existing Article 20 and
to insert in its place a new Article providing that diacritic marks are not to be
used in the formation of zoological names and that, where a letter comprised
in a zoological name bore such a mark when that name was first published,
that mark is to be represented by a combination of letters to be prescribed in
a Schedule annexed to the Régles (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. :
57—58, Decision 101).

5. In the light of the foregoing decision by the Copenhagen Congress it is
evident that the scheme for the transliteration of words from Cyrillic characters
into the Latin alphabet must be one which does not involve the use of diacritic
marks. In addition, as already noted (paragraph 3), the scheme must be
comprehensive in the sense that it must comprise proposals for the translitera-

6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

tion into the Latin alphabet of letters belonging to all the alphabets using
Cyrillic characters. At this point the task was greatly eased by the receipt
from Drs. Alexey Almasov and Esteban Boltovskoy (Buenos Aires, Argentina)
of a communication discussing the present problem and submitting proposals
for a unified system of transliteration. Drs. Almasov and Boltovskoy were
at that time unaware of the decision by the Copenhagen Congress to ban the
use of diacritic marks in zoological names but they had independently come to
the conclusion that the system of transliteration to be adopted in the case of
zoological names ought, in general, to be one which did not involve the use of
diacritic marks. In one case only (Letter No. 10) did their scheme involve
the use of such a mark. After their attention had been drawn to the Copen-
hagen decision the applicants amended their proposals so as to avoid the use of
diacritic mark in the case even of the foregoing letter. The scheme so submitted
is set out in the paper by Drs. Almasov and Boltovskoy which is printed imme-
diately after the present note and is displayed graphically in the accompanying
figures showing how it is proposed that each Cyrillic character should be
transliterated into the Latin alphabet.

6. Appeal for comments on the scheme now submitted : Notice is hereby
given that the scheme submitted by Drs. Almasov and Boltovskoy and now
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature is put forward for
discussion as the draft of the scheme of transliteration which under the
decision of the Paris (1948) Congress quoted in paragraph 2(b) of the present
note is to be incorporated in a Schedule to the revised text of the Régles.
Comments on the scheme so submitted are invited from zoologists and palae-
ontologists, from librarians and from all concerned in the study of the Slav
languages. Such comments should be addressed to Dr. Alexey Almasov
(address: Avda. de Mayo 665, Piso 6, Buenos Aires, Argentina). If more
convenient, such comments may, however, be addressed to the Offices of the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (address: 28 Park
Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1, England), by whichsuch documents
will be forwarded to Dr. Almasov, who has consented to analyse and collate
all the comments received on the present scheme and to submit a consolidated
Report thereon for the consideration of the International Commission.

7. Supply of free copies of the transliteration scheme now submitted : The

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature has made available a consider-
able supply of copies of the paper containing the present scheme to
Dr. Almasov, who with Dr. Boltovskoy has undertaken responsibility for the
initial distribution of copies to institutions and individuals likely to be
interested. A limited further supply is available for distribution, on application
either to Dr. Almasov or to myself.

8. Procedure proposed to he adopted : As soon as possible after the close of
the period of six months following the publication of the present proposals,

alia Sie ea Ses i i

Silt al

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7

Drs. Almasov and Boltovsky will submit their consolidated Report on the
comments received on their scheme and this will then at once be laid before
the Commission. The Commission will at the same time be asked to take a vote
on the question of the transliteration scheme to be included in the proposed
Schedule to the Régles. The decision so taken by the Commission will be
published as a Declaration and incorporated into the new edition of the Régles.

ON THE TREATMENT OF WORDS WRITTEN WITH CYRILLIC

CHARACTERS, FOR THE PURPOSES OF ZOOLOGICAL

NOMENCLATURE, BIBLIOGRAPHY, REFERENCE INDICES,
ETC.

By ALEXEY ALMASOV and ESTEBAN BOLTOVSKOY
(Buenos Aires, Argentina)

(Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.) 310)

Several works on zoology have raised lately the problem of transcription
of words from languages using the Cyrillic alphabets. The aim of the present
paper is to analyse the difficulties which confront scientists and those who are
working in libraries and publishing houses and have to face the chaos existing
in this domain. We attempt to show the defects of transliteration methods now
in use and propose a new system which could be applied equally to all the
five principal languages using Cyrillic alphabets, and would thus contribute to
the establishment of a scientific nomenclature. Our proposals are set out in
the table annexed to the present paper (pp. 8 & 9).

2. Strange as it may seem, there is at present no unified and generally
accepted transliteration system from the Cyrillic alphabets. On the other
hand, all the individual systems in use today have, from the point of view

_ of zoological nomenclature, one major defect, caused by their authors having

set out from the phonetic relationship between the various Slav languages
and their mother tongues. Thus, a single Russian river figures as “ Tschir ”’
in a German work, whilst an Englishman refers to it as “Chir’’. There is
therefore no need to emphasise the difficulties confronting a scientist about
to compile a reference index on the basis of scientific literature in the various

8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

No. Cyrillic Proposed No. Cyrillic Proposed
letters Latin letters Latin
habet phabet
ivalen uival

pA Oe ed 3H u ft
2b 6 O

3B B PV ie geet Danae
a ae
sf Ven. ds)
6A an ad BA K &k
hho dy oka t
sEFe e€ nubDnb YF
9G e« jeh 21MM m
ok é ew vin n
Hinx« zh 2IDmbh nf
Ee et aes %QO0 Oo

Figures 1 and 2: a for th nslite n into the ange rtacsehnidhe of words normally
that the above (or ‘ae as Jaystem sho wuld be e mandato: ae is proposed is that an Biscisno
forming na: ete normally written in Cyrillic haracters).

ii i

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9

No. Cyrillic Proposed No. Cyrillic Proposed
letters Latin letters Latin
alphabet alphabet

equivalent equivalent

Ssilin p 37im sh
62Pp r 38lllm shch
Bn Cn S390 D:.. ae
eT tr ¢ ablb y
oh h hi “bb |
0Yy u wBb fe
3¥ ¥ uh 399 eh
2Dn fF “wlOw su
3X xX kh 56H a fsa
win th s«@0 Ff
s4Yu ch aVv it
36 yo dzh4 x yh

in Cyrillic c rs when words are used fo logical n spe ane It is not proposed
iis t See ineld Tis cameend tr te " Régles for the guidance of zoologists when

10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

languages read by him. Furthermore, even translators into one and the same
language are often guided by their own taste in transliterating names, so that
one English work cites the name of a Russian town as ‘“‘ Eysk”’, whereas
in another English work it figures as ‘‘ Yeisk”’. As a result, even such an
authoritative bibliographical guide as the Zoological Record uses different
characters for the same Cyrillic letter. One of the favourite objects of the
translators’ ‘‘ freedom of imagination ”’ is the transcription of the most frequent
termination for Russian and Bulgarian names, which is variously cited as

29> 6é

‘-ov ”, “ -ow -off ’’ or even “ -of ”’.

3. We could give many examples of confusion created by such discrepancies
as far as zoological and botanical names are concerned, but we shall quote
here only one, which has been already generally discussed in the specialist
press. Actually, one such case was taken as a subject by Dr. Helen Muir-
Wood (1951 : 91) for her interesting article where she put forward the suggestion
that the International Congress of Zoology should take a decision concerning
the transliteration of words from languages using Cyrillic Alphabets, and that
such a provision ought not to take the form of a recommendation but should
be a binding directive.

4. Another zoologist, Dr. Paclt, who has published several papers on the
problem of transliteration, expressed himself even more drastically (1950 : 998)
by proposing to incorporate the transliteration system in the form of Appendix
“H” in Article 19 of the Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique.
It is self-understood that this provision would then have to be adhered to as
strictly as all the other Articles of the Régles.

5. Finally, the International Congress of Zoology has decided to include
in the forthcoming revised text of the Régles a Schedule setting out the manner
to be observed in transliterating words from the Cyrillic alphabets into the
Latin alphabet when used as, or as part of, zoological names. We would,
however, go even further by suggesting the necessity of including the standard
transliteration system not only in the Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, but
also in the Botanical Code and in Editorial Rules. It is desirable to unite the
greatest possible number of publishers and periodicals in the use of a standard
transliteration system, as only then can the chaos at present reigning in the
transcription field be remedied. We do not think it necessary to enlarge on this
subject, as sufficient matter has been already written on it, and we assume
that no doubts are left on this account.

6. Of greater importance is the question of what form this standard system
should take. All systems employed up to the present can be divided into
two groups, in accordance with the way in which they transliterate those
characters of the Cyrillic alphabets which have no counterpart in the Latin

$$ ______ 7. pa eee

‘
ee

Cre ane ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 11

alphabet. The first of these systems is based on the principle of using of Latin
letters surmounted by diacritic signs. The second is based on the principle of
combining several letters of the Latin alphabet.

7. Viewed from a purely philological point of view, the two systems are
equal in merit, and in practice, most of the modern languages using the Latin
alphabet employ both systems for the rendering of sounds which do not exist
in Classical Latin. When dealing with the transliteration of languages using
the Cyrillic alphabets, we cannot help but realise that the system of diacritic
signs presents considerable advantage in that it is not bound to the phonetics
of any particular non-Slav language. Therefore it is usually employed in
works on Slav literature and Slav philology written in non-Slav languages.
Is it then to be wondered at if the Czechoslovak zoologist Dr. Paclt became
an ardent adherent of this system, in view especially of the fact that the
diacritic signs—the “hateks ’—are nearest to his psychology, being con-
stantly used in his native tongue ? The transliteration system adopted by the
Vatican library is based on the same principle.

8. Nonetheless, diacritic signs are seldom used in scientific works, and
Dr. Paclt’s assertion that ‘“‘ manche diackritische Zeichen (z.B. é, 8, Z) .. . zur
Romanisierung der kyrillischen Namen bereits offiziell benutzt werden ”’
(1952 : 359) does not correspond with actual facts. As proof of this we could
cite a long list of the most important bibliographical reference guides of various
countries. In all of them the Cyrillic words have been transliterated without
the use of diacritic signs. The following are a few examples of such publica-
tions :—Zoological Record (Great Britain), Bibliography and Index of Geology
Exclusive of North America (U.S.A.); Bibliographie des Sciences Géologiques
(France); Zentralblatt fiir Paldontologie (Germany); Boletin del Centro de
Documentacién Cientifica y Técnica (Mexico) ; Scientiae Naturalis Bibliographia
(Holland); Boletin Bibliografico Argentino (Argentina). Russian authors
also, if transcribing Cyrillic words into Latin characters, prefer with rare
exceptions to avoid diacritic signs. This applies to the Doklady and Izvestija
published by the Academy of Science as well as to other publications which
appeared before 1947, in which year Soviet publications ceased to insert
summaries and titles in foreign languages.

9. Moreover, Dr. Paclt’s proposals appear to us dangerous insofar as by
defending the general use of diacritic signs they route the quest for a standard
transliteration system into the wrong channels. In fact, we completely fail to
understand how Dr. J. Paclt, who recommends the replacement of diacritic
signs by supplementary letters in the Hungarian, German and Scandinavian
languages, can consider the same process as unsuitable for the Slav languages.
And yet there are weighty practical reasons in favour of substituting letter-
combinations for diacritic signs also in the Slav tongues.

12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

10. It is evident that most printers do not possess the type for diacritic
signs, and writers who wish to use such signs would normally not be in a
position to doso. Such authors would then be forced to invent their own trans-
literation schemes “ad hoc’’. Is there a question. of a universal system ?
Dr. Paclt’s phrase “ Darum ist es immer zu wiinschen, dass méglichst viele
Druckereien die verschiedenen diakritischen Zeichen auf eine oder andere
Weise reproduzieren kénnen”’ (Ibidem) sounds altogether too optimistic.
Unfortunately, neither the most ardent wish of one zoologist nor even the
verdict of a Zoological Congress carries weight with the owners of printing
works.

11. In this connection the following fact is of significance. The library
of the United States Congress have worked out their own transliteration
system and although the “hateks”’ does not figure in it, other diacritical
signs are employed. Nevertheless, when a large bibliographical work by
R. Smits, namely the Serial Publications of the Soviet Union 1939—1950 was
published, these signs were omitted, and the book appeared without them.
This example shows clearly that, in spite of all the theoretical arguments
which can be brought forward in defence of the transcription of letters of the
Cyrillic alphabets by means of diacritic signs, this system can only be employed
for special publications which have the corresponding printing types at their
disposal. In all other cases (especially taking into account the additional
inconvenience of using this system on typewriters) this method is quite unusable
and cannot be accepted as a method for the creation of a standard international
system.

12. But the most powerful argument against the system of diacritic signs
is the decision of the Fourteenth Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, to
ban the use of diacritic signs in zoological names. It seems obvious that,
if even in the practice of zoological nomenclature this system has to be banned,
there is still more reason to drop it in library practice and in editorial work
in general.

13. Asregardsthesystem of combining several Latin letters, up to the present
its sole disadvantage lay in the fact that these combinations were made liberally
and sometimes, as for instance in German, were exceedingly cumbersome
(the rendering of one Cyrillic letter—the letter No. 38 of our table—demanded
the use of seven Latin letters: ‘‘schtsch’’). However, this one fault caused
by striving to render the phonetic relationship between the Slav languages
and those using the Latin alphabet, is easy to remedy by taking a letter without
its own phonetic meaning (for instance, the letter ‘‘ h ’’) and using it in the place
of a diacritic sign, in order to change the phonetic meaning of the preceding
letter. This solution is all the more adequate as it is already used in English
transliteration practice where the combinations “ch”, “sh”, “zh”, and
“kh” are employed.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13

14. For this reason, the transcription systems elaborated for the English-
speaking countries, are fairly close to what ought to be the international system.
The size and the aim of the present paper do not allow an extensive analysis
of such systems from the philological standpoint. In practice, even the best
among them, as for example that created by the Library of the U.S. Congress,
are unfit for the present purpose because, while striving to adapt Slav phonetics
to English sounds, they are compelled to introduce additional signs or to use
the same Latin letter for several different Cyrillic letters. On the other hand,
owing to the constant effort to be exact phonetically, the same Cyrillic letter,
when it corresponds to different sounds in different Slav tongues is transcribed
by means of different Latin letters, according to the phonetic requirements of
the language concerned. For this reason, instead of one transliteration table
one would have to prepare five tables, the use of which would be impossible
for persons who are not acquainted with those languages. We have also
noticed the inadequacies of the many transliteration methods now in use
in scientific practice as well as the illogical ways in which these methods are
applied. A superficial glance to the Russian quotations in the Geophysical
Abstract prove this very convincingly.

15. Thus, in order that a transliteration system may actually become
universal, it must, in our opinion, satisfy the following demands :

(1) The system must be orthographic and not phonetic, i.e. each letter
(and not sound) of the languages using the Cyrillic Alphabets must
have its corresponding letter or combination of letters in the Latin
Alphabet. This consideration is particularly important as its
adoption will enable librarians and printers who have no knowledge
of Slav languages to transcribe accurately words written with Cyrillic
characters and thus to build up accurate card indexes. It is well known
that at present even for the most elementary tasks connected with the
Cyrillic alphabets the co-operation of persons knowing Slav tongues
is required. Furthermore, the acceptance of this requirement will
provide the possibility of an “inverted transliteration’, i.e. it will
make it possible to establish the exact form in the Slav languages
of names written with Latin letters and to locate them in alphabetical
reference books in the original language. At present this process is
at times very difficult.

(2) The system must be a system applying equally to the five Slav languages
using the Cyrillic alphabets. Dr. Paclt asserts that “il est impossible
de faire usage “en bloc” d’un seul tableau de romanisation servant
& tous les alphabets slaves cyrillics”’ (1950: 996). This assertion
might have been correct, had it been our aim to render phonetically the
letters of these languages. But, as our plan is to render them
graphically, the preparation of such a table for the use of all five
languages is quite feasible.

14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(3) The system ought to be international. The pronunciation for the
characters used ought also to be definitely settled. Although the
phonetic side of the problem appears to be of secondary importance,
nevertheless it is necessary to take as the basis the phonetic similarities
with some one existing language. We have decided to choose English
for this purpose as being the most suitable.

(4) Diacritic signs ought to be avoided on practical grounds.

16. The system which we have elaborated and which is represented on
the annexed table, seems to meet satisfactorily all the above requirements.
The most important divergence from systems now in use is that a single Latin
letter or group of letters is proposed for each Cyrillic letter, even where that
letter has a different meaning in different Slav languages. For instance,
Letter No. 4 in the annexed table has a different meaning in the Ukrainian and
Belorussian languages from that in the other Slav languages. Similarly,
Letter No. 8 has a different meaning in the Ukrainian and Serbian languages
from that in the other Slav languages. Letter No. 13 is different in the
Ukrainian language from the same letter in the other Slav languages. Letter
No. 38 is pronounced differently in Russian and Ukrainian from the way used
in Bulgarian. Letter No. 19 presents wide variations in different languages and
dialects.

17. Nevertheless, these phonetic differences need not worry us, as they
represent no difficulty toa person having a knowledge of the respective languages
and are a matter of complete indifference to a person who does not know the
language concerned. In different languages using the Latin alphabet the
same letter also frequently has a different phonetic meaning, and yet nobody
suggests that the name “Churchill” should be spelt as “ Tschortschill ”’
in German, or the name “ Schumann ”’ be spelt ‘““Choumane ”’ in French. On
the other hand, the method which we recommend possesses the definite advan-
tage that it enables anybody to transliterate a word correctly without knowing
to which Slav language the word in question belongs.

18. As we have explained, we are keeping generally to the English language
phonetics. We do this mainly because in practice the English method of
transliteration affords a considerable economy in the use of letters for the
forming of the combinations (almost everything is reduced to one ‘“‘h”’).
Besides, it must be taken into account that the English language is so widely
spoken at present that the English manner of writing Slav words has become
well known and customary even for those people who do not possess a knowledge
of that language. For example, this method of transliteration is very widely
adopted in the Spanish-speaking countries. Actually, our only deviation
from English phonetic rules is that we give the letter “ j ” the phonetic meaning

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 15

which it has in German and the Slav languages using the Latin alphabet ;
it corresponds in phonetic value to the English letter ““y”’. In this way we
succeed in avoiding the use of diacritic signs ; a result which the system of the
US. Library of Congress failed to achieve owing to the effort which it made to
adhere strictly to English phonetics.

19. The foregoing decision may seem inconsequent at first glance, as the
letter ‘‘j ’’, corresponding to real Letters No. 16 and No. 17 in the table, has
on the other hand the function of a ‘‘ supplementary sign ” when it is combined
with “a”, “e” and “u’’. Such criticism would be justified if such double
usage would be a handicap for “ inverted transliteration’. However, in all
five Slav languages corresponding sounds are represented in an absolutely
definite way, thus eliminating the possibility of confusion. Analogous con-
siderations are valid for the letter ‘‘w’’ which represents the Cyrillic letter
No. 39 and enters in combination with “‘e”’ for rendering Letter No. 10. In
this case also confusion is impossible because of the fact that the Letter No. 39
can never be preceeded by a vowel.

20. But such a confusion would be unavoidable if we were to represent
Letter No. 34 by “ts” according to methods now in use, for Letter No. 28 is
quite frequently followed by Letter No. 27 in Slav languages. We have
therefore preferred to take “th” thus keeping ‘““h” to its function of a
supplementary sign.

21. Letter No. 41 does not correspond to any sound, it merely draws
attention to a slight change in the pronunciation of the preceding sound.
Therefore, while transliterating, this letter generally will not be designated
at all in every-day routine, and among the scientific systems it is indicated
at most by an apostrophe. It could readily be rendered by any Latin letter,
for instance by “q”, but in this case already known geographical names,
such as Kuban, Kharkov, would assume a rather puzzling and unusual look :
Kubang, Khargkov. In order to avoid a result of this kind, we decided to
keep to the generally accepted method and to recommend the use of the
apostrophe.

22. Finally, we would like to stress that, while elaborating our scheme,
we were striving to keep it as simple as possible, transliterating the more
frequent Cyrillic letters with the smallest practicable number of Latin
characters. :

23. The annexed table! comprises all letters existing in the Russian,
Ukrainian, Belorussian*, Serbian and Bulgarian languages. Letters existing

* This language is usually designated as ‘‘ White-Russian’’. We prefer the term “ Belorussian ”’
in order to avoid undue confusion in identifying an ethnical section of the Russian people
with a purely political group.

1 See pp. 8 and 9.

16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

only in certain of these languages are placed in accordance with the order
in which they are to be found in each of the alphabets of the languages
concerned. Thus, Letters Nos. 7, 17, 20, 23, 29 and 36 exist only in the Serbian
language ; Letters Nos. 9 and 15, only in Ukrainian; Letter No. 31, only in
Belorussian ; Letter No. 48, only in Bulgarian ; Letters Nos. 46 and 47, only
in the old Russian orthography ; Letters Nos. 10, 40 and 43 exist in Russian
and Belorussian and the sign over Letter No. 10 is generally omitted in the
Russian practice. Letter No. 5 is used only in Ukrainian and Belorussian ;
Letter No. 39 only in Russian and Bulgarian; Letter No. 42 only in the old
Russian orthography and in Bulgarian; Letter No. 38 only in Russian,
Ukranian and Bulgarian; Letter No. 14 only in Ukrainian, Belorussian and
the old Russian orthography. Letters Nos. 16, 41, 44 and 45 do not exist in
Serbian.

24. In scientific routine it is usual to employ the Croat Latin alphabet
for the transliteration of Serbian words, but we think it more suitable to include
Serbian in the general system in view of the following considerations :—(1) The
Croat alphabet appears to us unsuitable, as it is based on the use of diacritic
signs. (2) In journalism and every-day routine Serbian, words are often trans-
cribed in accordance with phonetic similarities with the German, Italian and
even English or Spanish languages. Thus, the situation of the Serbian language
in practice differs little from other languages using Cyrillic alphabets.

25. In the case of all languages, except Russian, only the modern ortho-
graphy is taken into account. The exception made in the case of Russian
may be explained by the fact that the abolition of certain letters has taken
place only a relatively short time ago (1919), and, outside the Soviet Union,
books are still being published using all or some of the abolished letters.

26. The following supplementary notes are added in regard to certain of
the letters shown in the annexed table :—

Letter No. 10. In transliterations from the Russian language it is recom-
mended that the letter “W” be omitted, as the sign
++” ig omitted in the majority of original works.

Letters Nos. 14 and 42. These letters were abolished in the Russian ortho-
graphy by the 1919 reform and should consequently be
replaced by “i” and “e” respectively, always providing
that the person who does the transliteration is sure that the
word in question is Russian and not Bulgarian, Ukrainian
or Belorussian.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17

Letter No. 17. This letter represents the way in which Serbs indicate the
sound, which is indicated in the other Slav languages by
the Letter No. 16.

Letter No. 39. This letter should be reproduced only in the middle of a word.
It should be omitted if it figures at the end of the word in
in the original version. In some of the Soviet works (usually
prior to 1929) this letter was replaced by the sign “’”
and it should therefore be rendered also es We,

Letters Nos. 46 and 47. Both these are letters of the former Russian
orthography, which are very rarely used. Thus, there is no
need whatever to create special signs for rendering them,
since even in Russian texts following the old orthography
they are often replaced by Letters Nos. 32 and 13
respectively.

27. We give below a list of names of the Cyrillic letters arranged according
to our scheme. Russian alphabet names are treated as being basic, the names
in the other Slav languages are quoted only in the three following cases :—
(1) when a letter does not exist in Russian ; (2) when the phonetic value of a
given letter differs from the Russian ; (3) when the name of a letter used in
another language is substantially different from the name in Russian. Less
important variations (as for instance “fe” for “ ef” or “khe” for “ kha ”’)
are left out of consideration. The abbreviations used are the following :
»U ” = Ukrainian; “BR.” — Belorussian; ‘“B” — Bulgarian; “S” =
Serbian; “ORO” = old Russian orthography.

(1) a; (2) be; (3) ve; (4) ge, U, BR—he; (5) U, BR—ge ; (6) de; (7)
S—dje ; (8) je, U, S—e; (9) U—je; (10) jo; (11) zhe; (12) ze; (13) i, U—y,
ORO—double i; (14) U, BR—i, ORO—-single i; (15) U—ji; (16) brief i,
U—ij ; (17) S—j; (18) ka; (19) el; (20) S—]j ; (21)em; (22) en; (23) S—ayj ;yx
(24) 0; (25) pe; (26) er; (27) es; (28) te; (29) S—chje; (30) u; (31)
BR—brief u; (32) ef; (33) kha; (34) the; (35) che; (36) S—dzhe ; (37) sha;
(38) shcha, B—sht ; (39) hard sign, B—big jer ; (40) y; (41) soft sign, B—small
jer; (42) ORO—jat’, B—double je; (43) e; (44) ju; (45) ja; (46) ORO—
fita ; (47) ORO—izhitha ; (48) B—yh. Note: The letter “j ” has the phonetic
value of the English “ y ”.

28. Appeal to interested specialists : The creation of a logical and practicable
transliteration system is of common interest to all parts of the international
scientific world. It is very important therefore that any such system should
enjoy the widest possible measure of support. It is accordingly very desirable
that comments on our proposals should be as numerous as possible. It is
important also that such comments should be furnished as promptly as possible,

18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

for a decision on the present matter must be taken by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature before the revised text of the Régles
Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique can be promulgated, since under
the decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Copenhagen, 1953, the rules relating to the transliteration of words from the
Cyrillic alphabets are to be incorporated in one of the Schedules to be annexed
to the revised text of the Régles. The Secretary to the International Commis-
sion has invited us to act as a centre for the reception and collation of comments
on, and suggestions regarding, the transliteration scheme submitted in the
present paper, and for this purpose, on his recommendation, the International
Trust for Zoological Nomenclature has made available to us a large supply of
copies of the present paper for distribution. It is our particular hope, therefore,
that as many interested specialists as possible will furnish us with statements
of their views on our proposals. Statements so furnished may be written in
any of the following languages: English; German ; French ; Italian ; Spanish;
Portuguese ; any Slav language. All such communications should be addressed
to Alexey Almasov (the senior author) at the aaah address :—Avda. de
Mayo 665, Piso 6, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Bibliography

Muir-Wood, H. M., 1951. “‘ On the question whether any two generic names
or trivial names, each based upon the same surname of a person, whose
name is normally written in some alphabet other than the Latin alphabet,
and each having the same termination, but differing from one another
in the transliteration of the portion of the name representing the person’s
name, are to be regarded as homonyms of one another.”—Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 6 : 90—92.

Paclt, J., 1950. ‘‘ Les profits que la nomenclature zoologique pourrait tirer
du schéme international de translitération appliqué aux noms cyrilliques.”
—Proc. VIIIth int. Congr. Ent., Stockholm 1948 : 995—998.

Paclt, J., 1952. Ueber die Behandlung der diakritischen Zeichen.—Sencken-
bergiana 33 : 357—361.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 19

REQUEST FOR A “ DECLARATION ” DEFINING THE STATUS OF A
GENERIC NAME PUBLISHED CONDITIONALLY

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 833)

The purpose of the present application is to seek a Declaration from the
International Commission on a point of interpretation of Article 25 of the
Régles on which a provision (embodying a Ruling given by the Commission)
at the species-name level has been incorporated into the Regles by the Inter-
national Congress of Zoology but on which through inadvertence no request
was made at the same time for a decision in relation to the corresponding
problem at the generic-name level. The present is the first of two such cases,
the second being concerned with the question of the species to be accepted
as the type species of a substitute genus when the author publishing the
substitute generic name designates for the nominal genus so established a
type species which is not, or could not be, the type species of the genus, the
name of which is so replaced. The proposals on this latter question will be
found on pp. 21—27 of the present volume.

2. The present application is concerned with the question of the availability
of a generic name published provisionally. At the species-name level the
corresponding problem was dealt with by the Commission in Opinion 49 (1912,
Smithson. Publ. 2060 : 112—113) and the decision so given was incorporated
into the Régles as follows by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 144—145) which decided :-—

(a) that words should be inserted in the Regles to make it clear that, where
an author doubtfully identifies known material with a described species
but publishes for that material a new specific name for use therefor
if later it is found that that material is referable to an unnamed species,
the specific name given conditionally in this manner is available for
that species as from the date of its original publication and is to be
attributed to its original author. Example: The specific name
Siphonophora asclepiadifolii given conditionally by Thomas in 1879
to known material which he doubtfully identified with a previously

em me a ceed i Pal oe re ee i bi

Bull. zool. Nomenel. Vol. 11, Part 1. January 1955.

20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

named species (Aphis asclepiadis Fitch) is available as from 1879
for the material so named by Thomas. ¢

(b) that a Recommandation should be inserted at the appropriate point
in the Régles strongly deprecating the publication of names con-
ditionally.

3. Everyone will agree with the view expressed by the Congress that the
publication of names conditionally is highly objectionable and ought to be
avoided, but, in view of the decision in relation to this problem at the species-
name level quoted in the preceding paragraph, it would be highly illogical to
adopt any other principle in relation to the same problem at the generic-name
level. The effect of extending the existing decision in the foregoing manner
would be to make it clear that a generic name published conditionally is to be
accepted as having acquired availability thereby, provided, of course, that,
when so published, it is accompanied by an indication, definition or description.
This will almost certainly mean that, as in the case of specific names, the
proposed Declaration will in practice apply only to generic names published
conditionally prior to Ist January 1931, the date on which the more rigorous
provisions of Proviso (c) to Article 25 came into effect. For, apart from the
fact that it is now generally agreed that the publication of names conditionally
is open to objection and the practice is in consequence generally avoided, it is
unlikely that, as required by Proviso (c), a generic name published conditionally
would be accompanied both by a verbal diagnosis and by the designation of
a type species.

4. I accordingly now recommend the adoption by the Commission of a
Declaration on the following lines. It is not necessary for the Commission
to recommend also the adoption by the Congress of a Recommandation depre-
cating the publication of generic names conditionally, for, as will be seen
from the decision by the Paris Congress quoted in paragraph 2 above, the
Recommandation then inserted in the Régles referred to names generally and
was not confined to specific names.

PROPOSED DECLARATION :—Where an author publishes a generic name
conditionally and (i) if the name was published prior to Ist January 1931,
provides, as required by Proviso (a) to Article 25, an indication, definition or
description of the genus so named and (2) if the name was published on or
after the foregoing date, also designates or indicates, as required by Proviso (c)
to the said Article, a type species for the genus so named, the generic name in
question possesses the status of availability as from the date on which it was
published conditionally and is to be attributed to the author by whom it was
so published. f

A

—— SS ee

ST in

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 21

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS (1) TO VALIDATE THE
GENERIC NAME “ PLEUROTOMARIA ” SOWERBY (J.), 1821
(CLASS GASTROPODA), IF IT IS JUDGED THAT THAT NAME
IS INVALID, (2) TO VALIDATE THE NAME “ ANGLICUS ”’
SOWERBY (J.), 1818, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COM-
_ BINATION “ TROCHUS ANGLICUS ”? AND (3) TO
DESIGNATE THE SPECIES SO NAMED TO BE
THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS
“ PLEUROTOMARIA ”’ SOWERBY, 1821

By L. R. COX, M.A., Sc.D., F.R.S.
(Department of Geology, British Musewm (Natural History), London)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 604)

When an attempt is made to apply the International Rules of Zoological
Nomenclature to the case of the important gastropod genus Pleurotomaria,
uncertainties arise owing to the ambiguous manner in which the generic name
was first published and to other circumstances. The facts are set out in the
following paragraphs.

2. The genus in question was first recognised and named in manuscript
prior to 1821 by M. J. L. Defrance, who informed Sowerby and others of his
intention to describe it. He published the vernacular name “ Pleurotomaire ”
without definition in 1824 (Tableau des corps organisés fossiles: 9), and the
generic name Pleurotomaria in 1826 (see paragraph 6 below).

3. Meanwhile, in 1821 J. Sowerby (Mineral Conchology, 3 : 139)
published the following remark when describing the new species Trochus
gibsi, from the Gault (Cretaceous) of Folkestone, Kent.—‘‘ This and several
other shells, hitherto called Trochi, with the band around the spire, may more
properly belong to the genus Pleurotomaria, which I may be induced at some
future period to adopt.’’ Several writers have maintained that this reference
was sufficient to establish the genus Pleurotomaria with J. Sowerby as its author
and 7’. gibsi its type species by monotypy. Sowerby’s publication of the generic
name was, however, merely provisional. It could, moreover, be maintained
that his words do not clearly convey the information that the presence of the
band around the spire was the diagnostic character of the genus. He suggested
that the species T'rochus gibsi might ‘‘ more properly belong ”’ to Pleurotomaria,
but did not definitely refer it to the genus. An important reason why this
would be an inappropriate species to accept as type of an important genus is
that its type specimen is decorticated and gives a misleading idea of the
characters of the shell. Even at the present day no specimens clearly showing
these characters are available.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 1. January 1955.

22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

4. In 1822 Férussac (Z'abl. systémat.: xxxiv) included the name Pleuro-
tomaria, attributed to “ ? Defrance ”’, in some systematic tables of mollusca,
but only as a nomen nudum.

5. In 1825 H. M. D. de Blainville (Manwel de Malacologie et de Conchylio-
logie : 429) published the generic name “ Plewrotomarium Defrance” with a
diagnosis, citing as an example and figuring the species ‘ Pleurotomarium
tuberculosum Defrance”’. This is a common Inferior Oolite species, and good
specimens are available in many geological museums. Pleurotomarium
de Blainville is thus at present available as a validly established genus with
P. tuberculosum its type species by monotypy. The name, to the writer’s
knowledge, has been accepted only once (Thomas (E.G.), 1940, Trans. geol.
Soc. Glasgow 20 : 31).

6. Defrance’s description of the genus Plewrotomaria appeared in 1826
(Dict. Sci. nat. 41 : 381). The species included in the genus were arranged
in two divisions, as follows :—(a) Umbilicate with rounded aperture, P. tuber-
culosa Defrance, P. anglica Defrance (=Trochus anglicus Sow.), P. granulata
Defrance (=T'rochus granulatus Sow.), P. ornata Defrance (=Trochus ornatus
Sow.) ; (b) Turriculate and not umbilicate, P. elongata Defrance (? = Trochus
elongatus Sow.).

7. The first author to cite one of these (or any species at all) as type species
of Pleurotomaria Defrance was S. P. Woodward (1851, Manual of the Mollusca :
147), who chose P. anglica (J. Sowerby). Next came E. Eudes-Deslongchamps
(1868, Bull. Soc. linn. Normandie (2) 1 : 223), who cited ‘‘ Pleurotomaria
anglica Defrance ” as type species of Pleurotomaria. At first sight P. anglica,
generally interpreted as a common species of the Lias of Europe, appears to be
a very appropriate species to serve as type of the genus. Further investigation,
however, shows that Sowerby included what are now regarded as several
distinct species under this name, and that neither of his two figured syntypes
can be traced. Hence, to remove all doubts as to the interpretation of the
species, a neotype must be designated and figured.

8. It must here be noted that the name Trochus anglicus Sowerby (J.),
1818 (Min. Conch. 2 : corrigenda) was published with no independent descrip-
tion of its own, being introduced expressly as a substitute name for T'rochus
similus [sic] Sowerby (J.), 1816 (Min. Conch. 2: 95, pl. 142). It should be
noted also that, although this name is a homonym of T'rochus similis Sowerby
(J.), 1817 (Min. Conch. 2 : 179, pl. 181, fig. 2) it is the senior and not the junior
homonym and therefore that, in replacing this name instead of the junior
homonym, Sowerby acted in exactly the opposite way to that now required
by the Réegles. Accordingly, if the name anglicus Sowerby is to be preserved,
it will be necessary for the Commission to use its Plenary Powers to suppress
the name similus Sowerby, to which otherwise it would fall as a junior objective

synonym.

ee a,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 23

9. The absence of any general agreement on the type species of Pleurotomaria
is indicated by the conclusions of the following authors :—

(a) S. A. Miller (1889, North American Geology and Palaeontology : 419)
cited P. anglica as type species.

(b) E. Koken (1896, Jahrb. geol. Reichsanst. Wien, 46 : 65) considered that
P. tuberculosa Defrance should be the type species.

(c) W. Wenz (1938, Handb. Paldozool., Gastropoda : 146) cited J. Sowerby
(1821) as author of Pleurotomaria and 7’. gibsi as type species by
monotypy ; later in the same work (1943, op. cit. : 1493), however,
he considered 7’. gibsi to have been unavailable as such, and cited
P. anglica as type in view of its designation by S. P. Woodward.

(d) J. Brookes Knight (1941, Geol. Surv. Amer. Spec. Paper 32 : 21) stated
that “the genotype of Plewrotomaria is seemingly the Jurassic species
Pleurotomaria similis (Sowerby, 1816)”. This raises the point
that Sowerby’s name Trochus anglicus was published in replacement
of his original name T’rochus similus [stc], to which reference has been
made in paragraph 8 above.

10. The present applicant considers that agreement on the points at issue
is obtainable only if action is taken by the International Commission. The
solution which it is considered should be sought is one on the following lines :—

(a) J. Sowerby’s words (1821), quoted in paragraph 3 above, should be
understood to mean that the diagnostic character of the genus
Pleurotomaria was the presence of the “band around the spire ”’,
and therefore constituted an “indication” within the meaning of
Article 25 of the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature.

(b) Sowerby’s provisional publication of the generic name should be
accepted as validating it. Hence, Plewrotomaria J. Sowerby, 1821,
should be added to the Official List of Generic Names and the family
name PLEUROTOMARUDAE to the Official List of Family-Growp Names
in Zoology.

(c) Trochus gibsi J. Sowerby, not being definitely referred by Sowerby to
Pleurotomaria when he published the generic name, should not be
regarded as available for adoption as type species ; or alternatively
it should be excluded from consideration as type species as its
characters are inadequately known.

(d) Only those species referred to Pleurotomaria by Defrance in 1826
(paragraph 6 above), being the first to be definitely included in the
genus, should be regarded as available for the subsequent designation
of type species.

24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(e) The designation of Plewrotomaria anglica (Sowerby) by 8S. P. Woodward
in 1851 should be accepted as establishing that species as type species.

(f) Doubts as to the identity of P. anglica should be removed by the designa-
tion of a neotype for the species (see the Annexe to the present
application).

(g) The specific name similus [sic] J. Sowerby (1816, Mineral Conchology,
2:95), published in the combination Trochus similus, should be
suppressed in favour of anglicus J. Sowerby, 1818 (vol. cit., corrigenda),
published in the combination T'rochus anglicus, in accordance with
Sowerby’s own “correction”, which has been accepted by most
subsequent authors.

(h) Pleurotemaria Carpenter, 1861 (an Invalid Subsequent Spelling of
Pleurotomaria J. Sowerby, 1821) should be placed on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

11. Since the present application was submitted, correspondence has passed
between the applicant and the Secretary in which it has been agreed that the
most convenient course would be to ask the Commission, before considering
the present application, to adopt a Declaration defining the status of a generic
name published provisionally, thereby clearing the issue involved in the case
of the generic name Pleurotomaria Sowerby (J.), 1821. It has accordingly
been agreed that the Secretary should prepare a short application asking for
a Ruling applying to generic names published conditionally the provision
already approved by the International Congress of Zoology in relation to specific
names similarly published. It has been further arranged that Mr. Hemming’s
application on this subject should be published simultaneously with the present
proposals relating to the name Pleurotomaria?. If the proposed Declaration
is adopted by the Commission, there will be no call for the use of the Plenary
Powers to validate the name Pleurotomaria Sowerby, 1821, but those Powers
will still be needed to designate T'rochus anglicus Sowerby, 1818, to be the
type species of Pleurotomaria Sowerby and to suppress the specific name
similus [sic] Sowerby, 1816, as published in the combination T'rochus similus.

12. An alternative course would be for the Commission to reject Pleuroto-
maria Sowerby, 1821, and to accept that name as from Defrance, 1826, but
this course is not recommended (a) because the name Pleurotomaria is
customarily attributed to Sowerby and treated as having been published in
1821, and (b) because, in order to ensure that Pleurotomaria Defrance, 1826,
should have an unassailable position, it would be necessary for the Commission
to suppress the name Pleurotomarium Blainville, 1825. The latter name is
commonly regarded as a junior subjective synonym of Pleurotomaria Sowerby,
1821, and it is considered that it would be better to allow this name to retain this

* See pp. 19—20 in the present Part.

‘
ae

os

ae aes

SS ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 25

position, the use of the Plenary Powers being confined to securing the objects
specified in paragraph 11 above. The applicant has ascertained from other
workers who are favourably disposed to the present application that they would
object to a proposal for the suppression of the name Pleurotomarium.

13. The following is the action which, for reasons explained in the present

application, the International Commission is asked to take, namely that it
should :—

(1) use its Plenary Powers :—

(a) to validate the generic name Pleurotomaria Sowerby (J.), 1821
if it is judged that that name is invalid by reason of having
been published conditionally ;

(b) to set aside all type designations or selections made for the fore-
going nominal genus prior to the Ruling now asked for and,
having done so, to designate T'rochus anglicus Sowerby (J.),
1818, to be the type species of the foregoing genus ;

(c) to suppress the under-mentioned specific name for the purposes
both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy :—

similus [sic] Sowerby (J.), 1816, as published in the combination
Trochus similus ;

(2) direct that the nominal species T'rochus anglicus Sowerby, 1818, be
interpreted by reference to the neotype designated and described in
the Annexe to the present application and as figured on the plate
published with this application ;

(3) place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology :—Pleurotomaria Sowerby (J.), 1821, as validated,
if judged necessary, under the Plenary Powers under (1)(a) above
(gender : feminine) (type species, by designation, under the Plenary
Powers, under (1)(b) above : T'rochus anglicus Sowerby (J.), 1818) ;

(4) place the under-mentioned names on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology :—

(a) anglicus Sowerby (J.), 1818, as published in the combination
Trochus anglicus and as validated under the Plenary Powers
under (1)(c) above by the suppression of its senior objective
synonym similus [sic] Sowerby (J.), 1816, as published in the
combination T'rochus similus (specific name of type species of
Pleurotomaria Sowerby (J.), 1821) ;

(b) similis Sowerby (J.), 1817, as published in the combination T'rochus
similis ;

26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(5) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—

(a) Pleurotomaria Férussac, 1822 (a nomen nudum) ;

(b) Pleurotomaria Defrance, 1826 (a junior homonym of Pleurotomaria
Sowerby (J.), 1821) ;

(c) Pleurotemaria Carpenter, 1861 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling
of Plewrotomaria Sowerby (J.), 1821) ;

(6) place the under-mentioned name on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :—similus [sic] Sowerby (J.), 1816,
as published in the combination T'rochus similus (as proposed to be
suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1)(c) above) ;

(7) place the under-mentioned name on the Official List of Family-Group
Names in Zoology :—PLEUROTOMARMDAE (correction of PLEUROTO-
MARIAE) Swainson (W.), 1840, Treatise Malac. : 353 (type genus:
Pleurotomaria Sowerby (J.), 1821 (attributed by Swainson to
Defrance, 1826)) (family-name first published in correct form as
PLEUROTOMARLIDAE by King (W.), 1850, Permian Foss. England : 213);

(8) place the under-mentioned name on the U,jicial Index of Rejected and
Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :—PLEUROTOMARIAE Swainson
(W.), 1840 (an Invalid Original Spelling for pLEUROTOMARIIDAE).

APPENDIX

Designation of a neotype for the nominal species “Trochus
anglicus ’’ Sowerby (J.), 1818 (originally ‘“‘Trochus similus ”’
{sic] Sowerby (J.), 1816)

J. Sowerby’s original description of Trochus similus (1816, Mineral
Conchology 2 : 95, pl. 142) was illustrated by two figures, the upper of which
represents a large and moderately well preserved shell, and the lower one an
internal mould of a smaller specimen occupying a cavity formed by its external
mould. Sowerby did not state who sent the specimens to him. They were not
in the Sowerby Collection when acquired in 1860 by the British Museum, and
all efforts to trace them have failed.* Four occurrences are given for thespecies—

* No reply has been received to a letter published in 1954 in the Geological Magazine (91 : 409)
asking any person in possession of information as to the whereabouts of these specimens
to communicate with the writer (initialled L. R. Cox, 13th December 1954).

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11 Plate |

Trochus anglicus Sowerby (J.), 1818 : neotype designated by L. R. Cox (1955, Bull. zool. Nomenel.
11 : 26—27)

i

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 27

the Blue Lias at Weston near Bath, the neighbourhood of Yeovil [?Inferior
Oolite], Lackington Park [i.e., White Lackington Park, near Ilminster, Middle
Lias], and Shotover [Kimmeridgian]. It is not stated from which localities
the figured specimens came. There is, however, little doubt that the larger
syntype, represented in Sowerby’s upper figure, came from White Lackington
Park, as specimens from the Ilminster district recalling the figure are in museum
collections. Its collector was probably the E. Strangewayes, or Strangeways,
who sent other specimens from the district to Sowerby. The mould represented
in the lower figure may have come from the Blue Lias of Weston.

2. It is considered that the most appropriate specimen for selection as the
Neotype of this species is that figured on plate 1 annexed to the present paper,
(a) because it is from the same geological formation and district as those from
which Sowerby’s larger syntype (the figures of which alone gives any indication
of the characters of the species) may be assumed to have come, and (b) because
this specimen resembles Sowerby’s figure more closely than does any other
available specimen. This specimen is accordingly now designated to be the
Neotype of T'rochus anglicus Sowerby, 1818.

3. Specimens from the type horizon may attain a height of 140 mm. It
should be noted that, although many authors (e.g., Goldfuss, 1844, Petrefacta
Germaniae, 3: pl. 184, fig. 8) have followed Sowerby in including smaller
specimens of Pleurotomaria, which occur not uncommonly in the Lower Lias, in
P. anglica, it is probable that these would now be included in one or more
distinct species.

4. The Neotype here designated is in the collection of the British Museum
(Natural History). Attached to the specimen are :—

(1) Yellow number label “‘ G.71505 ”’, the official registration number of the
specimen.

(2) Green spot, indicating “ figured specimen ”’.

(3) Small white label with the letters “SP ’’ [=South Petherton].

5. Accompanying the specimen are the following labels :—

(1) “ Pleurotomaria anglica (J. Sowerby), Middle Lias, South Petherton,
near Ilminster, Somerset. Purchd. D. Stephens, Feb. 1886’.

(2) ‘« G.71505. Neotype—Cox ”’.

28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE
THE GENERIC NAME “ PACHYCERAS ”’ BAYLE, 1878 (CLASS
CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA; JURASSIC) BY
SUPPRESSING THE GENERIC NAME “ PACHYCERAS ”
RATZEBURG, 1844 (ORDER HYMENOPTERA ; LIVING)

By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S.
(Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University)

(Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.) 670)

The object of the present application is to ask the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers for the purpose
of validating the long-established and well-known generic name Pachyceras
Bayle, 1878 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea : Jurassic) by suppressing
under the same Powers the generic name Pachyceras Ratzeburg, 1844 (Class
Insecta, Order Hymenoptera: Living). The considerations involved in this
case are set out below.

2. The generic name Pachyceras Bayle (1878 : pl. 63) has as its type species
by monotypy Ammonites lalandeanus d’Orbigny (1848 : 477, pl. 175), from the
Oxford Clay.

3. For more than seventy years this common and widespread genus has
been known in the literature under the name Pachyceras Bayle, and it has
never been referred to in geological works by any other name. The generic
name Pachyceras is current in all monographs, treatises, and text-books of
palaeontology and geology.

4. For the last thirty-six years Pachyceras has been type genus of a family
PACHYCERATIDAE Buckman (1918 : xiii), which has been referred to in all works
dealing with the classification of Jurassic ammonites (lastly in Arkell, 1950 :
363, as subfamily).

5. It was first revealed by Neave’s ‘‘ Nomenclator ” (1940) that this generic
name was preoccupied by Pachyceras Ratzeburg (1844 : table, 40, 217) a genus
of the Order Hymenoptera.

6. The only worker who appears so far to have noticed that Pachyceras
Bayle is an invalid name is Breistroffer (1947), who in a list of nomenclatorial
corrections renamed it Lalandeites, with type species Ammonites lalandeanus
d’Orbigny by original designation.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 1. January 1955.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 29

7. At the same time Breistroffer provided a new name ERYMNOCERATIDAE
Breistroffer, 1947, for the family PACHYCERATIDAE Buckman, 1918 (Erymnoceras
Hyatt, 1900, being another nominal genus included by Buckman in his family
PACHYCERATIDAE).

8. In selecting the Procés-Verbaux mensuels de la Soc. Sci. du Dauphiné
(26 an., no. 195, pages not numbered) as the channel for publishing this and
other new generic and family names which palaeontologists all over the world
are bound to adopt from the date of publication (April, 1947), Breistroffer
seems to have overestimated the speed and extent of circulation of this serial.
At least, although a specialist in Jurassic ammonites, who habitually watches
literature-recording serials, I did not come across the paper until 1952. Its
title and content had not then appeared in the Zoological Record. Meanwhile
the generic name Pachyceras has been used in at least three more monographs
dealing with ammonites of this and allied genera, by authors of three different
nationalities (Swiss, French, British) : Jeannet, 1951 ; Basse, 1952 ; Arkell, 1952.

9. Neave’s “‘ Nomenclator ”’ also showed that in 1848, in the second volume
of the same work, Ratzeburg himself withdrew his Pachyceras of 1844, believing
it to have been preoccupied by Pachycerus Schoenherr, 1823, and renamed it
Roptrocerus. Since a difference of one letter is now considered enough to
preclude two generic names being classed as homonyms, Roptrocerus Ratzeburg,
1848, falls as junior synonym of Pachyceras Ratzeburg, 1844, which is valid.

10. Considering the hardship that would be involved in a change of name
for Pachyceras Bayle and PACHYCERATIDAE Buckman, I wrote early in 1952
to some leading entomologists, enquiring whether they would oppose an
application for the suppression of Pachyceras Ratzeburg, 1844, in favour of
Roptrocerus Ratzeburg, 1848.

11. Dr. G. J. Kerrich (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London)
writes (18 Feb. 1952): “‘ Pachyceras Ratz. has come into use to some extent,
but in the past it has been less used than Roptrocerus (or Rhoptrocerus). My
personal opinion is that no strong objection would be raised to the suppression
of Pachyceras Ratz., 1844, to enable the name to be used in the ammonites.”

12. Dr. Ch. Ferriére (Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Genéve) writes (26 Feb.
1952) that Pachyceras Ratz., 1844, was re-established in 1923 and since then
has come back into general use in both Europe and America, and “ although
it would not bring very great confusion to come back to Roptrocerus, I do not
think it would be convenient to change the name again . . . the name is now
found in all the newest literature and catalogues ... I do not know the
importance of the ammonite genus Pachyceras Bayle, and it would be good and
interesting to put the question before the International Commission on Nomen-
clature”. In a more recent communication (dated 18th April 1952)

30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Dr. Ferriére, in acknowledging the receipt of the draft of the present application
which I had sent him, wrote :—‘‘As the question has been put forward, I am
willing to agree with you and to support, if necessary, your proposition.”

13. Dr. B. D. Burks (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology
and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C.) writes (17th March 1952): “ I would
not, personally, have any objections to suppressing Pachyceras Ratzeburg,
in favor of your ammonite usage, and using Roptrocerus instead for the chalcid.
Most of the literature, especially in economic entomology, has Roptrocerus. I
find in our files about 100 references using Roptrocerus, but only 25 under
Pachyceras. In my opinion, a suspension of the rule of priority should not be
made for the convenience of taxonomists alone (we can change name usages
relatively easily), but if a scientific name has gotten into use in.the non-
taxonomic literature, as in text-books, in handbooks for the use of amateurs,
in works on distribution and ecology, and the like, there is reason to consider
retaining that name even though it does not have priority. It is for you to
decide whether or not the name Pachyceras, as an ammonite, has been widely
enough used that its change would work a genuine hardship ”’.

14. In the light of these helpful letters from three of the leading specialists
concerned with the group of insects to which Pachyceras Ratzeburg belongs, I
have reviewed the geological literature in which Pachyceras Bayle is used and
have decided to present the case for decision. Although aware that the name
Pachyceras for an ammonite has at present no legal standing, I submit that
it has been used in good faith by palaeontologists and geologists of all nations
for so long and so widely that a change of name now would constitute a hardship
and would cause confusion; and that although a replacement name was
published in 1947, it appeared in a publication so obscure that other workers
have not yet become aware of it, while entomologists already have in the name
Roptrocerus a substitute name for use for the ichneumon which appears to be as
familiar as Pachyceras, and which has been in use for over 100 years and has
been used more often than Pachyceras.

15. Besides the recent works already mentioned, namely a_ general
classification of Jurassic ammonites (Arkell, 1950) and monographs on faunas
from Switzerland (Jeannet, 1951), Arabia (Arkell, 1952) and Madagascar
(Basse, 1952), the name Pachyceras appears in such standard works on
ammonites as Buckman (1918) and Roman (1938), and in geological survey
memoirs on India (Spath, 1928) and on French North Africa (Lucas, 1942), as
well as in the leading standard text-books of both geology (Haug, 1910) and
palaeontology (Zittel, 1881—5 and all successive editions to the latest, Zittel,
1924).

16. I therefore appeal to entomologists to accept the inconvenience of
reverting to the use of Roptrocerus Ratzeburg, 1848, instead of Pachyceras
Ratzeburg, 1844.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 31

17. Realising that, if the Commission decides to grant the present applica-
tion, it will be necessary for it not only to place the generic name Roptrocerus
Ratzeburg, 1848, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology but also to
place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the names of the type
species of that genus or, if that is not the oldest available name for that species,
whatever is the oldest name, I applied to Dr. Kerrich for the information needed
to enable me to complete this part of the present application. Dr. Kerrich
has kindly supplied the following particulars:—(1) The nominal genus
Pachyceras Ratzeburg, 1844, was established with two included nominal
species, both then described as new. These were :—(a) Pachyceras xylophagorum
(: 218) and Pachyceras eccoptogastri, the latter being only briefly diagnosed
by reference to the former. Neither of these nominal species was designated
as type species of this genus. (2) The nominal genus Roptrocerus Ratzeburg,
1848 (2 : 209) was established as a substitute for Pachyceras Ratzeburg, 1844
(in the mistaken belief that it was a junior homonym of Pachycerus Gyllenhall,
1826) and the same species were referred to it as had been referred to
Pachyceras Ratzeburg, 1844. Again Ratzeburg did not designate a type
species. (3) The first author to select a type species for either nominal genus
was Ashmead who in 1904 (Mem. Carnegie Mus. 1(4) : 388) selected the
nominal species Pachyceras xylophagorum Ratzeburg, 1844, to be the type
species of Roptrocerus Ratzeburg, 1848.

18. I now ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :—

(1) to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Pachyceras
Ratzeburg, 1844, for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the
Law of Homonymy ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned names on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology :—

(a) Pachyceras Bayle, 1878, as validated by the Ruling recommended
in (1) above (gender: neuter) (type species, by monotypy :
Ammonites lalandeanus d’Orbigny, 1848) ;

(b) Roptrocerus Ratzeburg, 1848 (gender: neuter) (type species, by
selection by Ashmead (1904): Pachyceras xylophagorum Ratze-
burg, 1844) ;

(3) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology :—
(a) lalandeanus d’Orbigny, 1848, as published in the combination

Ammonites lalandeanus (specific name of type species of
Pachyceras Bayle, 1878) ;

(b) aylophagorum Ratzeburg, 1844, as published in the combination
Pachyceras xylophagorum (specific name of type species of
Roptrocerus Ratzeburg, 1848) ;

PURCHASED
32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(4) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—

(a) Pachyceras Ratzeburg, 1844, as proposed under (1) above to be
suppressed under the Plenary Powers ;

(b) Lalandeites Breistoffer, 1947 (a junior objective synonym of
Pachyceras Bayle, 1878) ;

(5) to place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official List
of Family-Group Names in Zoology :—PACHYCERATIDAE Buckman
(S.S.), 1918 (type genus: Pachyceras Bayle, 1878).

References

Arkell, W. J. 1950. A classification of the Jurassic Ammonites. J. Paleont.
24 : 363.

Arkell, W. J. 1952. Jurassic ammonites from Jebel Tuwaiq, Central Arabia.
Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. (B) 236 : 291.

Basse, E. 1952. Macrocephalitidés du sud-ouest de Madagascar. Mém.
Soc. géol. France (n.s.) 30 : 88, 91.

Bayle, E. 1878. LExplication de la Carte géologique de France, vol. 4. Atlas
only.

Breistroffer, M. 1947. Notes de nomenclature paléozoologique. Procés-

Verbaux mensuels Soc. Sci. du Dauphiné, 26 année, no. 195. (pages
not numbered.)

Buckman, 8. S. 1918. Type Ammonites, 2 : xiii.
Haug, E. 1910. Traité de Géologie : 998, 1009, etc.

Jeannet, A. 1951. Beitrége zur Geol. der Schweiz, Geotechnische Serie (13
Lief.), 5 : 108.

Lucas, G. 1942. Description géologique des Monts de Ghar Rouban et du
Sidi el Abed, Bull. Serv. Carte géol. Algérie, (2) 16 : 365.

Neave,S. A. 1940. Nomenclator Zoologicus, 4 vols.

Orbigny, A. d’. 1842—51. Paléontologie frangaise, Terrains jurassiques,
Céphalopodes.

Ratzeburg, J. T. C. 1844, 1848. Die Ichneumoniden, vol. 1 (1844), vol. 2
(1848).

Roman, F. 1938. Les Ammonites jurassiques et crétacées ; 220.

Spath, L. F. 1928. Revision of the Jurassic cephalopod fauna of Kachh
(Cutch). Pal. Indica (n.s.) 9, Mem. 2, part 3: 221, 222.

Zittel, K. A. 1881-5. Handbuch der Paldontologie, 2 : 451.
Zittel. K. A. 1924. Grundziige der Paldontologie : 575.

a

a
e
¥
Aj
&-
‘
- . *
AS
rs

y
és : ;
at :
‘s c
ales .
Phe i
4 ®
2 4 7
ra - 4

alls ab besBho aac ths aoc ies lta nas te

reat a aig era es forte 2

19

WL “(Claes Poalesee sala: a af
2) to validate the name
an A ‘TsI8, as et in the Combination:
3) to designate the species so named
"species of the genus Pleurotomaria Sowerby,
}. Cox, cae Se.D.,. FERS. (British ac,

ee wee eee ane wee vt |

ae psc tp anise eae nage
Cephalopoda, Order Ammo-

= ) ?." oo

VOLUME 11. Part 2 - 7 FER 4056 31st January 1955
pp. 33—72 PU RCHA ED
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

CONTENTS :

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Page

Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoo-
logical Nomenclature of voting on se pe in the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature . : = ous 33

Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoo-
logical Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain cases ae 33

(continued inside back wrapper)

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
and
Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publication Office,
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.
1955

Price Eighteen Shillings and Ninepence

(All rights reserved)

—_
er 34 MUSES

y ag

peaTONAL coaidiion ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

va
ie ae ae a mwa Omicers of the Commission
Ce Oar Eee : S ae

Bee eg ees % as eae (Cornett University, Ithaca, NY. U.S.A.) —
it : Ser (ob: Ahatio 0 Araceae Poste Brazil) (12th August 1953)
2 mining Cienie, London, England) (27th Soly re

se ‘The Members of the Commission
in oder of precedence by reference to dat ae tool et
ey te Bosca ( de Bia van Natuurlifke Historie, Leiden, The piece
ek eos (Ist January 194
fee oe Ainge Oars ites Bion: FOS Argentine) (27th July 1988)

Seotde Ju (Sear)

Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948)
Dr. Hennin, plete ite rae gpd en gro renee ) atte Joy 1048 ,

sor Dr. Robert Mertens ns (Natur Museum u Forochunge Tali agete pee
Germany) (5th ae. 1950)

ate ASE x Poth ey ion Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humbolat-Universtdt 20 Berlin,

z diag? == (Ss. i fo i Soi — Sa

: Sats ten — Dy. c - 7 — y : 1S

iE Vokes (Tone Eis Boa Lalraae Maryland, ae (12th

onwealth Scient and Industrial Research isation, Canberra,
Soues ts

Vertebrate Zoology, iti cece abe California,

wasn 2 Pro! Se a iia ech Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)
oe = Dr. Serna 1 UU (aoe Inatint for ‘Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th
51 * Sy wehen oe Cees
aes felted ch ylvester Bre (See nti hal, Salad) (8. Aset 19)
ee fe It RIS IS van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th
cin cy e “, iit
ma

7 AN
Sy :
; 7} m}
ca A Rahs 4 od 7
nS /
~&
“Ale A = le, oo

oe re

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 11, Part 2 (pp. 33—72) 3lst January 1955

NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY

a The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the

_ recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56, 57—59), by the Thirteenth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomenel.
. 5: 5—13, 131).

(a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published
Ts in the “‘ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’

Nortcz is hereby given that normally the International Commission will
tal to vote upon applications published i in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-

Pat a ol. 11, Part 2) of the Bulletin is ee invited to do so in writing
to the Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible and in any case, in
re ficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secretariat
of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above.

(b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain cases

Notice is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com-
‘mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers is involved in

34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

applications published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature in relation to the following names :—

(1) Neanura MacGillivray, 1893, and Hypogastrura Bourlet, 1839, designation
of type species for, in harmony with accustomed usage ; suppression
of Achorutes Templeton, 1835, (Class Insecta, Order Collembola)
(Z.N.(S.) 303) ;

(2) Crenophilus, validation of, as from d’Orchymont, 1942 ; and validation of
the specific name aeneus Germar, 1824, as published in the combination
Hydrophilus aeneus (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) (Z.N.(S.) 752) ;

(3) Rhinopteraspis Jaekel, 1919, validation of (Class Ostracodermi)
(Z.N.(S.) 863) ;

(4) Anurophorus Nicolet, [1842], designation of type species for, in harmony
with accustomed usage (Class Insecta, Order Collembola) (Z.N.(S.) 304).

2. Attention is drawn to the suppression of the generic name Jumala
Friele, 1882 (Class Gastropoda), as a name calculated to give offence on
religious grounds. This is the first application made under the Article providing
for the rejection of names on the foregoing ground inserted in the Régles by
the Paris Congress in 1948. (See 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 193—194)
(Z.N. (S.) 307).

3. Attention is also drawn to the proposed adoption of a Declaration clarify-
ing Rule (f) in Article 30 (type species of a nominal genus established as a
substitution for a previously established such genus) (Z.N.(S.) 867).

4. Comments received in sufficient time will be published in the Bulletin :
other comments, provided that they are received within the prescribed period
of six calendar months from the date of publication of the present Part will
be laid before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at
the time of commencement of voting on the application concerned.

5. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon at the Session held by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 56), corresponding Notices have been sent
to the serial publications Nature and Science.

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park,
Lonpon, N.W.1, England.
31st January 1955.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

REQUEST FOR A “DECLARATION” AS TO THE TYPE

SPECIES OF A NOMINAL GENUS ESTABLISHED AS

A SUBSTITUTE FOR A PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED

NOMINAL GENUS BUT WITH A DESIGNATED TYPE SPECIES

DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE NOMINAL GENUS SO
REPLACED

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.) 867)

35

The object of the present application is to invite the International

Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to adopt a Declaration defining the
species to be accepted as the type species of a nominal genus established as a
substitute for a previously established nominal genus in a case where the
author of the substitute name designates as the type species a species other
than that which is the type species of the nominal genus so replaced.

2. The following is an imaginary example of the class of case for which a

Ruling is now sought :—

(a) In 1820 an author “A” established a nominal genus to which he gave

the name X-us. Either author “ A” himself designated or indicated
the nominal species O-us p-us as the type species of the genus X-us
or some later author validly selected that species to be the type species
of the genus X-us.

(b) In 1870 an author “B” observed that the generic name X-us ‘“‘A’”’,

1820, was invalid by reason of being a junior homonym of the generic
name X-us “F”, 1772. Author “B” accordingly replaced the
name X-us “A” by the new name Qu-a. When publishing the name
Qu-a, author “ B”’, by using the expression “ nom. nov. pro” or some
equivalent expression, made it absolutely clear that he was publishing
a substitute name and was not establishing a new nominal genus.

(c) Unfortunately author “B” did not know that the nominal species

O-us p-us had already been designated, indicated or selected as the
type species of the genus X-us “ A”, 1820, and thought that the type
species of that genus was a quite different species, namely O-us y-us.
Accordingly, when establishing the substitute genus Qu-a, author
“B” added that the type species of the substitute genus Qu-a was
the nominal species O-us y-us.

I eg

Bull. zool. Nomenel. Vol. 11, Part 2. January, 1955.

36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(d) The question on which a Declaration is now sought is whether the type |
species of Qu-a “ B”’, 1870, is :—

(i) O-us p-us, the species which is the type species of the genus X-us
“ A” 1820, for which the genus Qu-a “ B ”’, 1870 was established
as a substitute ;

or

(ii) O-us y-us, the species designated as the type species of the
substitute genus Qu-a by the author “ B”’, when publishing that
generic name.

3. An exactly similar problem arises where an author publishes a generic
name as a substitute for the name of some previously established nominal
genus for which no species had been designated or indicated as the type species
by the original author and for which at the date in question no one of the
originally included species had been selected by a later author to be the type
species, if the author of the substitute generic name designates for the genus
so named a nominal species which was not one of those included by the original
author in the genus, the name of which is so replaced.

4, The foregoing problems raise an issue of principle on which it is desirable
on practical grounds that a decision should be reached as soon as possible.
Moreover, the first of these two problems has already arisen in the case of the
name Neanura MacGillivray, 1893, in Dr. H. Gisin’s application relating to _
the name Achorutes Templeton, 1835 (Z.N.(S.) 303).1

5. Fortunately, there exists in the present case a precedent set by the
Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, for that
Congress considered the exactly parallel case which arises where an author
publishes a new specific name which he states is a substitute name for some
previously published specific name but for which also he gives a description
based upon particular specimens, which in fact are referable not to the species
which bears the name so replaced but to some other species. On this question
the Copenhagen Congress decided to insert the following provision in Article
31 of the Régles :—“‘ Where a specific name is expressly stated to be a sub-
stitute (e.g., by the use of such expressions as “ nom. nov.” or “ nom. mut.”)
for a previously published name but is at the same time applied to particular
specimens, the species to which the new name applies is in all circumstances
that to which the previously published name is applicable ” (1953, Copenhagen
Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 75—76, Decision 142).

1 See pp. 38—48 in the present Part.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 37

6. Recommendations : In the light of the foregoing decision by the
Copenhagen Congress at the species-name level, I recommend that the
Commission should now adopt the following Declaration clarifying the meaning
of the Régles in relation to the corresponding problem at the generic-name
level :—

PROPOSED DECLARATION :—Wherea generic name, when first published,
is expressly stated to be a substitute (e.g., by the use of such expressions as
“nom, nov.” or “nom. mut ”) for a previously published generic name but
where the author of the substitute name designates as the type species of the
genus bearing that name a nominal species other than that which is the type
Species of the genus, the name of which is so replaced, the type species of
the genus bearing the substitute name is in all circumstances the nominal
species which is the type species of the genus, the name of which is so replaced.

38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE
GENERIC NAME “ACHORUTES ”? TEMPLETON, 1835, AND DESIGNA-
TION UNDER THE SAME POWERS OF A TYPE SPECIES FOR
THE GENUS “ HYPOGASTRURA ”’ BOURLET, 1839 (CLASS
INSECTA, ORDER COLLEMBOLA) IN HARMONY WITH
ACCUSTOMED USAGE

By HERMANN GISIN
(Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle, Geneva)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 303)

The object of the present application is to secure the assistance of the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to put an end to the
long-standing confusion and lack of uniformity in the literature of the Order
Collembola arising from the use of the generic name Achorutes Templeton,
1835, for one genus mainly by European authors and for a different genus
mainly by American authors. Both the genera involved are of great taxonomic
and economic importance. The relevant facts are set out in the following
paragraphs.

2. The generic name Achorutes Templeton, 1835 (T'rans. ent. Soc. Lond.
1(2) : 96) was established for two nominal species both then named for the
first time. These were: (i) Achorutes dubius (: 96); (ii) Achorutes muscorum
(: 97). No type species was designated by Templeton for this genus.

3. At a meeting of the Société entomologique de France held in 1843 Lucas,
at the request of the President (Milne Edwards), made a communication to
the Society regarding papers recently published on the Collembola in which
he is recorded as having spoken as follows in regard to the genus referred to
above :— . Achorutes Templ., . dont Vespece type est A. muscorum

xs While opinions differ as ta whether in making this observation,
Lucas intended to select a type species for the genus Achorutes Templeton
in the nomenclatorial sense, the words employed undoubtedly constitute such
a selection under the present Régles. Moreover, as Achorutes muscorum Temple-
ton was one of the species originally included in the genus Achorutes Templeton
and as no type species for that species had previously been designated or
selected, Lucas’s action is valid under the Régles. Lucas’s paper attracted
no attention at the time of its publication and his action in regard to the genus
Achorutes Templeton long passed unnoticed, both in Europe and in America.
The extent to which Lucas’s action was overlooked even in America may be
judged by the fact that as late as 1893 (Canad. Ent. 25 : 315) McGillivray
published a paper in which he sought to select Achorutes dubius Templeton
to be the type species of the genus Achorutes Templeton, while at the same time

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 2. January 1955.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 39

he established the genus Neanura (ibid. 25 : 314), as a substitute for Anoura
Gervais, 1843, designating Achorutes muscorum Templeton, 1835, to be the
type species of his new genus Neanura. It will be necessary later to revert
to the question of the status of the genus Neanura MacGillivray. In the
meantime, however, it must be noted that the nomenclature established by
MacGillivray has long been, and currently is, accepted by American specialists
who recognise the genus Neanura MacGillivray with Achorutes muscorum

Templeton as type species, notwithstanding the fact that, as shown above,
that that species is under the Régles the type species of the older nominal
genus Achorutes Templeton.

Ss a Cr

4. The next generic name to be considered is Hypogastrura Bourlet, 1839
(Mém. Soc. R. Sci. Lille 1839(1) : 404), a monotypical genus with Podura
aquatica Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 609) as type species. On
this basis the name Hypogastrura Bourlet, 1839, is a junior objective synonym

_ of Podura Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 608), for the nominal species
Podura aquatica Linnaeus, 1758, is also the type species of Podura Linnaeus
by designation by the International Commission under its Plenary Powers
(see Opinion 239 embodying a decision taken in 1948 and promulgated in the
foregoing Opinion in 1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 361—372).
It is quite clear, however, that the genus Hypogastrura Bourlet is a genus
based upon a misidentified type species, the species cited under this name by

- Bourlet as aquatica Linnaeus not being that species. That he had made an
error of identification when establishing his genus Hypogastrura was quickly
recognised by Bourlet himself who in 1843 gave the name Hypogastrura
murorum (Mém. Soc. R. Agric. Dep. Nord 1841-1842 : 123) to the species to
which in 1839 he had erroneously applied the name Podura aquatica Linnaeus.
The nominal species Hypogastrura murorum Bourlet cannot be identified with
certainty and the name is therefore a nomen dubium. It is commonly treated
in catalogues as possibly a senior synonym of Achorutes viaticus Tullberg,
_ 1872 (K. svensk. Vetensk-Akad. Handl., Stockholm (n.s.) 10 (No. 10) : 50).
In establishing his species viaticus, Tullberg gave a clear and recognisable
_ description of the species concerned and it is not necessary therefore to examine
in detail the synonymy which he gave for this species, beyond noting that he
3 included in that synonymy the name Hypogastrura murorum Bourlet, 1843
(and through it the species misidentified by Bourlet in 1839 as Podura aquatica
Linnaeus), thus establishing a link, though somewhat tenuous in character,
_ between his new species and the sole species originally placed by Bourlet
_ in the genus Hypogastrura. In 1906 Borner (Mitt. naturh. Mus. Hamburg
_ 23 : 156) designated Hypogastrura viaticus Tullberg as the type species of the
genus Hypogastrura Bourlet, and this nomenclature has prevailed ever since
in Europe. In 1916 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 50 : 479) Folsom pointed out that
ae Borner’ 8 interpretation of Bourlet’s Hypogastrura was not consistent with the
fact that Podura aquatica Linnaeus was the sole species placed by Bourlet
or. in this genus and he accordingly reverted to the use of the name Achorutes
a Templeton for the genus containing the nominal species Hypogastrura viatica

+
4

7

: eae ;

40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Tullberg. In so acting, Folsom was restoring the nomenclature established
in 1873 by Lubbock (Monogr. Collemb. Thysan. : 177) who in this matter had
been followed by MacGillivray (1893, Canad. Ent. 25 : 315) and other authors
up to and including Borner himself prior to his re-introduction in 1906 of the
name Hypogastrura Bourlet for this genus. Since the publication of Folsom’s
(1916) paper the name Achorutes Templeton has been used by American authors
for the genus known in Europe as Hypogastrura Bourlet.

5. The next name to be considered is Anoura Gervais, 1843 (Ann. Soc.
ent. France 11(3) : Bull. xlvii), for which the type species, by original designa-
tion, is the nominal species Achorutes tuberculatus Nicolet, 1842 (Newe Denkschr.
schweiz. Ges. Naturw. 6:51). This nominal species is not identifiable with
certainty, but Nicolet himself in 1847 (Ann. Soc. ent. France (2)5 : 388) suggested
that is represented the same species as that represented by the nominal species
Achorutes muscorum Templeton, 1835, a view which has been generally adopted
by later workers. On this basis the generic name Anoura Gervais, 1843, is a
junior subjective synonym of Achorutes Templeton, 1835, of which (as shown in
paragraph 3 above) Achorutes muscorum Templeton is the type species. Quite
apart from this subjective synonymisation of the name Anoura Gervais with
the name Achorutes Templeton, the name Anoura Gervais is objectively invalid,
being a junior homonym of the name Anoura Gray (J.E.), 1838 (Mag. Zool. Bot.
2(12) : 490), the name of a genus in the Class Mammalia.

6. MacGillivray (1893, Canad. Ent. 25 : 314) was the first author to note
that the name Anoura Gervais, 1843, was invalid under the Law of Homonymy.
He sought to remedy this by introducing the name Neanura which he stated
was “proposed for Anowra Gerv. which is pre-occupied in mammalogy ”’.
At the same time he described his Neanura as a “ nov. gen.’ and designated
Achorutes muscorum Templeton as its type species. The name Neanura
MacGillivray is currently used by American specialists for this genus, for which
however (as shown in paragraph 3 above) the oldest available, and therefore
the correct, name is Achorutes Templeton, the name used for it by European
workers.

7. At this point it is necessary to draw attention to a complication which ~
arises in connection with the name Neanura MacGillivray which has not
previously been noted in the discussion of this name. That is, that, although
MacGillivray expressly stated that the name Neanura was a nom. nov. pro
the preoccupied name Anoura Gervais, he designated as the type species of his
new genus a nominal species (Achorutes muscorum Templeton) different from
that (Achorutes tuberculatus Nicolet) which was the type species of the genus
Anoura Gervais. There is thus a formal inconsistency between the two parts
of the action taken by MacGillivray, for (1) if his statement that Neanura is

” wr

se ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 41

a substitute name for Anoura Gervais is accepted, its type species is auto-
matically the same nominal species (Achorutes tuberculatus Nicolet) as that
which is the type species of Anoura Gervais, notwithstanding MacGillivray’s
own simultaneous designation of a different nominal species (Achorutes muscorum
Templeton) as the type species of Neanura, while (2) if MacGillivray’s designa-
tion of Achorutes muscorum Templeton as the type species of his Neanura
is accepted, it is necessary to reject his statement that Neanura is a replacement
name for the invalid name Anoura Gervais. That this aspect of the case has
not previously been the subject of examination is due no doubt to the fact
that the two nominal species cited above are commonly regarded as repre-
senting a single species and therefore that the problem discussed above is
one of nomenclatorial importance only. Moreover, up to 1953 there existed
no provision in the Régles by which to determine which of the two statements
made by MacGillivray in regard to his Neanura is to be accepted and which
rejected. This matter was however settled at Copenhagen by the Fourteenth
International Congress of Zoology when it decided, in an exactly parallel case
at the spécies-name level, that, where a name was published partly as a
substitute for some previously published name and partly to designate some
other taxon, the taxon “to which the new name applies is in all circumstances
that to which the previously published name is applicable ”’ (1953, Copenhagen
Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 75—76, Decision 142).2 We see therefore that under
the Régles Neanura MacGillivray is objectively identical with Anoura Gervais
and therefore that its type species is the nominal species Achorutes tuberculatus
Nicolet (the type species of Anowra Gervais) and not (as incorrectly stated by
MacGillivray, when publishing the name Neanura) the nominal species Achorutes
muscorum Templeton. The name Neanura MacGillivray is thus a junior
subjective synonym of Achorutes Templeton and not a junior objective synonym,
as it would have been, if its type species had been Achorutes muscorum Templeton
(as it was erroneously stated to be by MacGillivray).

8. The other names or variant spellings involved in the present case need
not detain us for long. They are the following :—

(1) Rathumoutes Templeton, 1843, Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 3(4) : 306

In 1843 Templeton stated that it was necessary to establish several
new subgenera for the genus Podura Linnaeus. In the last of these
he included “aquatica, Lin., fimetaria, Lin., ambulans, Fab., with
dubius and muscorum”’ the last two nominal species being the sole
species which he had included originally in his genus Achorutes. Without
giving any explanation of his action, Templeton then wrote :—“ I wish
the name I gave this last [subgenus] changed from Achoreutes to
Rathumoutes.” The latter name, as a nom. nov. pro the name Achorutes
Templeton, 1835, takes automatically under Rule (f) in Article 30 the
same type species as that of the nominal genus, the name of which it

. oa a request for an express Ruling to this effect see the immediately preceding application
: 35—37).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Ee

replaces. The type species of Rathwmoutes Templeton, 1843, is therefore
Achorutes muscorum Templeton, 1835, the type species of Achorutes :
Templeton, 1835 (see paragraph 3 above).

(2) Achoreutes Templeton, 1843, Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 3(4) : 306

The spelling Achoreutes was used by Templeton only in the passage
quoted in (1) above in which he rejected the name Achorutes published
by himself in 1835 and sought to replace it by the name Rathumoutes.
The spelling Achoreutes is thus evidently no more than a spelling mistake
for Achorutes.

(3) Anura Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1846, Nomencl. zool., Index univ. : 27

This name which appears to have been overlooked was a deliberate
emendation by Agassiz of the name Anoura Gervais, 1843 (discussed in
paragraph 5 above). Under the Régles as they exist today that
emendation was not justified and the name Anura Agassiz is therefore
an Invalid Emendation. Even if this had been a Valid Emendation,
ranking for priority from 1843, the year in which the emended name
Anoura Gervais was published, the name Anura (emend. by Agassiz
of Anoura) Gervais, 1843, would have been invalid, since it would
have been a junior homonym of Anura Hodgson, 1841 (J. asiat. Soc.
Bengal 10(1) : 28). Under the revision of Article 19 carried out by the
Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, an
Invalid Emendation ranks as a separate name attributable to its own
author and date. By Agassiz’s action there is therefore a separate
name Anura Agassiz, 1846, which, as explained above, is an invalid
name by reason of being a junior homonym of Anwra Hodgson, 1841,
in addition to being an Invalid Emendation of Anoura Gervais, 1843.

(4) Neohypogastrura Paclt, 1944, Acta Soc. ent. Bohem. 41 : 52

In 1944 Paclt published a short note in which he drew attention to
the fact that (as noted in paragraph 4 of the present application)
Bourlet in 1843 gave the name Hypogastrura murorum to the species
to which he had erroneously applied the name Podura aquatica Linnaeus,
1758, when in 1839 he had first published the generic name Hypo-
gastrura. Paclt then introduced the new name Neohypogasirura as
a substitute for the name Hypogastrura as defined by Bourlet in 1843
(i.e. for a genus having Hypogastrura murorum Bourlet, 1843, as type
species), as contrasted with Bourlet’s original use of the name Hypo-
gastrura in 1839. As already noted, Hypogastrura murorum Bourlet
is a nomen dubium doubtfully identifiable with Achorutes viaticus
Tullberg, 1872. The name Neohypogastrura Paclt is thus, on the

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 43

subjective plane, doubtfully available for the genus currently, though
incorrectly, known as Hypogastrura Bourlet, 1839, by European workers.

(5) Neogastrura Stach, 1949, Apterygotan Faun. Poland, Fam. Neogastrur-
idae Brachystomellidae (Act. Mon. Mus. Hist. nat. Krakow) : 6, 9, 16

and

(6) Biloba Stach, 1949, ibid. : 6, 16

The present problem was considered in 1949 by Stach who, after
pointing out (: 15) that neither the American usage nor the European
usage of “the name Achorutes=Neanura or Achorutes=Hypogastrura ”’
was in strict accord with the provisions of the Régles—a view which it
must be conceded is correct—expressed the following opinion (: 16) :—
“‘Tt would be rational to desist the names Achorutes, Hypogastrura and
Neanura and use the new generic names mentioned above, namely
Neogastrura nom. nov. (=Achorutes Templ.=Hypogastrura sens.
Borner) and Biloba nom. nov. (=Neanura MacGill.=Achorutes sens.
Borner)’. Stach’s allusion to his new names having been “ mentioned
above ”’ is a reference to the fact that he had already introduced the
name Neogastrura on page 6 and again on page 9 of his book (on which
latter page the species “‘ Neogastrura viatica (Tullberg, 1872)” was
expressly designated as the “‘Genotypus”’ of his genus Neogastrura)
and that he had also introduced the name Biloba on page 6 of his book.
While sharing Stach’s view that the name Achorutes Templeton has
been so seriously compromised by divergent usage as to have lost all
practical value, it must be noted that it is not possible on this account
to discard that name, save by the use by the International Commission
of its Plenary Powers. Accordingly under the Régles the generic name
Biloba Stach is invalid as a junior objective synonym of Achorutes
Templeton, 1835. When we turn to Neogastrura Stach, we find that
Achorutes viaticus Tullberg, 1872, its type species, is considered by
Stach himself, as also by all other specialists except MacGillivray
(1893), to be congeneric, and even consubgeneric, with the nominal
species Podura nivicola Fitch, 1847 (Amer. J. agric. Sci. 5 : [10]), the
type species, by original designation, of Schoturus MacGillivray, 1893
(Canad. Ent. 25:315, 316). Thus, although a nomenclatorially
available name, Neogastrura Stach is, under the Régles, a junior sub-
jective synonym of Schoturus MacGillivray. It should be noted
however that the name Schoturus MacGillivray has never been used by
specialists, although, as pointed out by Laing (1945, Ent. mon. Mag.
81 : 136), that name should under the Régles be applied to the genus
known incorrectly as Achorutes Templeton in America and as Hypo-
gastrura Bourlet in Europe.

ee ee ee =)"

44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

9. Having now completed our survey of the names given to, or used for,
the two genera under consideration, we may offer the following synonymy
of the names concerned :—

GENUS “A”
Genus having Achorutes muscorum
Templeton, 1835 or nominal species

subjectively identified therewith as
type species

(1) Objectively valid name

Achorutes Templeton, 1835

(2) Junior objective synonyms

Rathumoutes Templeton, 1843
Achoreutes Templeton, 1843
Biloba Stach, 1949

(3) Junior subjective synonyms

Anoura Gervais, 1843 (also in-
valid because a junior homonym
of Anoura Gray (J.E.), 1838)

Anura Agassiz, 1846 (also invalid
because a junior homonym of
Anura Hodgson, 1841)

Neanura MacGillivray, 1893 (nom.
nov. for Anoura Gervais, 1843)

(4) Incorrect use of a non-identical
name

None.

GENUS “B”

Genus having Achoruies viaticus
Tullberg, 1872, as type species or,
in the case of Schoturus MacGillivray,
1893, a species (Podura nivicola
Fitch, 1846) subjectively regarded
by specialists as congeneric with
Achorutes viaticus Tullberg, 1872

(1) Oldest subjectively available

name
Schoturus MacGillivray, 1893

(2) Junior objective synonyms

None ;

(3) Junior subjective synonym

Neogastrura Stach, 1949

(4) Incorrect uses of non-identical
names

Achorutes Templeton, 1835 (as
used by American authors)

Hypogastrura Bourlet, 1839 (as
used by European authors)

10. I first brought the present case to the attention of the Commission ~
in November 1945, being already of the opinion that order could be restored
in the nomenclature of this group only with the help of the Commission’s

————— ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45

Plenary Powers. I then recommended that the Commission should suppress
altogether the name Achorutes Templeton and that the name Hypogastrura
Bourlet, 1839, should be stabilised for the genus having Achorutes viaticus
Tullberg, 1872, as its type species and that the name Neanura MacGillivray,
1893, should be stabilised for the genus having Achorutes muscorum Templeton,
1835, as type species. It seemed to me essential that the name Achorutes
Templeton should be discarded, for the different uses to which this name had
been put so gravely compromised it that, if it were to be retained either in the
sense used by European workers or in that used by American workers continued
confusion would be inevitable. The remainder of my scheme provided for the
validation, for the genus having Achorutes muscorum Templeton as type species,
of the name (Neanura MacGillivray) used for that genus by American workers,
and, for the genus having Achorutes viaticus Tullberg as type species, of the
name (Hypogastrura Bourlet) currently used for that genus by European workers.
This scheme aimed therefore at putting an end to the confusion arising from the
use of the name Achorutes Templeton and at the same time giving valid force,
so far as is possible, to the usage adopted by American and European workers
respectively. Prior to the submission of these proposals to the Commission,
I had already (1944, Mitt. schweiz. ent. Ges. 20(1) : 135) published a note
setting out my ideas for the purpose of drawing the attention of workers in the
Order Collembola to the possibility of obtaining a solution of this long-drawn-out
controversy on the lines suggested. While the publication of that note did not
secure—and in view of the history of this case could hardly have been expected
to secure—unanimous support, it nevertheless attracted a large measure of
agreement. In a case such as the present any settlement must inevitably call
for some sacrifices of individual preferences but, as I am convinced, those
sacrifices are much less under the scheme that I recommend than they would
be under any other settlement that could be devised. I therefore strongly
urge the Commission to restore order in the nomenclature of this group by
taking action in the sense now recommended.

11. I further recommend that, when settling this matter at the genus-name
level, the Commission should also take such steps as are necessary to stabilise
the position at the family-group-name level. The family-group names con-
cerned are the following :—

ACHORUTINI Borner, 1901, Zool. Anz. 24 : 13 (type genus : Achorutes Templeton,
1835, treated incorrectly as having Achorutes viaticus Tullberg, 1872, as

type species)

ACHORUTINAE Borner, 1906, Mitt. naturh. Mus. Hamburg 23 : 159, 160 (type
genus: Achorutes Templeton, 1835, treated correctly as having Achorutes
muscorum Templeton, 1835, as type species)

BILOBIDAE Stach, 1951, Apterygotan Faun. Poland, Fam. Bilobidae (Act. Mon.
- Mus. Hist. nat. Krakow) : 3 (type genus : Biloba Stach, 1949)

46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

HYPOGASTRURINAE Borner, 1906, Mitt. naturh. Mus. Hamburg 23 : 160 (type
genus : Hypogastrura Bourlet, 1839, treated incorrectly as having Achorutes
viaticus Tullberg, 1872, as type species)

NEOGASTRURIDAE Stach, 1949, Apterygotan Faun. Poland, Fam. Neogastruridae
Brachystomellidae (Act. Mon. Mus. Hist. nat. Krakow): 5 (type genus:
Neogastrura Stach, 1949)

NEANURINAE Borner, June 1901, Zool. Anz. 24 : 431 (type genus: Neanura
MacGillivray, 1893, treated incorrectly as having Achorutes muscorum
Templeton, 1835, as type species)

NEANURINI Borner, October 1901, Abh. naturw. Ver. Bremen 17 : 33 (type
genus : Neanura MacGillivray, 1893, treated incorrectly as having Achorutes
muscorum Templeton, 1835, as type species)

12. Having completed the review of the complicated history of the names
which form the subject of the present application, I submit as follows for the
consideration of the International Commission particulars of the action needed
to give effect to the proposed settlement now recommended, namely, that the
Commission should :—

(1) use its Plenary Powers :—

(a) to suppress the under-mentioned names for the purposes of the
Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy :—

(i) the generic name Achorutes Templeton, 1835 ;
(ii) the generic name Rathumoutes Templeton, 1843 ;

(iii) the specific name murorum Bourlet, 1843, as published in
the combination Hypogasirura murorum ;

(b) to set aside all designations, indications or selections of type species
for the under-mentioned nominal genera made prior to the present
Ruling and to designate as the type species of those genera the
nominal species severally specified below :—

(i) Achorutes viaticus Tullberg, 1872, to be the type species of
Hypogastrura Bourlet, 1839 ;

(ii) Achorutes muscorum Templeton, 1835, to be the type species
of Neanura MacGillivray, 1893 ;

(2) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology :—

(a) Hypogastrura Bourlet, 1839 (gender: feminine) (type species, by
designation under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b)(i) above:
Achorutes viaticus Tullberg, 1872) ;

ee ee Or?
:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47

(b) Neanura MacGillivray, 1893 (gender: feminine) (type species, by
designation under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b)(ii) above :
Achorutes muscorum Templeton, 1835)

(3) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—

(a) the generic names Achorutes Templeton, 1835, and Rathumoutes
Templeton, 1843, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers
under (1)(a)(i) and (1)(a)(ii) above respectively ;

(b) Achoreutes Templeton, 1843 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling
of Achorutes Templeton, 1835) ;

(c) Biloba Stach, 1949 (a junior objective synonym of Neanura
MacGillivray, 1893) ;

(d) Anoura Gervais, 1843 (a junior homonym of Anoura Gray (J.E.),
1838) ;

(e) Anura Agassiz, 1846 (a junior homonym of Anwra Hodgson, 1841) ;

(f) Neogastrura Stach, 1949 (a junior objective synonym of Hypo-
gastrura Bourlet, 1839, as defined under the Plenary Powers
under (1)(b)(i) above) ;

(4) place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology :—

(a) muscorum Templeton, 1835, as published in the combination
Achorutes muscorum (specific name of type species, by designa-
tion under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b)(ii) above, of Neanura
MacGillivray, 1893) ;

(b) viaticus Tullberg, 1872, as published in the combination Achorutes
viaticus (specific name of type species, by designation under the
Plenary Powers under (1)(b)(i) above, of Hypogastrura Bourlet,
1839) ;

(5) place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :—murorum Bourlet, 1843, as
published in the combination Hypogastrura murorum and as suppressed
under the Plenary Powers under (1)(a)(iii) above ;

(6) place the under-mentioned family-group names on the Official List of
Family-Group Names in Zoology :—

(a) HYPOGASTRURINAE Borner, 1906 (type genus: Hypogastrura
Bourlet, 1839)

(b) NEANURINAE Borner, June 1901 (type genus: Neanura Mac-
Gillivray, 1893) ;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(7) place the under-mentioned family-group names on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :—

(a) ACHORUTINI Borner, 1901 (type genus Achorutes Templeton, 1835,
treated incorrectly as having Achorutes viaticus Tullberg, 1872
as type species) (a family-group name based on a generic name
suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes of the
Law of Priority) ;

(b) ACHORUTINAE Borner, 1906 (type genus: Achorutes Templeton,
1835, treated correctly as having Achorutes muscorum Templeton,
1835 as type species) (a family-group name based on a generic
name suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes of
the Law of Priority) ;

(c) BILOBIDAE Stach, 1951 (type genus: Biloba Stach, 1949) (invalid
because the name of the type genus is a junior objective synonym
of Neanura MacGillivray, 1893, as defined under the Plenary
Powers under (1)(b)(ii) above, the name of a nominal genus
which is the type genus of the family-group NEANURINAE Borner,
June 1901) ;

(d) NEANURINI Borner, October 1901 (type genus: Neanura Mac-
Gillivray, 1893) (a junior homonym of NEANURINAE Borner,
June 1901, a family-group name having the same genus as type
genus) ;

(e) NEOGASTRURIDAE Stach, 1949 (type genus: Neogastrura Stach,
1949) (invalid because the name of the type genus is a junior
objective synonym of Hypogastrura Bourlet, 1839, as defined
under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b)(i) above, the name of
a nominal genus which is the type species of the family-group
HYPOGASTRURINAE Borner, 1906).

_ description
it fails to satisfy the requirements of Proviso (a) to Article 25, as interpreted

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE
GENERIC NAME “CRENOPHILUS’? AS FROM D’ORCHYMONT,
1942, TO PRESERVE THE NAMES “ ANACAENA” THOMSON,
1859, AND “ PARACYMUS ”? THOMSON, 1867, FOR USE IN THEIR
ACCUSTOMED SENSE AND TO VALIDATE THE SPECIFIC NAME
“AENEAS ” GERMAR, 1824, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINA-
TION “HYDROPHILUS AENEUS” (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER
COLEOPTERA)

By J. BALFOUR-BROWNE, M.A.
(British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.) 752)

The purpose of the present application is to invite the International
Commission to use its Plenary Powers to prevent the confusion which would
otherwise arise in the case of the under-mentioned generic names in the Order
Coleoptera (Class Insecta) as the result of the liberalisation of the provisions
of Proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Régles by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 80) :—(1)
Anacaena Thomson, 1859; (2) Paracymus Thomson, 1867; (3) Crenophilus
d@Orchymont, 1942. The facts of this case are set out in the following para-
graphs. ,

2. In 1845 (Bull. Soc. imp. Sci. nat. St. Pétersb. 18(i) : 32) Motschulsky
established a genus under the name Cryniphilus “ for the small Hydrophilidae
such as H. limbatus F., H. punctulatus Ullrich (= Sturm) which do not fall into
any of the genera proposed by Erichson (in 1837, Kdf. Mk. Brand.1)”. Since
this nominal genus was established without an “indication, definition or
” in words and without a designated or indicated type species,

by the Commission’s Opinion 1, and was accordingly no more than a nomen
nudum up to the time of the decision by the Paris (1948) Congress referred to
above.

3. In the same volume as that in which the name Cryniphilus was first

4 published (Errata slip opposite to page 548) Motschulsky emended the spelling

of this generic name to Creniphilus. Under the clarification of Article 19
carried out by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen,

_ 1953, the emendation Creniphilus is a Valid Emendation and Cryniphilus

becomes an Invalid Original Spelling (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl.

_ : 44, Decision 71(1)(b) and 71(2)(a)(i)).

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 2. January 1955

50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

4. In 1846 (Nomencel. zool. Index univ. : 103) Agassiz (J.L.R.) published the
further emendation Crenophilus for Motschulsky’s generic name Cryniphilus.
Two years later the same author re-published this emendation (1848, Nomencl.
zool. Index univ. : 299). Since, as shown in paragraph 2 above, the name
Cryniphilus Motschulsky, 1845, was a name which, under the Régles as they
existed up to 1948, was a nomen nudum, so also during that period was Agassiz’s
emendation Crenophilus. This emendation has been completely overlooked
by later workers, but for the reason just explained, this was of no consequence
up to 1948. As will be seen below (paragraph 10), Agassiz’s action became of
importance as soon as the Paris (1948) Congress amended the provisions of
Proviso (a) to Article 25.

5. In 1859 (Skand. Coleopt. 1 : 18) Thomson, either being unaware of, or
deliberately ignoring, Motschulsky’s generic name Creniphilus (emend. of
Cryniphilus), established a new nominal genus Anacaena for the single species
Hydrophilus globulus Paykull (G. von), [1798] (Fauna svec., Ins. 1 : 188).
Again, in 1867 (Skand. Coleopt. 9 : 119) Thomson ignored the name proposed
by Motschulsky and established the new nominal genus Paracymus for the single
species Hydrophilus aeneus Germar, 1824 (Ins. Spec. nov. 1 : 96). The former
of these species is today accepted as being congeneric with Sphaeridium limbatum
Fabricius, 1792 (Ent. syst. 1 : 82) (the first of the species placed by Motschulsky
in the genus Creniphilus), while the latter is considered to be the same
species as Hydrobius punctulatus (Ullrich MS.) Sturm, 1836 (Deutschlands
Fauna, Ins. 10:15, pl. 217, fig. cC), the second of the species cited by
Motschulsky.

6. Des Gozis (1881, Ann. Soc. ent. France (6) 1: Bull. exxv), without
giving any reasons, stated categorically that “‘ Creniphilus, founded by
Motschulsky, 1845, is identical with Anacaena Thomson and the earlier name
is to be preferred ’’. This statment cannot be regarded as having provided the
name Creniphilus Motschulsky with an “indication ’’, and, in consequence,
that name as at that date was still a nomen nudum under the Régles as they
existed up to 1948.

7. In 1890 (Trans. amer. ent. Soc. 17 : 262, 265) Horn did not differentiate
between Anacaena Thomson and Paracymus Thomson and _ expressly
synonymised both these names with Creniphilus Motschulsky, 1845. In this
paper Horn placed a number of species in Creniphilus Motschulsky, among them
being Hydrobius rufiventris Horn, 1873 (Proc. amer. phil. Soc. 13 ; 135). Horn’s
paper is of importance, in that it was the first paper in which any author
provided an “indication” in words for Motschulsky’s genus Creniphilus.
Accordingly, under the Régles as they existed up to 1948, the name
Creniphilus ranked for priority as from Horn, 1890.

8. Both Wickham (1895, Canad. Ent. 27 : 214), who misspelled this generic
name Crenephilus, and Blatchley (1911, Bull. Indiana Dep. Geol. nat. Resources

a

el le

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51

No. 1, 1910 : 258, 264) followed Horn, attributing Creniphilus to Motschulsky.
After the second of these papers, this generic name fell into desuetude, and was
never used.

9. The subject was next dealt with in 1942 (Wém. Mus. roy. Hist. nat.
Belg. (2) 27 : 28) by d’Orchymont in a revision of the subtribe HYDROBIINAE.
In this revision d’Orchymont regarded Creniphilus Motschulsky as a nomen
nudum and accepted that name as from Horn, 1890 (paragraph 7 above), in
both of which actions he was perfectly justified under the Régles as they then
existed. He accepted both Anacaena Thomson, 1859, and Paracymus Thomson,
1867, as validly established genera of good standing. He accepted also the
name Crenitis Bedel, 1881 (Faune Coléopt. Bassin Seine 1 : 306, nota) for
Hydrobius punctatostriatus Letzner, [1841] (Uebers. Arb. schles. Ges. 1840 : 81),
which is the type species, by monotypy, of Crenitis Bedel, and was one of the
species placed by Horn (1890) in the genus Creniphilus. For the two remaining
species placed in that genus by Horn d’Orchymont retained the genus Crent-
plilus which he attributed to Horn (1890) and the spelling of which he emended
on philological grounds to Crenophilus. For the genus Crenophilus (emend. of
Creniphilus) Horn, 1890, so defined, d’Orchymont selected Hydrobius digestus
Leconte, 1855, as type species. The genus so defined by d’Orchymont has been
generally accepted, but its type species, Hydrobius digestus Leconte is very
close to Hydrobius punctatostriatus Letzer, the type species of Crenitis Bedel,
1881, and, as some workers hold, may even be congeneric with that species.
Thus, the generic name Crenophilus, as defined by d’Orchymont, is not securely
based, being liable to be sunk on taxonomic grounds as a junior subjective
synonym of Crenitis Bedel. From this point of view it is unfortunate that

_ @Orchymont did not select Hydrobius rufiventris Horn, 1873, to be the type

species of Crenophilus, for in that event the genus so named would have
possessed a secure taxonomic foundation.

10. The amendment of Proviso (a) to Article 25 made by the Paris (1948)
Congress had a threefold effect on the present case : First, the name Creniphilus
(emend. of Cryniphilus) Motschulsky, 1845, ceased to be a nomen nudum and
became an available name. Second, the hitherto available name Creniphilus
Horn, 1890, ceased to have a separate existence of its own, being no more than
a subsequent usage of Creniphilus Motschulsky, 1845. Third, the name
Crenophilus, as used by d’Orchymont in 1942, became invalid as a junior
homonym of the emendation Crenophilus Agassiz, 1846, this latter name
ceasing to be a nomen nudum on the acquisition of availability by the name
Creniphilus Motschulsky, 1845. If d’Orchymont had used exactly the same
spelling (Creniphilus) as that employed by Horn (1890), to whom he attributed
the name, his Crenophilus would have ceased to possess a separate nomen-
clatorial status and his selection of Hydobius digestus Leconte as type species
would automatically have fallen to the ground. In this case, however, the

_ Situation was complicated by the fact that d’Orchymont used for this name

a spelling (Crenophilus) different from the spelling (Creniphilus) used by

52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Motschulsky and later by Horn. The status and interpretation of emendations
such as that of d’Orchymont remained obscure at the close of the Paris (1948)
Congress, by which body the whole question of the interpretation of Article 19
(Law of Emendation) was reserved for consideration by the next (Copenhagen)
Congress. At its meeting at Copenhagen in 1953 the Fourteenth International
Congress of Zoology carried out a complete revision of Article 19 (1953,
Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 43—46), which cleared up completely
all doubts in the present case. Under the decisions so taken we find (1) that
Motschulsky’s own emendation of Cryniphilus to Creniphilus, being an emenda-
tion made in the same book as that in which the name Cryniphilus was
originally published, is a Valid Emendation, but (2) that both the emendation
Crenophilus Agassiz, 1846, and the independently published emendation
Crenophilus d’ Orchymont, 1942, being emendations not based upon information
contained in the original paper by Motschulsky and having been published
subsequent to that paper, are Invalid Emendations (Decision 71 on pages 43
and 44 of the work cited above). Further, under Decision 73(3) of the Copen-
hagen Congress (ibid. : 45) an Invalid Emendation—such as are Crenophilus
Agassiz, 1846, and Crenophilus d’Orchymont, 1942—(a) possesses status in
nomenclature as a separate name with its own author and date, and (b) is
a junior objective synonym of the name which it replaces. Accordingly,
whatever species becomes the type species of Creniphilus (emend. of Cryni-
philus) Motschulsky, 1845—no species has yet been selected for it since its
validation through the amendment of Article 25 by the Paris (1948) Congress—
is also the type species of Crenophilus d’Orchymont, 1942.

11. Thus, if the amendment by the Paris (1948) Congress were to be applied
to the present case, the effect would be (1) the revival of the name Creniphilus
Motschulsky, 1845, and, depending on the type species to be selected for that
genus, the replacement by it either of Anacaena Thomson, 1859, which has
been in uninterrupted use for 95 years or of Paracymus Thomson, 1867, which
has been in uninterrupted use for 87 years; (2) the use for one or other of
the above genera of a name (Creniphilus) which is confusingly near the name
(Crenophilus) currently used for a different, though allied, genus ; (3) the need
for a new name for the genus now known as Crenophilus Horn, 1890. These
chanyes would undoubtedly lead to considerable confusion in the nomenclature
of the group concerned and far from promoting universality in nomenclature
(one of the primary objects of the Régles, as prescribed by the Copenhagen
(1953) Congress (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 22, Decision 19)),
would certainly lead to disagreement and lack of uniformity.

12. The object of the proposals which have been drawn up for the con-
sideration of the International Commission is to prevent the appalling confusion
which would result from the strict application of the normal rules in the present
case and generally to promote stability for the nomenclature of the group.
A preliminary word is needed in regard to the proposals relating to the name
Crenophilus, which it is recommended should be validated under the Plenary

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53

Powers as from d’Orchymont, 1942. It will be recalled (paragraph 10) that,
as matters now stand (a) this name is an invalid junior homonym of Crenophilus
Agassiz, 1846, (b) no valid type selection has as yet been made for this genus
and (c) the only species which are eligible for selection as type species are the
wholly unsuitable species cited by Motschulsky in 1845 for his genus Crynt-
philus. In order, therefore, to preserve the name Crenophilus d’Orchymont
for use in its accustomed sense, it will in any case be necessary for the Com-
mission to use its Plenary Powers to designate a suitable species as type species.
For the reasons explained in paragraph 9 above, the species Hydrobius digestus
Leconte, which d’Orchymont regarded as the type species of Crenophilus,
is not considered to have been a happy choice, and it is accordingly proposed
that the species now to be designated as the type species of this genus should
be Hydrobius rufiventris Horn, 1873, the designation of which would serve
better to give a solid taxonomic basis for current usage.

13. At this point it is necessary to draw attention to a problem which arises
in connection with the name of the type species of the genus Paracymus
Thomson, 1807. Hydrophilus aeneus Germar, 1824, the species concerned,
is very well known and it has been consistently known in the literature by the
name aeneus Germar for the last one hundred and thirty years. Nevertheless,
it is, in fact, an invalid name, being a junior primary homonym of Hydrophilus
aeneus DeGeer, 1774 (Mém. Hist. Ins. & : 379, pl. 15, figs. 5—7). This name
was apparently intended by DeGeer to be a substitute name for Silpha aquatica
Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 362). So far as is known, this name was
used only on one subsequent occasion, namely in the German edition by Goeze
in 1781 (Abhande Ges. Ins. & : 218, pl. 15, figs. 5—-7). Ever since then this name
when cited has been treated as a junior objective synonym of Helophorus
aquaticus (Linnaeus, 1758). The fact that it is also a senior primary homonym
of Hydrophilus aeneus Germar, 1824, has been completely overlooked. It
would clearly be most undesirable that this discovery should be permitted
to upset a name which, as already noted, has been in continuous use for more
than a century and a quarter in favour of a name which has not been used for
173 years and which is moreover a junior objective synonym of another name.
For these reasons the International Commission is asked, in the interests of

_ nomenclatorial stability, to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the specific

name aeneus DeGeer, 1774, as published in the combination Hydrophilus aeneus,
for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy,
and, having done so, to place this name on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. It would be convenient at the same time to
place on this Index the specific name aeneus Dejean, 1821 (Cat. Coll. Coléopt.
Dejean : 51), as published in the combination Hydrophilus aeneus, which is
invalid by reason of being a nomen nudum.

14. None of the generic names discussed in the present application has been
taken as the base of a family-group name. Accordingly, no question arises

54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

in this case of placing any names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in
Zoology.

15. In order to avoid the undesirable results described in the preceding
paragraphs, I now ask the International Commission :—

(1) to use its Plenary Powers :—

(a) to suppress the generic name Creniphilus Motschulsky, 1845 (a
Valid Emendation of Cryniphilus) for the purposes of the Law
of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ;

(b) to suppress the under-mentioned generic names for the purposes
both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy :—

(i) Crenophilus Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1846 (a name which, as an
Invalid Emendation, would preoccupy later uses of the
generic name Crenophilus) :

(ii) Crenophilus Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1848 (a name which, as an
Invalid Emendation, would preoccupy later usages of
the name Crenophilus, after the suppression (as proposed
above) of Crenophilus Agassiz, 1846) ;

(iii) Crenophilus, any uses of, subsequent to Agassiz (1848)
and prior to d’Orchymont (1942) ;

(c) to validate Crenophilus as a generic name as from d’Orchymont
(1942, Mém. Mus. roy. Hist. nat. Belg. (2) 27 : 28) and to
designate Hydrobius rufiventris Horn, 1873, to be the type
species of that genus ;

(d) to suppress the specific name aeneus DeGeer, 1774, as published
in the combination Hydrophilus aeneus, for the purposes both
of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology :—

(a) Anacaena Thomson, 1859 (gender: feminine) (type species, by
monotypy : Hydrophilus globulus Paykull (G. von), [1798]) ;

(b) Crenitis Bedel, 1881 (gender : masculine) (type species, by mono-
typy : Hydrobius punctatostriatus Letzner, [1841)) ;

(c) Crenophilus d’Orchymont, 1942, as validated under the Plenary
Powers under (1)(c) above (gender: masculine) (type species,
by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1)(c) above:
Hydrobius rufiventris Horn, 1873) ;

(d) Paracymus Thomson, 1867 (gender: masculine) (type species, by
monotypy : Hydrophilus aeneus Germar, 1824) ;

KK ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55

(3) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology :—

(a) aeneus Germar, 1824, as published in the combination Hydrophilus
aeneus (specific name of type species of Paracymus Thomson,
1867) ;

(b) globulus Paykull (G. von), [1798], as published in the combination

Hydrophilus globulus (specific name of type species of Anacaena
Thomson, 1859) ;

(c) punctatostriatus Letzner, [1841], as published in the combination
Hydrobius punctato-striatus (specific name of type species of
Crenitis Bedel, 1881) ;

(d) rufiventris Horn, 1873, as published in the combination Hydro-
bus rufiventris (specific name of type species of Crenophilus
d’Orchymont, 1942) ;

(4) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—

(a) Crenephilus Wickham, 1895 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling
for Creniphilus (emend. of Cryniphilus) Motschulsky, 1845) ;

(b) Creniphilus (emend. of Cryniphilus) Motschulsky, 1845 (as
suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1)(a) above) ;

(c) The under-mentioned names as suppressed under (1)(b) above :—
(i) Crenophilus Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1846 ;
(ii) Crenophilus Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1848 ;
(iii) Crenophilus, any uses of, subsequent to Agassiz (1848) and
prior to d’Orchymont (1942) ;

(d) Cryniphilus Motschulsky, 1845 (an Invalid Original Spelling for
Creniphilus) ;

(5) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :—

(a) aeneus DeGeer, 1774, as published in the combination Hydro-
philus aeneus and as suppressed under the Plenary Powers
under (1)(d) above ;

(b) aeneus Dejean, 1821, as published in the combination Hydro-
philus aeneus (a nomen nudum).

56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF THE AUTHORSHIP TO BE

ATTRIBUTED TO THE CATALOGUE PUBLISHED ANONYMOUSLY

IN 1798 UNDER THE TITLE “MUSEUM BOLTENIANUM ”
(PROBLEM SUPPLEMENTARY TO “ OPINION ”’ 96)

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.) 866)

The active steps now being taken to prepare the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology (and also the other Official Lists and the Official Indexes)
for publication in book form have brought to light inconsistencies in the treat-
ment accorded to various books in some of the older entries on the List. Most
of these present no real difficulty, but some are of a nature which, in my view,
calls for a further decision by the International Commission. The present
note, which is concerned with the authorship of the anonymously published
catalogue entitled the Museum Boltenianum which appeared in 1798, is one of
these cases.

2. As the title suggests, the Musewm Boltenianum is a catalogue of the
collection formed by J. F. Bolten. It was prepared for publication by
P. F. Réding. This work contains many new names, and the question which
calls for decision is whether those names should be attributed to Bolten or to
Réding.

3. The question whether the Museum Boltenianum should be accepted
as having been duly published for the purposes of Article 25 of the Régles
was submitted to the Commission some thirty years ago by Dr. Tate Regan
(British Museum (Natural History), London), and in Opinion 96 (published in
1926, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 4) : 16—18) the Commission ruled in favour
of the availability of this work. In that Opinion the Commission gave no
indication, however, of its view as to the authorship to be attributed to this
work.

4, I discussed this question with Mr. R. Winckworth (London) some years
before his death, knowing that he possessed an exceptionally wide and detailed
knowledge of the older literature of his subject. The view which he took
was that the new names in the Musewm Boltenianum were Bolten’s names,
that the “ indications” given for those names were provided by Réding and
therefore that Roding and not Bolten should, under the Régles, be regarded
as the author of the new names in this book. Not long after this discussion,
Mr. Winckworth published a short note setting out the above views (Winck-
worth, 1945, Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 26 : 136).

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 2. January 1955.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 57

5. In anticipation of making the present application, I recently applied
for advice to Dr. L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London), whose
work also, as I knew, brought him into contact with the Musewm Boltenianum.
Dr. Cox at once agreed that a decision on the authorship to be attributed to
this work was overdue, and kindly undertook to write to me as soon as he had
examined the literature relating to this subject. In an interesting letter dated
26th October 1954 (which is being published simultaneously with the present
application)? Dr. Cox gives what I consider to be very convincing reasons for
accepting Réding as the author, for the purposes of zoological nomenclature,
of the new names in the Museum Boltenianum.

6. Bolten was undoubtedly the author of the names in question, but it
appears to me to be clear from the information furnished by Mr. Winckworth
and Dr. Cox that it was Réding alone who supplied the “ indications ”’ for these
names. On this view, these names should be regarded as manuscript names
of Bolten’s validated by being published with indications by Roding. As such,
these names are attributable to Réding, whose action alone gave them the status
of availability under the Régles (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 259—260).

7. I accordingly recommend that Roding should be accepted as the author
of the Museum Boltenianum. I recommend also that the present opportunity
should be taken to place the title of the above work on the Official List of
Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature (1953, Copenhagen
Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 24, Decision 24), a step which will in any case need
to be taken at some time in pursuance of the General Directive issued by the
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, that decisions taken
in Opinions previously rendered be transferred to the appropriate Schedules
to the Régles (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 340).

8. The proposals now submitted are therefore that the International Com-
mission should :—

(1) give a Ruling that the authorship of the work published anonymously
in 1798 under the title Museum Boltenianum be attributed to Peter
Friedrich Roding ;

(2) place the title of the foregoing work, with the authorship attributed as
directed in (1) above, on the Official List of Works Approved as Avail-
able for Zoological Nomenclature (codification of Ruling given in
Opinion 96).

58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE WORK ENTITLED “ MUSEUM
BOLTENIANUM ”’ PUBLISHED ANONYMOUSLY IN 1798

By L. R. COX, Sc.D., F.R.S.
(British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.) 866)

(Letter dated 26th October 1954)

(For the application submitted to the International Commission
on the above subject see pages 56—57 of the present volume)

The position seems to be that J. F. Bolten built up a large collection which
he arranged systematically in accordance with a new scheme of classification of his
own, assigning to each species a binominal Latin name and a vernacular German
name. There is no evidence that he contemplated any sort of publication, but
we are told (p. iii. of the Musewm Boltenianum) that there was a “‘systematic
catalogue of the collection which had been prepared with the greatest accuracy
and care by its late possessor ” [translation from the Latin]. On his death it was
desired to sell the collection, and P. F. Réding took the catalogue and added to
each species any references to figures in earlier literature which he could trace
and a reference to the name assigned to the species in the 13th (Gmelin’s) edition of
Linnaeus, if it was there listed. All this is explained by Réding in his “ Vorrede ”
to the Museum Boltenianum (pp. vii—viii), an English translation of which has been
published by W. H. Dall (1915, Smithson. Publ. 2360 : 9).

R. Winckworth (1945, Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 26 : 136) has discussed the
question of the authorship of the work as follows :

“The names are often attributed to Bolten, as the originator. But his
manuscript catalogue contained only Latin names with German vernacular
equivalents. It was not until the catalogue was published ‘revised and
enlarged by the addition of synonymy by Peter Friedrich Roeding, a man
devoted to natural history and especially to conchology ’, as the Abbé Lichten-
stein records in the preface, that the names became available. Roeding in the
introduction says : ‘On account of my love for natural history-I accepted the
labour and have added the Latin names according to the 13th Edition of
Gmelin’s Linnean System, as well as many references to figures of the speci-
mens. In many cases this had to be left undone because no figures were found
to be satisfactory.’ It seems to me clear that the author should be cited as
Réding ex Bolten MS., or more concisely as Réding. Iredale, however, takes
the view that ‘ Bolten was the author of the genera and nominator of the

299

species ’.

The practice by the earlier authors (such as Dall) who accepted the Museum
Boltenianum was to attribute the generic and specific names to Bolten. Nowadays,
however, almost every author known to me attributes them either to Réding or |
to “‘ Réding ex Bolten MS.”’.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59

REQUEST FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE GENERIC NAME
“ JUMALA”’ FRIELE, 1882 (CLASS GASTROPODA) ON THE
GROUND THAT IT CONSISTS OF A WORD, THE USE
OF WHICH AS SUCH IS CALCULATED TO GIVE
OFFENCE ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS

By JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jzr.,
(San Diego, California, U.S.A.)

(Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.) 307)

The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission
to suppress the generic name Jumala Friele, 1882, on the ground that this word,
being the Lapp word for the Christian God, is calculated to give offence on
religious grounds.

2. This name was proposed in good faith by Friele in “ Norwegian North
Atlantic Expedition ’’, vol. 1, p.6. In 1893 this name was, at Friele’s request,
replaced in a paper by Norman who published the name Ukko as a substitute
(Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6) 12 : 352).

3. Under a strict application of the Régles a name once published cannot
be rejected, no matter how inappropriate it may be, even by the author himself.
That Jumala has legal priority there can be no doubt whatever, but in this case
it appears that Friele had a good reason for wishing to withdraw the earlier
name. Friele did not know when he selected this word for his generic name
that it was the name of the Creator in the language of the Lapps.

4. The use of such a name in zoological nomenclature is a painful shock
tome. I cannot conceive that the Commission would accept a generic name
consisting of the word Jehovah, and the fact that the language of the Lapps
is not commonly understood by scientific men is to my mind no reason for
letting the name Jumala stand.

5. If the name Jumala is suppressed for this genus of rachiglossate Gastro-
poda, there is another available name older than Ukko Nornian, and that is
Beringius Dall, 1886 (not 1877, as sometimes cited). Some authorities believe
that the type species of Beringius and Ukko are congeneric and synonymize
the two names; others believe that Ukko is at least subgenerically distinct
and use it as the name for a subgenus under Beringius, while still others believe
that the two type species have distinct generic affiliations. But such matters
are only of taxonomic interest and have no nomenclatorial significance.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 2. January 1955.

60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

6. The present application was originally submitted to the Commission
in May 1947, that is, before the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology
imposed the duty on the Commission (1) of placing on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology the valid name for any genus, whenever some older
name for that genus is suppressed under the Plenary Powers, and (2) of putting
on the various Official Lists and Official Indexes—of which the Official List of
Generic Names was the only one in existence prior to 1948—every name which
it accepts as valid or rejects as invalid in any of its Opinions. In the altered
circumstances I have revised the present application in order to bring it into
line with the requirements prescribed by the International Congress. I
accordingly now ask the Commission (1) to suppress, as a name calculated to
give offence on religious grounds, the name Jumala Friele, 1882, for the purposes
of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to
place the foregoing name, so suppressed, on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology the generic name Beringius Dall, 1886 (gender : masculine)
(type species, by monotypy: Chrysodomus crebricostatus Dall, 1877); (4) to
place the specific name crebricostatus Dall, 1877, as published in the combination
Chrysodomus crebricostatus (specific name of type species of Beringius Dall,
1886) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

7. May I add that it was with the greatest satisfaction that I learnt of the
decision of the Paris Congress to provide means for the rejection of zoological
names calculated to give offence on religious grounds (1950, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 4 : 193—194), a decision which fully endorsed the stand taken on
the question of principle in the present application. I feel sure that the decision
by the Congress to ban the use of such names will give wide and deepfelt
satisfaction among zoologists generally.

ee eee ees

~

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61

REQUEST FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE GENERIC NAME “ JUMALA”’
FRIELE, 1882 (CLASS GASTROPODA) AS A NAME CALCULATED
TO GIVE OFFENCE ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS

By A. MYRA KEEN
(Stanford University, California)

(Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.) 307)

The object of the present petition is to show that Jumala Friele, 1882,
comes within the scope of the decision taken by the International Congress
of Zoology on the recommendation by the Commission (1950, Bull. zool.
Nomencel. 4 : 193—194) that :—

The use for a generic or subgeneric name . . . of a word . . . which can
reasonably be regarded, in any langugage, as calculated to give offence
on political, religious or personal grounds is prohibited . . .

It shall be open to any person . . . of the opinion that a given name
has been published in contravention of the provisions of the present Article
to refer the question to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, and it shall be the duty of the said Commission promptly to consider
every case so submitted to it, and, if satisfied that the submission is well-
grounded, to order the name concerned to be suppressed.

2. The name Jumala was proposed by Friele (Norske Nordhavs-Expd.,
Zoologi [Norwegian North Atlantic Expedition, 1876—78] 3(8) : 6) for certain
boreal whelks with a peculiar radular structure (type species, Fusus turtoni
Bean, 1834, Mag. nat. Hist. 7 : 493). He stated that he had chosen the name
as being that “ of a Lapp deity’. Later, Friele realised that this was not, as
he had apparently supposed, a pagan name, but the Lapp (i.e., the Finnish)
word for the Christian Deity. Through a colleague he asked that the name be
withdrawn and replaced by Ukko Friele in Norman, 1893 (Ann. Mag. nat.
Hist. (6) 12 : 352). However, this replacement was needless, for by then
another name, Beringius Dall, had been introduced for a North Pacific gastropod
having the same structural peculiarity. The date of Beringius presents
something of a problem, however.

3. In the two most recent complete compilations of generic names (Schulze,
Kikenthal, and Heider, 1926, Nomenclator Animalium Generum et Subgenerum ;
and Neave, 1939, Nomenclator Zoologicus), the name Beringius Dall is cited as
follows: ‘‘ Dall, 1879. Sci. Res. Explor. Alaska (Buccin.) expl. pl. 2, fig. 1”’.
Of this reference Dall himself has said (Dall, 1886, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus.
9 : 304) :—

In 1879 there were distributed to all persons known to be interested in
northern mollusks a set of plates belonging to my report (unavoidably

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 2. January 1955.

62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

delayed in MSS.) on the Buccinidae of the Alaskan fauna, some fifty copies
in all, properly lettered with the name of the species by the engraver. I
had found on dissection that the rhachidian tooth of the radula in
Chrysodomus crebricostatus Dall (1877) was smooth and flat... , and
intercalated in the legend of the plate the subgeneric name Beringius
for this species ... Subsequently my friend, Mr. Friele . . . discovered the
same peculiarity in Fusus turtoni, which he accordingly separated under the
name of Jumala.

Now, I am far from claiming that if the other characters coincide,
Beringius should take precedence of Jumala; on the contrary, I believe
it should not, and that Mr. Friele’s name should stand.

4 Thus in 1886, while not arguing for the priority of Beringius, Dall
nevertheless validly introduced it with a brief description and designation of a
type species. Later, when the unfortunate denotation of Jumala became
known, he reversed his opinion and recommended adoption of the earlier
dating of Beringius as of 1879. He suggested this in 1895 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus.
17 : 710) not so much to establish priority for his own generic name as to
provide a convenient and quasi-legal means of removing an offensive name from
usage. The reference as cited by him at that time—‘ Sci. Res. Expl. Alaska,
1879, pl. II, legend ’’—has been accepted in goed faith not only by the compilers
of the two nomenclators mentioned above but also by numerous authors (see,
for example, Thiele’s monumental ‘‘ Handbuch der Systematischen Weichtier-
kunde”’, Teil 1 : 306, 1929), although it is not listed in the ‘“ Bibliography
and short biographical sketch of William Healey Dall” of Bartsch, Rehder,
and Shields (1946, Smithsonian misc. Coll. 104).

5. In the passage published in 1886 quoted in paragraph 3 above Dall
referred to the delay which had occurred in the publication of the text of his
account of the Buccinidae of the Alaskan fauna on one of the plates for which,
distributed in 1879, the generic name Beringius first appeared. The
“ Scientific Results of the Exploration by the parties under the charge of
W. H. Dall during the years 1865—1874’’, volume 2 of which was designed
for the publication of Dall’s paper on the Buccinidae is stated by one compiler
to be “A uniformly paged reprint of papers by Dall and others on various
topics’. Dall himself cited the date 1876—1879. In the five papers of this
series in the Stanford library the above title is carried as a running title on the
reprints. These papers are not bound together as a volume but their dates
embrace those (1876—1879) cited by Dall. Hence, I assume that volume 2
was a project not realised except for the issuance of the finished plates for
Dall’s paper on the Buccinidae. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact
that the Catalogue of Books and Maps in the British Museum (Natural History)
(1 : 415), while giving particulars of the six papers published as “ Vol. 1”,
carries no suggestion that a second volume was ever published. The list
of papers given for ‘‘ Vol. 1” includes none on Buccinidae.

aS SS es ee Pe. “7

ee =

—

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63

6. A word of explanation is necessary as to the original reference for the
nominal species Chrysodomus crebricostatus Dall which is the type species of
Beringius Dall, whether that generic name is accepted as from the legend on
the plate distributed in 1879 or from the publication of that name in Dall’s
paper of 1886 (quoted in paragraph 3 above). Dall himself stated that the
original reference for the foregoing name was Proceedings of the California
Academy of Sciences, vol. 7, p. 6, “‘ extras March 19, 1877”. In the Dall
bibliography of Bartsch, Rehder & Shields (referred to in paragraph 4 above)
the statement is made that the paper in which the description of this species
appeared was “published as a Separate from Proc. California Acad. Sci.,
pp. 1—6, Mar. 19. (Vol. 7 of Proceedings never appeared.) ”’. An author’s
reprint in the Stanford Library is headed “ From the Proceedings of the
California Academy of Sciences, March 17, 1877” and is paged 1—6, the
description of Chrysodomus crebricostatus appearing on page 1. A copy of
Volume 7 of the Proceedings, also in the Stanford Library, is dated as closing
in 1876 and contains no such paper by Dall. Hence, I think we must conclude
that contrary to Dall’s assertion, volume 7 of the Proceedings of the California
Academy is not a correct reference but rather that we must treat the foregoing
name as having been published in 1877 in a pamphlet by Dall entitled
“ Preliminary Descriptions of New Species of Mollusks from the Northwest
Coast of America” which was prepared as a preprint of a paper destined for,
but never actually published in, the Proceedings of the California Academy of

Sciences, and that the page to which the name should be attributed is page 1,
not page 6 as stated by Dall.

7. In recent years a few workers, aware of the doubtful status of Beringius
Dall, 1879, and unimpressed by the fact that Jumala is currently used among the
Christian Finns as the name of the Deity, have readopted Jumala Friele, 1882,
as prior to Beringius Dall, 1886.

_ 8. Neither the name Jumala Friele, 1882, nor the name Beringius Dall,
1886, has been taken as the base of a family-group name. Accordingly, no
problem arises in the present case in connection with the Official List of Family-

Group Names in Zoology.

9. If, as I hope, the International Commission agrees. to suppress the
generic name Jumala Friele, the question discussed above will become one of

_ practical importance, since the name Beringius Dall will then become the oldest

available name for this genus of whelk, and it will become essential to know
whether this name should be attributed to Dall, 1879, or to Dall, 1886. It
might perhaps be argued that this name was validly published in 1879 in that

__ Dall implied, in the discussion quoted above, that copies of the plates illustrating

4 his paper were made available to members of the interested public and were

64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

not merely issued, as the critics of this view have averred, to his personal
friends. On the whole, it appears to me that such an argument would be
unduly casuistical and would involve a strained interpretation of the provisions
of Article 25 relating to “ publication”’. Accordingly, it is suggested that the
Commission should rule that the distribution in 1879 of copies of the plates
prepared to illustrate Dall’s projected paper on the Buccinidae did not con-
stitute the ‘ publication” of those plates and therefore that the name
Beringius Dall, as it appeared on the legend of the plate bearing the number
“pl. 2’ possesses no status in nomenclature. It is recognised that this course
will cause some inconvenience, for the attribution of the name Beringius
to the foregoing plate has become deeply embedded in the literature, but it is
felt that the Commission would be unlikely to take the view that this would
constitute a sufficient reason for the use of its Plenary Powers for the purpose
of validating the name Beringius as from the distribution of these plates in
1879. This suggestion is, however, here advanced in order to provide an
opportunity to specialists during the six-month period following the publication
of the present application in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature to express
an opinion on the relative advantages of the alternative courses.

ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL “A”

The International Commission is asked :—

(1) to suppress, under the Special Procedure prescribed by the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, for use in the case of
a name calculated to give religious offence, the under-mentioned
generic name for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those
of the Law of Homonymy : Jumala Friele, 1882 ;

(2) to rule (a) that the advance distribution in 1879 of copies of the plates
prepared to illustrate a paper by Dall on the Buccinidae in a projected
but never published second volume of the Scientific Results of the
Exploration of Alaska by the parties under the charge of W. H. Dall,
during the years 1866—1874 did not constitute publication within the
meaning of Article 25 of the Régles and therefore (b) that the name
Beringius Dall possesses no status of availability as from the date on
which the foregoing plates were so distributed ;

(3) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology: Beringius Dall, 1886 (gender: masculine)
(type species, by monotypy : Chrysodomus crebricostatus Dall, 1877) ;

(4) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology :—crebricostatus Dall, 1877, as published
in the combination Chrysodomus crebricostatus (specific name of type
species of Beringius Dall, 1886) ;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature _

(5) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—

(a) Jumala Friele, 1882 (name suppressed under (1) above) ;

(b) Beringius Dall, 1879 (name rejected under (2) above).

ALTERNATIVE “B”
The International Commission is asked :—

(1) (as in (1) in Alternative “A”’)—suppression of the name Jumala Friele,
1882, as a name calculated to give religious offence ;

(2) to use its Plenary Powers to validate the name Beringius Dall as from
1879 when this name appeared on the legend of a plate numbered
“plate 2”, one of a series of plates prepared to illustrate a paper
on Buccinidae distributed to correspondents in advance of the
anticipated publication of the text, which would have formed volume 2
of the work entitled Scientific Results of the exploration of Alaska
by the parties under the charge of W. H. Dall, during the years
1866—1874 ;

(3) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology: Beringius, 1879, as validated under the Plenary
Powers under (1)(b) above (gender: masculine) (type species by
monotypy: Chrysodomus crebricostatus Dall, 1877) ;

(4) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology :—crebricostatus Dall, 1877, as published
in the combination Chrysodomus crebricostatus (specific name of
type species of Beringius, Dall, 1879) ;

(5) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—

(a) Jumala Friele, 1882 (name suppressed under (1) above) ;

(b) Beringius Dall, 1886 (a junior homonym of Beringius Dall, 1879,
as validated under the Plenary Powers under (2) above).

66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE

GENERIC NAME ‘“ RHINOPTERASPIS’’ JAEKEL, 1919, BY

SUPPRESSING THE NAME “ARCHAEOTEUTHIS ’’ ROEMER,
1855 (CLASS OSTRACODERMI)

By ERROL I. WHITE, Pu.D., D.Sc.
(Department of Geology, British Museum (Natural History), London)
and
H. W. BALL, B.Sc., Pu.D.
(Department of Geology, British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.) 863)

The object of the present application is to seek the assistance of the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for preserving the well-
established generic name Rhinopteraspis Jaekel, 1919, by the use of its Plenary
Powers for suppressing its senior objective synonym Archaeoteuthis Roemer,
1855, a name which has been completely overlooked, not having been used
since the time when it was first published. The facts of this case are summarised
in the following paragraphs.

2. In 1855 (Palaeontographica 4:72) Roemer (F.) described a fossil from
the Lower Devonian of the Eifel as the guard of a species of cuttlefish, for which
also he established a new genus. He named this species Palacoteuthis dunensis.
In the same year, finding that the generic name Palaeoteuthis Roemer, 1855,
was invalid, being a junior homonym of the name Palaeoteuthis d’Orbigny,
[1850] (Prodr. Paléont. 1 : 327) Roemer published the substitute name Archaeo-
teuthis (1855, in Bronn, Lethaea geogn. (3rd ed.) 1 : 520). However, three years
later T. H. Huxley pointed out (1861, Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond. 17 : 163) that
the specimen described by Roemer was not a cephalopod guard, as Roemer
had supposed, but was the ventral plate of a pteraspid “ fish ’”’ (Ostracoderm)
and referred it to the genus Pteraspis Kner, 1847, itself, since it showed, in his
opinion, no characters of generic value to differentiate it from Pteraspis. (We
may here note that the specimen is imperfect and incidentally that in the original
paper it was figured upside down, and further that the ventral plates (or dises)
do not show generic characters in most pteraspids.) Since the publication
of Roemer’s papers nearly one hundred years ago, the name Archacoteuthis
has not been used by any author. Up to 1919, the type species (P. dunensis)
was referred either to Pteraspis or to its junior synonym Scaphaspis Lankester,
1865.

3. In 1919 O. Jaekel (SitzBer. Ges. Naturf. Freunde Berlin 1919 : 74) made
Palaeoteuthis dunensis Roemer the type species of a new genus, to which he
gave the name Rhinopteraspis on the ground of the characteristic dorsal armour
found associated with ventral plates referable to the foregoing species. It has

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 2. January, 1955.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 67

since been shown by Brotzen (1936, Ark. Zool. 28A (No. 22) : 13) and by White
(1938, Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond. 94 : 85) that a number of forms share the
outstanding characters of Jaekel’s genus. These forms are of stratigraphical

significance, and in consequence the name Rhinopteraspis has come increasingly
into use.

4. In these circumstances it is recommended that the name Rhinopteraspis
Jaekel, 1919, should be validated by the suppression of the name Archacoteuthis
Roemer, 1855, under the Plenary Powers, a name which has not been used since
its original publication, is embarrassingly inappropriate, and, when first
published, was accompanied by no generic characters relevant to the group
to which it belongs. The International Commission is accordingly asked :—

(1) to use its Plenary Powers for the purpose of suppressing the generic
name Archaeoteuthis Roemer, 1855, for the purposes of the Law of
Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology :—Rhinopteraspis Jaekel, 1919 (gender :

feminine) (type species, by original designation : Palaeoteuthis dunensis
Roemer, 1855) ;

(3) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology :—dunensis Roemer, 1855, as published in the
combination Palaeoteuthis dunensis (specific name of type species of
Rhinopteraspis Jackel, 1919) ;

(4) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—

(a) Palaeoteuthis Roemer, 1855 (a junior homonym of Palaeoteuthis
@’Orbigny, [1850]) ;

(b) Archaeoteuthis Roemer, 1855 (as suppressed under the Plenary
Powers under (1) above).

5. The genus Rhinopteraspis Jaekel is not the type genus of a taxon belonging
to any family-group and accordingly no question arises of placing any such

_ hame on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology.

68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE

A TYPE SPECIES FOR “ ANUROPHORUS ” NICOLET, [1842]

(CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLLEMBOLA) IN HARMONY
WITH ACCUSTOMED USAGE

By HERMANN GISIN
(Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 304)

The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission
to use its Plenary Powers to designate for the genus Anurophorus Nicolet,
[1842] (Class Insecta, Order Collembola) a type species in harmony with
accustomed usage and thus to prevent this well known name from disappearing
in synonymy. The facts of this case are set out below.

2. In 1842 in a paper entitled ‘“ Recherches pour servir 4 l’histoire des
podurelles ” (Neue Denkschr. Allgem. schweiz. Ges. 6 : 53) Nicolet established a
nominal genus to which he gave the name Anurophorus. He placed two nominal
species in this genus but did not designate either as the type species. These
two species were :—(l1) Anurophorus fimetarius attributed by him to Linnaeus
(i.e., identified with Podura fimetaria Linnaeus, 1758) though clearly Nicolet
had a different species (Podura ambulans Linnaeus, 1758) before him; (2)
Anurophorus laricis nov. sp. ( : 53).

3. At a meeting of the Société entomologique de France held in 1843 Lucas,
at the request of the President (Milne Edwards), gave an account of the paper
by Nicolet published in the previous year, in the course of which, speaking
of the genus Anurophorus, he said that, this genus “‘renferme deux espéces
et dont celle qui peut étre considerée comme type est: l’A. fimetarius ...; la
seconde espéce est nouvelle: elle porte le nom d’A. laricis”. (Lucas, 1843,
Ann. Soc. ent. France (2) 1 : 276). Whether or not Lucas on this occasion
intended to select a type species for this genus in a nomenclatorial sense, there
can be no doubt that the words which he used constitute such a selection.

4, We have next to note that the true Podura fimetaria Linnaeus is currently
regarded as congeneric with Podura ambulans Linnaeus and that the latter is
the type species of the genus Onychiurus Gervais, 1841, a name which has
been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 722
by the Ruling given in the Commission’s Opinion 291 (1954, Ops. Decls. int.
Comm. zool. Nomencl. 8 : 99—114). Thus, the effect of Lucas’s action was to
make the generic name Anurophorus Nicolet, [1842], a junior subjective synonym
of Onychiurus Gervais, 1841.

5. On the other hand, specialists have almost completely ignored the
selection made by Lucas and have treated Anurophorus as the name for the

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 2. January, 1955.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69

second of the two species placed in it by Nicolet, namely Anuwrophorus laricis
Nicolet, [1842]. As Laing has observed, ‘‘ Tullberg seems to have been the
first to associate it [i.e., Anurophorus laricis] in a typical sense with Anurophorus
a position which has been accepted by practically everyone, and culminating
in a definite type-citation by Folsom (1937, p. 12)’ (Laing, 1945, Ent. mon.
Mag. 81 : 138).

6. Nevertheless, the action of Lucas left the species Anurophorus laricis
Nicolet without a valid generic name until in 1893 (Canad. Ent. 25 : 313)
Macgillivray published the name Bourletia, designating A. laricis Nicolet to
be the type species of the genus so named. Although it is now over sixty years
since the name Bourletia was published, specialists have with hardly an exception
continued to use the name Anurophorus Nicolet for A. laricis Nicolet, and that
generic name is now deeply embedded in the literature. Nothing but confusion
and needless instability in nomenclature would result from the strict application
of the normal Rules in this case.

7. The generic name Anurophorus Bourlet, [1842], is currently accepted
as the basis for the name of a family-group. Two such names were published
by Borner in 1901. These were: (1) the subfamily name ANUROPHORINAE
Borner, 1901, Zool. Anz. 24 : 341; (2) the tribe name ANUROPHORINI Borner,
1901, Abh. naturw. Ver. Bremen 17: 42). Fortunately, no difficulty arises
in determining the relative priority of these names, since the Part containing
these names in the serial publications concerned bears in each case the exact
date of publication. The relevant Part of the Zoologischer Anzeiger was published
on 10th June 1901, while the relevant Part of the Abh. naturw. Ver. Bremen
was not published until October 1901. The generic name Bourletia Mac-
gillivray, 1893, which, under the present proposals, will become a junior objective
synonym of. Anurophorus Nicolet, 1842, was made the type genus of a tribe,
BOURLETIINI, by Borner in 1932 (in Brohmer, Fauna Deutschl. (ed. 4) : 141).
It is desirable that, as part of the general settlement of the present case, the

Commission should place the name ANUROPHORINAE Borner, 1901, on the Official

List of Family-Group Names in Zoology and the invalid name BOURLETIINI
Borner, 1932, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names

in Zoology.

8. For the reasons set forth above I accordingly now ask the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :—

(1) to use its Plenary Powers to set aside all type selections for the genus
Anurophorus Nicolet, [1842], made prior to the Ruling now asked for,
and, having done so, to designate Anurophorus laricis Nicolet, [1842],
to be the type species of the foregoing genus ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology :—Anurophorus Nicolet, [1842] (gender : masculine)

70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(type species, by designation, under the Plenary Powers, under
(1) above: Anurophorus laricis Nicolet, [1842]) ;

(3) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology :—laricis Nicolet, [1842], as published in the
combination Anurophorus laricis (specific name of type species of
Anurophorus Nicolet, [1842]) ;

(4) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—Bourletia Mac-
gillivray, 1893 (a junior objective synonym of Anurophorus Nicolet,
[1842], as proposed in (1) above to be defined under the Plenary
Powers).

(5) to place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official List
of Family-Group Names in Zoology: ANUROPHORINAE Borner, 1901
(type genus: Anurophorus Nicolet, [1842)) ;

(6) to place the under-mentioned name on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology : BOURLETINI Borner,
1932 (type genus: Bowrletia Macgillivray, 1893) (invalid because
the name of the type genus is a junior objective synonym of Anuro-
phorus Nicolet, [1842], as proposed in (1) above, to be defined under
the Plenary Powers, which is the type genus of the family-group
name ANUROPHORINAE Borner, 1901).

SUPPORT FOR DR. GISIN’S PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE, UNDER
THE PLENARY POWERS, A TYPE SPECIES FOR “ ANUROPHORUS ”’
NICOLET, [1842] (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLLEMBOLA)

By HARLOW B. MILLS
(State Natural History Survey Division, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 304)
(Extracts from a letter dated 23rd March 1948)
(For the proposal submitted in this case, see pages 68—70 of the present volume)
8

1. Podura Linnaeus, with the type Podura aquatica Linnaeus and Tomocerus
Nicolet, with the type Tomocerus minor Lubbock. While the suggestion may run
counter to at least one previous ruling of the Commission‘ and possibly to the
best reasoning in the absence of actual type specimens, I am very much in favour
of the suspension of rules to allow the use of the generic names Podura and Tomocerus
as indicated by the types suggested. There has been approximately a century
of usage of these generic names in this sense and a reshuffling of the names now
would needlessly confuse the great body of literature which relates to these genera.

4. I favour the assigning of Anurophorus laricis Nicolet as the type ef the
genus Anwrophorus for the same reasons which I have used in item number 1 above
for Podura and Tomocerus.

* The question of the species to be accepted as the type species of Podura Linnaeus has since
Har settled by the Commission in Opinion 239 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl.
: 361—372). < :

Se rl lle lO le

——s es eee

ey

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 71

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE, UNDER THE
PLENARY POWERS, A TYPE SPECIES FOR “ANUROPHORUS ”’
NICOLET, [1842] (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLLEMBOLA)

By FREDERICK LAING
(British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 304)
(Extract from a letter dated 19th September 1948)

The position of Anwrophorus has already been dealt with by me, and Boerner
has evidently covered much of the same ground as I did before changing over
(in 1932) to Bourletia. The similarity of the word to Bourletiella need oceasion

no trouble for there must be legions of generic names throughout zoology much
more similar in spelling and sound.

OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS
TO DESIGNATE A TYPE SPECIES FOR “ ANUROPHORUS ” NICOLET,
[1842] (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLLEMBOLA)

By F. BONET
(Escuela Nacional de Ciencias Biologicas, Mexico)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 304)
(Enclosure to a letter dated 27th November 1948)

As stated by Laing (1945, Ent. mon. Mag., 81 : 137) the genus Anurophorus
was erected by Nicolet (1842) with two species, A. fimetarius Nic., and A. laricis
Nic. ; the first definite citation of type was made one year later by Lucas (1843)
who chose A. fimetarius Nic., and this action appears to meet all the requirements
of the Rules. In 1847 Nicolet places his fimetarius (1842) (nec Podura jimetaria
of L.) as synonyms of ambulans L., and this action has not been challenged by
subsequent authors. Whatever may be specifically A. fimetarius Nic., there is no
doubt that it is congeneric with ambulans L., type of Onychiurus Gervais, so Anuro-
phorus becomes a synonym of Onychiurus. Bourletia MacGill. 1893, with laricis
as type, becomes available as substitute for Anurophorus (Full statement of case
in Laing, loc. cit. 81: 137—138).

Following Tullberg (1871), all subsequent authors for the past 80 years or so

_ regarded laricis as generically different from Jimetarius Nic., and Anurophorus has

been consistently used as if its type were laricis, consciously avoiding its correct
nomenclatorial standing. Thus, we are facing the change of a well-known and

_ universally used name for a nearly unknown one. This may be very inconvenient

indeed, but it is not likely to carry any confusion, because Bourletia was never used
before in any other sense, in fact, never has been used after its proposal.

Therefore, I think that the strict application of the Rules must be enforced

in this case.

72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

SUPPORT FOR THE DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY
POWERS, OF A TYPE SPECIES FOR “ ANUROPHORUS ”’ NICOLET,
[1842] (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLLEMBOLA)

By JOHN T. SALMON ne
(Victoria University College, Department of Zoology, Wellington, New Zealand)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 304)
(Extract from a letter dated 4th November 1954)

With regard to Anurophorus, I am quite in agreement with the designation of
laricis as the type species of the genus, and I adopted this procedure in my Keys
and Bibliography to the Collembola (1951, Zool. Publ. Victoria Univ. Coll., Wellington,
N.Z. 8, 82 pp.) in placing Anurophorus in the sub-family ANUROPHORUNINAE of the

ISOTOMIDAE.

les,

tant ye ‘, } x Sy “ ht “ a
’ . “ “ ee. oo , D Pix >
; Fo : ee oT" te . a ed ee Le PLS ' ¢
ren aoe ; a“ : Rd oom oe TUS rte ah ce ay
y v Ye Os, 4 4 f “ <=] oars 4 ~ 2 £ = P
‘ ahs oa Wale? : : . ging ‘ A } Fo a. - ¥ a
3 ao i * 4 a Oe oe ¥ 4 Somat 21 Ok A eS ™ *
+ A} - i ‘ A A 48 cart te ek i
re, ; ye ai te ¥ te i + 4 yer cake ae? 4
cy t ae es Se ae ets e oree ; ou
iad 3
¥.
}es

rs. “
ae Le
ye:

7

5
ar ae

*
conse: a

tog
Sak

this Roemer,
Ph.D., D.Sc.

+ Revn
=. » hes
. ;
>
a“
Sy
ae

2

eto
3
ss

= eae
“ og
aa ’

cy

(continued from inside wrapper)

Page
Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate a type species for
Anurophorus Nicolet, [1842] (Class Insecta, Order Collembola)
in harmony with accustomed usage. By Hermann Gisin
(Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) ~ was 68 |

CONTENTS 7
’
,

Comments on applications

On the authorship of the work entitled Musewm Boltenianum
published anonymously in 1798. By L. R. Cox, Se.D., F.RB.S.
(British Museum (Natural History), London) ee tas er

On Dr. H. Gisin’s proposal relating to the generic name Anurophorus
Nicolet, [1842], by :—(1) Harlow B. Mills (State Natural History
Survey Division, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) ; (2) Frederick Laing
(British Museum (Natural History), London) ; (3) F. Bonet (Escuela
Nacional de Ciencias Biologicas, Mexico); (4) John T. Salmon
(Victoria seats Sai epee at se ak soo a
New Zealand) .

Printed in England by Metcatre & Coorer LimiteD, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2

VOLUME 11. Part 3 .

28th February 1955
pp. 78—104. PURCH ; P)

_ THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
a NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

CONTENTS :
Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology :

Page
Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published
in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ae id Pe 73
Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain
cases wae “fe a das 73
(continued inside back wrapper)
: > er 7
, « <3 ~ *
LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
and
Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office,
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.
1955

Price Fifteen Shillings

(All rights reserved)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

A. The Officers of the Commission

Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological
Museum, Tring, Herts., England)

President: Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(12th August 1953)

Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953)

Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948)

B. The Members of the Commission

(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent
re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)

Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuwurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(Ist January 1947)

Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Lva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948)

Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)

Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948)

Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)

Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)

Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th June 1950)

Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw,
Poland) (15th June 1950)

Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt
a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950)

Professor Dr. Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitaét zu Berlin,
Germany) (5th July 1950)

Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President)

Professor J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953)

Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
(President)

Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th
August 1953)

Professor Béla Hanké (Mezégazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)

Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th
August 1953)

Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)

Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th
August 1953)

Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra,
A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954)

Dr. Alden H. Miller (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California,
U.S.A.) (29th October 1954)

= 9 ma Ferdinand Prantl (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October

Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kiihnelt (Zoologisches Institut, Der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th
November 1954)

Professor F. 8. Bodenheimer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954)

Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954)

Professor Enrico Tortonese (Istituto e Museo di Zoologia della Universita di Torino, Torino,
Italy) (16th December 1954)

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

_ Volume 11, Part 3 (pp. 73—104) 28th February 1955

NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY

The following, notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the
recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

(a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published
in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’

_ Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will
rt to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
e on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of
ication in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who
May desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present

Pe wt (Vol. 11, Part 3) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing
ae Ene Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible and in any case, in

(b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain cases

i Notice is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers is involved in

74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued)

applications published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature in relation to the following names :—

(1) Entomobrya Rondani, 1861 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), validation
of (Z.N.(S.) 485) ;

(2) Iphis Leach, 1817 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), validation of
(correction of an error in Opinion 73) (Z.N.(S.) 562) ;

(3) Homalaspis Milne Edwards (A.), 1863 (Class Crustacea, Order Deca-
poda), validation of (correction of an error in Opinion 85) (Z.N.(S.) 560) ;

(4) Monticulipora d’Orbigny, 1849 (Class Bryozoa), designation for, of a type
species in harmony with current usage (Z.N.(S.) 550) ;

(5) obscura Berezowsky & Bianchi, 1891, as published in the combination
Larvivora obscura (Class Aves), validation of (Z.N.(S.) 876) ;

(6) bet Ridgway, 1874, as published in the combination Hremophila alpestris
var. bei, suppression of (Z.N.(S.) 817).

2. Attention is also drawn to the proposed adoption of a Declaration
clarifying Rule (g) of Article 30 relating to the selection of the type species
of a genus, where the species selected as such has two or more names
objectively synonymous with one another (Z.N.(S.) 878).

3. Comments received in sufficient time will be published in the Bulletin :
other comments, provided that they are received within the prescribed period
of six calendar months from the date of publication of the present Part will
be laid before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at
the time of commencement of voting on the application concerned.

4. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon at the Session held by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 56), corresponding Notices have been sent
to the serial publications Nature and Science.

FRANCIS HEMMING

Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park,
Lonpon, N.W.1, England.

28th February 1955.

ate are ee a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 75

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE
THE GENERIC NAME “ENTOMOBRYA ” RONDANI, 1861
(CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLLEMBOLA)

By HERMANN GISIN
(Muséum d’ Histoire Ni aturelle, Geneva, Switzerland)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 485)

The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to validate the generic
name Entomobrya Rondani, 1861 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola). This is a
large genus of cosmopolitan distribution. The name Entomobrya has been in
continuous use for it for over sixty years and no useful purpose would be served
by discarding this name in favour of its Senior synonym Mydonius Gist),
1848. The history of this case is summarised below.

2. In 1841 (Bibl. Univ. Geneve (n.s.) 82 : 384) Nicolet published the generic
name Degeeria as a nomen nudum. In 1842 (Neue Denkschr. allgem. schweiz.
Ges. 6(3) : 70) he re-published this name, this time with an indication,
placing in it various species of Collembola, including a new species to which
he gave the name Degeeria muscorum ( : 73). Nicolet did not designate a type
species for this genus. The name Degeeria Nicolet was, however, invalid,
being a junior homonym of Degeeria Meigen, 1838 (Syst. Beschr. europ. zweifl.
Insekt. 7 : 249) (Class Insecta, Order Diptera).

3. Gistl was the first author to detect that the name Degeeria Nicolet was
_ invalid and in 1848 he re-named it Mydonius (Nat. Thierr. : ix.) This name of
Gistl’s was, however, completely overlooked. In 1861 Rondani, in his turn,
_ Observed that Degeeria Nicolet was an invalid homonym and gave it the
substitute name Entomobrya (Dipterol. ital. Prodr. 4 : 40). This is the name
which has ever since been used for this genus.

, 4. The present genus remained without a type species until in 1903
_ (SitzBer. Ges. Naturforsch. Freunde Berlin 1903 (No. 3) : 178) Borner selected
— Degeeria muscorum Nicolet, [1842], to be the type species.

5. In 1945 Salmon drew attention to the fact that MW ydonius Gistl, 1848,
had priority over, and should replace the well known name Entomobrya
i Rondani, 1861 (Trans. R. Soc. N. Zealand 75 : 69). This course has not been
adopted by other workers, and it is the purpose of the present request to
prevent this change from being made.

| 6. The genus Entomobrya Rondani is currently accepted as the type genus
of a family-group taxon. The first family-group name published for this taxon

_ Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 3. February 1955.

76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Was DEGEERIADAE Lubbock, 1873, of which the type genus was Degeeria
Nicolet, [1842], the name of which (as explained in paragraph 2 above) is an
invalid junior homonym which was later replaced by the name Entomobrya
Rondani, 1861 (paragraph 4 above). The family-group name for this taxon
correctly based upon the generic name Entomobrya Rondani was first published
by Schaffer in 1896 as ENTOMOBRYIDAE. In 1945 Salmon, who at that time
used the generic name Mydonius Gistl, 1848, in preference to Entomobrya
Rondani, erected the nominal family-group MyDoNIIDAE. It is desirable that
the family-group name ENTOMOBRYIDAE Schiffer, 1896, should now be placed
on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology and that the invalid
names DEGEERIADAE Lubbock, 1873 (with the corrected version DEGEERIIDAE
Tullberg, 1876) and MyponmpDaE Salmon, 1945, should be placed on the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology.

7. I accordingly ask the International Commission :—

(1) to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Mydonius Gistl,
1848, for the purpose of the Law of Priority but not for that of the
Law of Homonymy ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology :—Entomobrya Rondani, 1861 (gender: feminine)
(type species, by selection by Borner (1903): Degeerta muscorum
Nicolet, [1842]) ;

(3) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology: muscorum Nicolet, [1842], as published in the
combination Degeeria muscorum (specific name of type species of
Entomobrya Rondani, 1861) ;

(4) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—

(a) Degeeria Nicolet, 1841 (nomen nudum) ;

(b) Degeeria Nicolet, [1842] (junior homonym of Degeeria Meigen,
1838) ;

(c) Mydonius Gistl, 1848, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers
under (1) above.

(5) to place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official List —

of Family-Group Names in Zoology :—ENTOMOBRYIDAE Schiffer,

1896 (Mitt. naturh. Mus. Hamburg 13 : 177) (type genus : Entomobrya —
Rondani, 1861) ;

(6) to place the under-mentioned names on the Official Index of Rejected — |
and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :— d

(a) DEGEERIADAE Lubbock, 1873, Monogr. Collemb. Thysan.:129

(type genus: Degeeria Nicolet, [1842]) (invalid, because the
name Degeeria Nicolet, [1842], is invalid, as being a junior ~

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 77

homonym, and has been replaced by the name Entomobrya
Rondani, 1861) ;

(b) DEGEERUDAE Tullberg, 1876, Oefvers. K. Vetensk. Acad. Forhandl.
Stockholm 33 (No. 5) : 31 (type genus: Degeeria Nicolet, [1842])
(corrected form of the invalid name DEGEERIADAE Lubbock,
1873) ;

(c) MyDONIIDAE Salmon, 1945, Trans. roy. Soc. N.Z. 75 : 69 (type
a genus: Mydonius Gistl, 1848) (invalid because, as proposed in
(1) above, the name Mydonius Gistl, 1848, is to be suppressed
under the Plenary Powers).

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS
TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME “ ENTOMOBRYA ”’
RONDANI, 1861 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLLEMBOLA)

By HARLOW B. MILLS
(State Natural History Survey Division, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.)
(Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.) 485)
(Letter dated 26th October 1950)
(For the proposal submitted in this case, see pages 75 to 77 of the present volume)

I strongly endorse Dr. Gisin’s request.

Although I haven’t the original literature before me, the case for Mydonius
_ seems to be incontrovertible if Salmon’s information is correct (1945, Trans. Roy.
_ Soc. New Zealand, 75(1) : 69) and if the Law of Priority is strictly followed.

I am not one of those who holds this Law in reverence in all cases, but I feel
strongly that where it is not employed the only substitute is a ruling of the
Commission. A ruling to suspend the Law should be made where a strict application
_ will result in confusion rather than order. And order is not served, in my mind, if

_Entomobrya is discarded.
My reasons for supporting Dr. Gisin are as follows :—
1. Entomobrya is a clear cut, non-ambiguous species group.
2. It is a large genus.
3. It is cosmopolitan.
4

For about 60 years this has been the only name used for this species
group and a large body of literature has been built up utilizing this name.

5. Mydonius has not been used for this group. There is no tradition of
usage anywhere, and no body of literature. The prior use of this name

b was not rediscovered until 1945, it had been buried since 1838—for
a 107 years.

m= It therefore seems logical to me for the Commission to suppress Mydonius
_ despite its prior value.

__ I hope that the Commission supports Dr. Gisin in this matter, but I shall use
_ the name which the Commission ultimately designates.

78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS
TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME “ ENTOMOBRYA ” RONDANI,
1861 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLLEMBOLA)

By FREDERICK LAING
(British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.) 485)
(Extract from a letter dated 19th September 1948)

The Mydonius question. This is quite straightforward and presents no unusual
feature ; every active zoologist would make the change without reference to the
Commission. Rondani—a dipterist—no doubt did not trouble to look closely
into the position of the second Degeeria after having satisfied himself that the
dipterous Degeeria was safe, and simply gave the preoccupied Degeeria Nic. the new
name of Entomobrya, and probably Brook was pleased to bring it forward in
England without any extended research into priority or anything else. Gistl’s
paper should have been known, but there was little indexing in those days (may I
have another crack and say there has been little done in the Collembola even by
modern workers ?) and might easily have been overlooked. I was bringing it
forward myself in future lists of changes that I had planned had Dr. Salmon not
done it. There is just one point—the genotype fixations. In my letters of 10th
October 1945 and 5th December 1945 to Dr. Salmon I had put forward the suggestion
that muscorum as type might give rise to less difficulty in interpretation than
nwalis Nic., which may not be the same as nivalis Linn., but at the back of my
mind I had the idea that the type had been fixed but could not quote chapter and
verse. Now I can say, with my evacuated notes back into some sort of order, that
the type is muscorum Nic. fixed by Boerner (Stz. Gesellschaft Naturforsch. Freunde
Berlin, No. 3, March 1903 : 178). Mydonius would take the same type.

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS
TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME “ ENTOMOBRYA ”’ RONDANI,
1861 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLLEMBOLA)

By JOHN T. SALMON
(Victoria University College, Department of Zoology, Wellington, New Zealand)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 485)
(Extract from a letter dated 4th November 1954)

In connection with Entomobrya, I think most Collembolan workers favour
the suppression of Mydonius Gistl, although as I pointed out previously Mydonius
is the correct name according to the Rules. However, the name has never been
used except in a few papers of my own, and I have recently reverted to the use of _
Entomobrya pending the decision of the Commission, as this seemed to be favoured
by practically all the workers in the Collembola excepting possibly Bonet of Mexico.

In view of the present attitude of the Congress of Zoology to these matters, I
would be in favour now of retaining the name Entomobrya on the basis of usage, if
this is possible.

In my paper New Subantarctic Collembola (1949, Cape Expedition Series, Bulletin,
Wellington, N.Z.) No. 4, on page 40 I pointed out that the type Entomobrya had
been fixed by Bérner in 1903 as E. muscorum Nicolet. In view of this, it would —
seem that I am now in favour of both the proposals.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 79

PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF
THE GENERIC NAME “IPHIS”? MEIGEN, 1800, FOR THE PURPOSE
OF VALIDATING THE GENERIC NAME “ IPHIS ’? LEACH, 1817
(CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA) (PROPOSED
CORRECTION OF AN ERROR IN “ OPINION ” 73)

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 562)

The purpose of the present application is to seek the assistance of the
International Commission in rectifying an error in the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology in connection with the entry thereon of the generic name
Iphis Leach, 1817 (Zool. Miscell. 3 : 25) made by the Ruling given in Opinion 73
(1922, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 1) : 23—31). The above genus is mono-
typical with Cancer septemspinosus Fabricius, 1787 (Mantissa Ins. 1 : 325)
as type species.

2. The error in Opinion 73 with which the present application is concerned
came to light in 1944 in the course of a preliminary survey which I then made
of the entries on the Official List made in the pre-1936 Opinions. I then dis-
covered that the name [phis Leach, 1817, is invalid by reason of being a junior
homonym of the name J phis Meigen, 1800 (Nouv. Class. Mouches deux Ailes : 27)
(Class Insecta, Order Diptera). The fact that this has passed unnoticed by
workers in the Crustacea is due no doubt to the fact that the pamphlet in
which the name Iphis Meigen was published was completely ignored for
more than a hundred years after its publication.

3. In a case of this kind clearly the first step to be taken is to ascertain
whether the older name is in use in the group concerned and therefore whether
any disturbance or other inconvenience would be suffered by workers in that
group if the name in question were to be suppressed by the Commission under
its Plenary Powers. In the present instance I applied for advice to Dr. Alan
Stone (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Administration,
Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U /S.A.), who
in a letter dated 16th February 1944 informed me :—

(1) that the type species of Iphis Meigen, 1800, is Musca ungulata Linnaeus,
1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 598) by selection by Coquillet (1910,
Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 37: 555) ;

(2) that the nominal species Musca ungulata Linnaeus, 1758, is also the
type species of the genus Dolichopus Latreille, 1796 (Précis caract.

gén. Ins. : 159) by selection by Latreille, 1810 (Consid. gén. Anim.
Crust. Arach. Ins. : 443, 387) ;

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 3. February 1955.

80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(3) that in view of (1) and (2) above, the generic name Jphis Meigen, 1800,
is a junior objective synonym of Dolichopus Latreille, 1796.

4, In my view the information supplied by Dr. Stone clears the ground
for the validation of the generic name Jphis Leach, 1817, by the suppression
under the Plenary Powers of the unwanted—because objectively invalid—
name Iphis Meigen, 1800, in the Order Diptera. I accordingly recommend
that this action should be taken.

5. Under the General Directive given by the International Congress of
Zoology that in rendering Opinions the Commission is to cover the whole
field involved, it will be necessary in any decision on the present case also to
place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Doli-
chopus Latreille, 1796, and on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology
the name wngulata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Musca
ungulata (specific name of type species of Dolichopus Latreille, 1796). At
the same time it will be necessary to place on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology certain names which are junior homonyms
of the generic names dealt with in the present application.

6. The nominal genus [phis Leach, 1817 (Class Crustacea) is, I am informed
by Dr. Isobel Gordon (British Musewm (Natural History), London), currently
referred to the family LEUCOsmIDAE, and in consequence no family-group-name
question arises in this case.

7. I am indebted to Dr. John Smart (University of Cambridge, Department
of Zoology, Cambridge) for information regarding the family-group names based
on the generic name Dolichopus Latreille, 1796. Samouelle (1819, Entomologist’s
useful Compendium : 294) was the first author who has been traced as having
used a ‘“‘-DAE”’ termination, but he made two spelling mistakes, the name
appearing in his book as DOLYcHOPODAE. Moreover, Samouelle attributed this
name to Leach, without giving a bibliographical reference. Possibly, it was only
used by Leach in manuscript.

8. The recommendations which I now submit are that the International
Commission should :—

(1) use its Plenary Powers for the purpose of suppressing the generic
name Iphis Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), for the pur-
poses both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy ;

(2) substitute the following revised entry on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology for Name No. 160 :—

Iphis Leach, 1817, Zool. Miscell. 3 : 25 (gender: masculine) (type
species, by monotypy: Cancer septemspinosus Fabricius, 1787
(Mantissa Ins. 1 : 325));

La
F
[-

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 81

(3) place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology :—

Dolichopus Latreille, 1796 (gender: masculine) (type species, by
selection by Latreille (1810) : Musca ungulata Linnaeus, 1758) ;

(4) place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology :—

(a) septemspinosus Fabricius, 1787, as published in the combination

Cancer septemspinosus (specific name of type species of Iphis
Leach, 1817) ;

(b) ungulata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Musca
ungulata (specific name of type species of Dolichopus Latreille,
1796) :

(5) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—

(a) Dolichopus Van der Hoeven, [1856], Handb. Zool. 2 : 422, 431
(a junior homonym of Dolichopus Latreille, 1796) ;

(b) Iphis Meigen, 1800, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers
under (1) above ;

(c) the under-mentioned names which aré junior homonyms of
Iphis Leach, 1817 :-—

(i) Iphis Koch, 1835, Deutschl. Crust. (Heft 2) : Tab. 6
(ii) Iphis Laporte, 1836, Rev. Entom. 4(1) : 7.

(6) place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official List of
Family-Group Names in Zoology :—DOLICHOPIDAE (correction of
DOLICHOPIDES) Latreille, 1807, Gen. Crust. Ins. 3 : 290 (type genus :
Dolichopus Latreille, 1796).

(7) place the under-mentioned family-group names on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :—

(a) DoLIcHoPIDEs Latreille, 1807 (type genus: Dolichopus Latreille,
1897) (an Invalid Original Spelling for DoLIcHOPIDAE) ;

(b) DOLYCHOPODAE Samouelle, 1819 (type genus Dolichopus (misspelt
Dolychopus by Samouelle) Latreille, 1796) (an Erroneous Sub-
sequent Spelling for DOLICHOPIDAE).

82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO

SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAME “IPHIS’’ MEIGEN, 1800, FOR

THE PURPOSE OF VALIDATING THE GENERIC NAME “IPHIS ”’
LEACH, 1817 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA)

By ALAN STONE

(U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,
Entomology Research Branch, U.S. National Museum, Washington, U.S.A.)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 562)

(For the application submitted in this case, see pages
79—81 of the present Volume)

(Letter dated 16th February 1944, endorsed by letter dated
10th December 1954)

I am writing in reply to your letter concerning the generic name Iphis Meigen,
1800. This name is an isogenotypic synonym of Dolichopus Latreille, 1796. The
bibliographical data are as follows :

Dolichopus Latreille, 1796, Précis Caract. Ins.: 159. Genotype, Musca
ungulata L., by designation of Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust.
Arach. Ins. : 443.

Iphis Meigen, 1800, Nouvelle classification : 27. Genotype, Musca ungulata L.,
by designation of Coquillett, 1910, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 37 : 555.

To the best of my knowledge, Iphis Meigen has always been treated, when its
zoological position was mentioned, as a synonym of Dolichopus. There seems to
be no possibility that it will ever come into use in the Diptera, since this would
require either the discovery that Dolichopus was a homonym or that the genotype
of Iphis is incorrect and that the true genotype is not congeneric with Dolichopua.
Neither of these contingencies seems at all probable.

In spite of the fact that Iphis Meigen is invalid, although available, I should
not like to see the name suppressed by the Commission. The basic principles of
the International Rules are weakened every time an exception is made by official
action, and I think that the Plenary Powers should be invoked only in the very
few cases where the name to be saved is of extreme importance. The easiest and
surest way of maintaining the prestige of the International Rules is by strict
impartiality of application, and such prestige should not be endangered because
of a relatively unimportant name in Crustacea. A number of names have been
accepted as unavailable because they proved to be homonyms of earlier names
that are not in use. If the Commission makes an exception here it opens the gate
for more and more changes of this sort, until nomenclature will not be a matter
of following rules, but of attempting to weigh rather unpredictable opinion.

I might add that the Commission is going to be subject to considerable pressure

to suspend various of the Meigen 1800 names in spite of Opinion 28 and the recent
reaffirmation of this Opinion. If the Commission intends to adhere to these
Opinions, an exception made with one name, even though seemingly fostering
stability, will weaken its stand. It will be far easier to adhere strictly to the
Rules than to justify partial adherence.

The situation then is this. As far as Iphis is concerned, it affects the dipterists
not at all, but does affect workers with Crustacea. In saving the name for the

Crustacea, all zoology will lose, since the principles of zoological nomenclature will @

be weakened, and every name that has been changed in similar circumstances
will be subject to uncertainty.

ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 83

PROPOSED VALIDATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF

THE GENERIC NAME “ HOMALASPIS’’ MILNE EDWARDS (A.),

1863 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA) (PROPOSED
VALIDATION OF AN ERROR IN “ OPINION ”’ 85)

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 560)

The purpose of the present application is to seek the assistance of the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in validating the
generic name Homalaspis Milne Edwards (A.), 1863 (Ann. Sci. nat., Paris
(Zool.) (4) 20 : 279) (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), which was placed on
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 85
(1925, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 3) : 13) in the erroneous belief that it was
a nomenclatorially available name.

2. The present case first came to light in 1944 during a preliminary survey
of the pre-1936 entries on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology which
I carried out at that time. That survey showed that the name Homalaspis
Milne Edwards, 1863, was invalid by reason of being a junior homonym of the
name Homalaspis Reinhard, 1860 (Berlin. ent. Z. 4 : 239), an emendation of
the name Omalaspis Giraud, 1860 (Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 10 (Abh.) : 155),
the name of a genus in the Order Hymenoptera (Class Insecta).

3. As a first step in the examination of the question of the action needed
in the present case, I consulted Dr. R. B. Benson (British Museum (Natural
History), London) for the purpose of ascertaining whether the suppression
under the Plenary Powers of the name Homalaspis Reinhard for the purpose
of validating the name Homalaspis Milne Edwards in the Class Crustacea
would cause any disturbance or inconvenience in the nomenclature of the
Hymenoptera. Dr. Benson replied on 21st April 1944 as follows :—

I cannot see that any possible harm could come by suppressing Homalaspis
Reinhard.

i Giraud is in use for a genus of the Cynipoid family ASPICERIDAE.
The three described species, all European, are rare or, at least, little known, and
they rarely appear in the literature. Since Dalla-Torre & Kieffer’s (1910) Cynipidae
in Das Tierreich, where ‘‘ Omalaspis”’ was used, I am not aware that the form
of the name “‘ Homalaspis”” has ever been used. I only know of three references
to “‘ Omalaspis”’ (Hedicke, 1928, Bull. Soc. ent. France 1928 : 280, Weld, 1931,
Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 33 : 221 and Rohwer & Fagan, 1917, ‘“‘ The type species of the
Genera of the Cynipidae ....”, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 58 : 357—380 ; and in this
type list the form of the name ‘“‘ Homalaspis”’ is not even mentioned !). I cannot

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 3. February 1955.

84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

see any reason therefore against suppressing Homalaspis Reinhard as no confusion
is likely to arise. Even if Omalaspis Giraud is later found to be invalid for any
reason, there is a second string in Lambertiona Kieffer, with a conspecific type species.

4. Dr. Benson’s letter made it quite clear that there could be no objection
from the entomological side to the validation of the generic name Homalaspis
Milne Edwards, 1863, in the Class Crustacea, and I recommend that this action
should now be taken by the International Commission, in order that the defective
entry of this name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology made by
Opinion 85 may thereby be regularised.

5. I further recommend that in pursuance of the General Directive issued
to the Commission by the International Congress of Zoology that Rulings
. given in Opinions are in future to cover the whole field embraced in any given
instance, the Commission should at the same time place the generic name
Omalaspis Giraud, 1860, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
As regards the type species of that genus, I am informed (in. litt., 6th December
1954) by Dr. Benson that L. H. Weld (1952, Cynipoidea (Hym.) 1905—1950,
Ann Arbor Michigan : 16) has expressed the view that the name Omalaspis
noricus Giraud, 1860, is a junior synonym of Omalaspis nigra (Hartig, 1840)
(=Figites niger Hartig, 1840, Z. Ent. (Germar) 2 : 202). In these circumstances,
the correct course under the standard procedure will be to place the name
niger Hartig, 1840, but not its junior subjective synonym noricus Giraud, 1860,
on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. At the same time the Invalid
Emendation Homalaspis Reinhard, 1860, will need to be placed on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

6. No question of family-group names arises in connection with either
of the generic names involved in the present application, for the Decapod
genus Homalaspis Milne Edwards is, I am informed by Dr. Isobel Gordon
(British Museum (Natural History), London), currently referred to the family
XANTHIDAE, while the Hymenoptera genus Omalaspis Giraud is currently
referred to the family ASPICERIDAE.

7. The recommendation which I now submit is that the International
Commission should :—

(1) use its Plenary Powers for the purpose of suppressing the generic name
Homalaspis Reinhard, 1860 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) for
the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 85

(2) substitute the following revised entry on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology for Name No. 320 :—
Homalaspis Milne Edwards (A.), 1863, Ann. Sci. nat., Paris (Zool.)
(4) 20 : 279 (gender : feminine) (type species, by original designa-
tion: Xantho planus Milne Edwards (H.), 1834, Roret’s Suite &
Buffon, Hist. nat. Crust. 1 : 397) ;

(3) place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic

Names in Zoology :—

Omalaspis Giraud, 1860, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 10(Abh.) : 155
(gender : feminine) (type species, by monotypy : Omalaspis noricus
Giraud, 1860, Ver. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 10(Abh.) : 155) (Class
Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) ;

(4) place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology :—

(a) planus Milne Edwards (H.), 1834, as published in the combination
Xantho planus (specific name of type species of Homalaspis
Milne Edwards (A.), 1863) ;

(b) niger Hartig, 1840, as published in the combination Figites niger ;

(5) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—

(a) Homalaspis Reinhard, 1860, as suppressed under the Plenary
Powers under (1) above ;

(b) Homalaspis Brunner v. Wattenwy!, 1895, Monogr. Pseudophylliden:
19, 217 (junior homonym of Homalaspis Milne Edwards (A.),
1863) ;

(c) Homalaspis Kiaer, 1932, Skr. Svalbard Ishavet Oslo 52: 14
(junior homonym of Homalaspis Milne Edwards (A.), 1863).

86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A ‘“ DECLARATION ”’ CLARIFYING
RULE (G) IN ARTICLE 30 IN RELATION TO THE SELECTION
OF THE TYPE SPECIES OF A GENUS IN A CASE WHERE
THE NOMINAL SPECIES SO SELECTED, THOUGH NOT ITSELF
CITED AT THE TIME OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
GENUS IN QUESTION, IS OBJECTIVELY IDENTICAL WITH
ANOTHER NOMINAL SPECIES WHICH WAS SO
CITED

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 878)

The present application is designed to secure through the adoption of a
Declaration a ruling on a small point in connection with the selection under
Rule (g) in Article 30 of the type species of a genus in a case where an author
selects as the type species a nominal species which, though not one of the
species cited at the time of the establishment of the nominal genus in question,
is objectively identical with such a species.

2. Two cases of the kind indicated above have recently come to light in
connection with the work of the Commission. One of the generic names so
involved is the generic name Homarus Weber, 1795 (Nomencl. ent. Fabr. : 94).
The following particulars relating to this case will illustrate clearly the nature
of the problem now submitted :—

(1) Weber (1795) placed in the genus Homarus six nominal species, for one
of which he cited also a named variety. The first of the nominal
species so cited by Weber was Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775
(Syst. Ent. : 413).

(2) The nominal species Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775, was not a new
species in the taxonomic sense, the name Astacus marinus being only
a nom. nov. pro the name Cancer gammarus Linnaeus, 1758. The
names marinus Fabricius, 1775, and gammarus Linnaeus are thus
objective synonyms of one another and the nominal species bearing
these names are objectively identical with one another, each being
based upon the same type specimen.

(3) Up to 1904 the generic name Homarus was commonly attributed to
Milne Edwards (H.), 1837 (Roret’s Suite & Buffon, Hist. nat. Crust.
2 : 333). This was correct so long as Weber’s earlier use of this generic
name remained unknown, for Milne Edwards clearly considered
Homarus to be a new genus of which he himself was the author.

Milne Edwards did not however designate a type species for the genus £

so named.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 3. February 1955.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 87

(4) In 1858 Desmarest (in Chenu, Ency. Hist. nat., Crust. Moll. Zooph. : 38)
selected Homarus vulgaris Milne Edwards, 1837 (: 334) to be the type
species of Homarus Milne Edwards. This selection is perfectly valid
for Homarus Milne Edwards, to which name it was expressly related
by Desmarest, but it naturally has no bearing on the question of the
species to be accepted as the type species of Homarus Weber, 1795.

(5) In 1904 (Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 17: 170) Miss Rathbun, dealing with
Weber (1795), stated that the type species of Homarus Weber was
“ Homarus gammarus (Linnaeus) ’’, at the same time indicating in a
footnote that she considered that this species had been so selected by
Milne Edwards (1837). On this latter point Miss Rathbun was in
error, since, as shown in (3) above, Milne Edwards made no reference
to Homarus Weber, dealing only with his own genus Homarus
Milne Edwards. However, as Miss Rathbun clearly indicated that
she regarded Homarus gammarus (Linnaeus), i.e. Cancer gammarus
Linnaeus, as the type species of Homarus, her action would have
ranked as a valid selection by herself of the foregoing species as the
type species of Homarus Weber under a decision by the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 4: 181—182), if Cancer gammarus Linnaeus had been
eligible for selection as the type species of this genus. But that
nominal species was not one of those cited by Weber when establishing
the genus Homarus. Accordingly, under the Reégles as hitherto
interpreted, Miss Rathbun’s selection of the foregoing nominal species
as the type species of Homarus Weber is invalid.

(6) The first author to select one of the originally included nominal species
to be the type species of Homarus Weber was, I am informed by
Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden,
The Netherlands), Fowler who in 1912 (Ann. Rep. New Jersey State
Mus. 1911 : 333) so selected Astacus marinus Fabricius. Fowler
added that this species had been “ virtually designated ” as the type
species of this genus by Miss Rathbun in 1904 [i.e. in the paper
referred to in (5) above], when she stated that “‘ Homarus gammarus
(Linnaeus) was the type species of Homarus Weber.

3. At Paris in 1948 the International Congress of Zoology, on the advice
of the International Commission, was at pains to make it clear in the Régles
that the only nominal species which are eligible for selection under Rule (g)
in Article 30 as the type species of any given nominal genus, established prior
to Ist January 1931, are nominal species which were cited by name at the time
when the generic name in question was first published. The purpose of this
decision was to put an end to the doubts and consequent confusion which had
previously existed through the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes
“an originally included species” in a genus and in consequence through the
claims often advanced in the past in particular cases that a valid type selection

88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

should be deemed to have been effected when an author selected as the type
species of a genus a nominal species which had not been included therein when
the generic name was first published in cases where the species so “selected ”
was subjectively identified by later authors with one of the nominal species
originally included .in the genus in question. The Congress (on the advice
of the Commission) sought, when introducing the objective test of what
constitutes an originally included species, to reduce to the minimum any
disturbance arising from the introduction of the foregoing provision in cases
where currently accepted type selections rested upon subjective identifications
of the kind discussed above. For this purpose the Congress inserted a provision
prescribing that the species to be accepted as being originally included species
were to be not only “ the nominal species cited by the original author as valid
taxonomic species belonging to that nominal genus ”’ but also “ any nominal
species cited on that occasion as synonyms of nominal species” treated by
that author as valid taxonomic species (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 179—180,
Decision 69(3)(a)).

4. At the same time that the Paris Congress took the decisions described
above, it decided also with the same object in view to insert in the Régles
@ provision that, ‘‘ where a subsequent author selects as the type species of
a nominal genus a nominal species which is not an originally included species ”’
as defined above “ or accepts the selection of such a nominal species by a pre-
vious author and at the same time synonymises that nominal species with a
nominal species which is one of the originally included species, he is to be
accepted as having selected that originally included species to be the type
species of the nominal genus in question ” (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 180,
Decision 69(3)(b)).

5. The decisions taken by the International Congress of Zoology quoted in
the two immediately preceding paragraphs show that, while the International
Congress was determined to establish and maintain strictly objective standards
for defining what constitutes an originally included species for any given
nominal genus, it was anxious also to avoid imposing burdensome restrictions
of a ritualistic character. It is against this background that, as it seems to
me, the problem raised in the present paper should be judged. To revert
for a moment to the example given in paragraph 2 above, it is quite clear that
Miss Rathbun’s selection of Cancer gammarus Linnaeus, 1758, as the type
species of Homarus Weber, 1795, is technically defective in that the foregoing
nominal species was not cited by Weber when he established the genus Homarus.
On the other hand, it is true also that the foregoing nominal species is objectively
identical with the nominal species Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775, which was
one of Weber’s originally included species, the later published of these two
names being no more than a substitute name for the older one, the two nominal
species so named having in consequence the same type specimen. For all
practical purposes therefore it makes no difference whatever whether the name
Cancer gammarus Linnaeus, 1758, or the name Astacus marinus Fabricius,
1775, is used in any given context, for the two names represent an identical

_——s”

|
.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 89

concept. In these circumstances it seems to me that it would be unduly
ritualistic to reject as invalid a type selection made under one of these names
(on the ground that it was not the name cited for the species concerned by the
original author of a genus) in favour of a type selection made by a later author
who, when making that selection, used for the species concerned the second
of the names in question, since from the taxonomic point of view the effect
of each type selection is identical with that of the other and there is no
possibility of confusion arising through the intrusion of any subjective judg-
ments on the part of the authors making the type selections in question.

6. In these circumstances I submit for the consideration of the International
Commission the recommendation that it should render a Declaration in the
following terms :—

Where two or more nominal species are objectively identical with
one another (the two species being based upon the same type specimen,
those names being in consequence objective synonyms of one another),
and where one of these nominal species is one of two or more such species
included in a nominal genus established prior to lst January 1931, a later
author is to be accepted as having made a valid type selection under Rule (g)
in Article 30 if he so selects any of the objectively identical nominal species
in question, irrespective of whether the nominal species so selected is
that which was cited by the author of the generic name at the time when
he established the nominal genus so named. Example: The nominal
species Asiacus marinus Fabricius, 1775, is objectively identical with the
nominal species Cancer gammarus Linnaeus, 1758, the name marinus
being no more than a substitute name (nom. nov.) for the earlier published
name. Accordingly, as Weber (1795) cited Astacus marinus Fabricius,
1775, as one of the species included in the genus Homarus Weber, 1795,
the selection by a later author (Rathbun) of the. objectively identical
nominal species Cancer gammarus Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of
Homarus Weber, 1795, is a valid type selection for the purposes of Rule (g)
in Article 30, notwithstanding the fact that that nominal species was not
cited by Weber when he established the nominal genus Homarus.

7. The present application has been prepared in consultation with, and in
agreement with, Dr. L. B. Holthuis, whom I consulted in connection with the
entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology relating to the generic
name Homarus Weber, 1795.

90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO STANDARDIZE

THE CURRENT USE OF “ MONTICULIPORA ”’ D’ORBIGNY, 1849

(CLASS BRYOZOA, ORDER CYCLOSTOMATA OR TREPOSTO-
MATA, FAMILY MONTICULIPORIDAE NICHOLSON)

By
R. S. BASSLER
(Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)

and

HELEN DUNCAN
(United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 550)

The object of the present application is to validate the long-established
usage of the generic name Monticulipora d’Orbigny, the name of one of the
most widely discussed and applied genera of fossil Bryozoa during the last
hundred years. This name was proposed by d’Orbigny in a little known
publication wherein he named a European Jurassic species now belonging to
the Order Cyclostomata as the type species. Since then various volumes
and many individual papers have been concerned with Monticulipora under such
titles as ““ The Problem of the Monticuliporoidea ”’ ‘‘ The Genus Monticulipora”’,
etc., so that today these fossils, first supposed to be in part Tabulate corals,
are regarded as Bryozoa either of the Order Cyclostomata or Trepostomata,
the latter marked by the special internal structure of acanthopores, cysti-
phragms and diaphragms, known as monticuliporoid. Unfortunately, the
literature upon the genus contains so many diverse applications of the name in
Paleozoic stratigraphy and paleontology and so little mention in the Mesozoic
that we feel the present somewhat unusual appeal should be made to the
Commission to untangle the present-day taxonomic confusion. A short
history of the name Monticulipora follows.

2. D’Orbigny Oct., 1849 (Rev. Mag. Zool. (2) 1 : 503) cites as type species
of Monticulipora new genus, M. frustulosa d’Orbigny ; Ceriopora pustulosa
Michelin, 1846, Jurassic of France.

3. D’Orbigny, 1850 (Prod. Pal. 1 : 25, 323, with printed date of 1849
in some volumes and 1850 in others, the latter containing an added list of
publications) lists with very brief remarks species of Monticulipora first from
the Ordovician of Ohio and later the Jurassic of France. M. mammulata
d’Orbigny, 1850 (: 25) the first mentioned Ordovician species was adopted as
type species by practically all later students, probably unaware of the 1849
designation of the Jurassic Ceriopora pustulosa. No other author apparently

Bull, zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 3. February 1955.

a dl

|
,
;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 91

save d’Orbigny has ever recorded any species of Monticulipora from the Mesozoic
and d’Orbigny forgot his 1849 Jurassic type designation by creating two new
genera based upon it and a synonymous species in 1854.

4. Edwards and Haime, 1851 (Mon. Polyp. Foss. Ter. Pal. : 267, pl. 19,
figs. 1, la) describe and illustrate presumably a d’Orbigny type specimen of
M. mammulata as Chaetetes mammulata which has the massive form of growth
regarded by subsequent students as typical.

5. Edwards and Haime, 1854 (Brit. Fossil Corals : 265) recognize Chaetetes
mammulata as Monticulipora mammulata.

6. D’Orbigny, 1854 (Bry. Cret. : 1013) does not mention Monticulipora
again but instead cites its originally named type species of 1849 (Ceriopora
pustulosa Michelin, 1846) as type species of the new genus Nodicava d’Orbigny,
1854, Jurassic of France.

7. D’Orbigny, 1854 (Bry. Cret. : 1013) proposes Ceriopora corymbosa
Lamouroux, 1821 (of which C. pustulosa Michelin, 1846 is a synonym) as
type species of still another new genus Ceriocava d’Orbigny, 1854, Jurassic of
France, three genera now based upon Ceriopora pustulosa and C. corymbosa.

8. Nicholson, 1881 (Genus Monticulipora : 224, pl. 6, figs. 2, 2d), describes
the frondescent growth-form of the Ordovician Monticulipora mammulata
as M. molesta and establishes MONTICULIPORIDAE the typical family of the present

day Order Trepostomata.

9. Ulrich, 1882 (J. Cin. Soc. Nat. Hist., 5 : 234, pl. 10, figs. 5, 5a) describes
fully as 11. mammulata the massive and frondescent forms of growth recognized
as types by Edwards and Haime, 1851, and Nicholson, 1881.

10. Gregory, 1896 (Cat. Foss. Bry. Brit. Mus.—Jurassic) makes no mention
of Monticulipora as a Mesozoic genus but cites d’Orbigny’s 1849 type species
Ceriopora pustulosa Michelin, 1846, as a synonym of C. corymbosa Lamouroux,
1821 and the latter as type species of d’Orbigny’s Certocava, 1854.

11. Ulrich and Bassler, 1904 (Smithson. misc. Coll. 47 : 15, pl. 6, figs. 1—6)
figure thin sections of the d’Orbigny type illustrated by Boule in 1906.

12. Boule, 1906 (Ann. Pal. : 5, pl. 1, figs. 10, 11, pl. 2, fig. 1) figures the
type specimen of Monticulipora mammulata d’Orbigny, 1850 (=M. mammulata
molesta Nicholson, 1881).

13. Bassler, 1934, proposed Monticuliporella as a new name (J. Wash.
Acad. Sci. 24 (no. 9) : 408) in advance of the publication of Pt. 67, Bryozoa,

92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

1935 of Foss. Catalogus for Monticulipora as typified by M. mammulata
d’Orbigny, 1850 of the Ordovician (Trepostomata) upon the conviction that
d’Orbigny’s Monticulipora, 1849, according to the rules of nomenclature must
be maintained for his 1849 Jurassic type (Cyclostomata) as the only solution
to the problem. This proved to be such an extreme case that the help of the
Commission is now sought to reject the use of Monticuliporella.

14. In view of the above statements, the Commission is asked to consider
our request that the originally cited type of Monticulipora d’Orbigny, 1849
(Ceriopora pustulosa Michelin, 1846) causing most of the taxonomic trouble,
be cancelled as such and replaced by Monticulipora mammulata d’Orbigny,
1850, in harmony not only with most authorities and literature on the subject
but also possibly with d’Orbigny himself, judging from his post-1850 record.
The classification will then fall readily in line with a minimum number of
changes.

15. In order to give effect to the foregoing proposal, the International
Commission is asked :—

(1) to use its Plenary Powers (a) to set aside all designations or selections
of type species for the genus Monticulipora d’Orbigny, Oct. 1849,
made prior to the Ruling now asked for and (b), having done so, to
designate Monticulipora mammulata d’Orbigny, [Jan. 1850] (Ordo-
vician), to the the type species of the foregoing genus ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology :—Monticulipora d’Orbigny, 1849 (gender :
feminine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers
under (1)(b) above: Monticulipora mammulata d’Orbigny, [Jan.
1850)) ;

(3) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology :—mammulata d’Orbigny, [Jan. 1850], as
published in the combination Monticulipora mammulata (specific
name of type species of Monticulipora d’Orbigny, Oct. 1849) ;

(4) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—Monticuliporella
Bassler, 1934 (a junior objective synonym of Monticulipora d’Orbigny,
Oct. 1849, as defined under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above) ;

(5) to place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official List
of Family-Group Names in Zoology :—MONTICULIPORIDAE Nicholson,
1881 (type genus : Monticulipora d’Orbigny, Oct. 1849).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 93

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE

SPECIFIC NAME “OBSCURA”? BEREZOWSKY & BIANCHI,

1891, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ LARVIVORA
OBSCURA” (CLASS AVES)

By CHARLES VAURIE
(The American Museum of Natural History, New York)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 876)

The object of the present application is to ask the Commission to use its
Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating the specific name obscura Bere-
zowsky & Bianchi, 1891 (Aves Exped. Potanini Gan-su : 97, pl. 1, fig. 2), as
published in the combination Larvivora obscura, a name which is an invalid
junior secondary homonym, in the genus Luscinia Forster, 1817, of the specific
name obscura Brehm (C.L.), 1831 (Handb. Naturgesch. Vogel Deutschl. : 353),
as published in the combination Cyanecula obscura.

2. The bird described as Larvivora obscura by Berezowsky & Bianchi
is rare and in consequence the name obscura has not been cited often in the
literature. It has however been in continuous use for sixty-one years (i.e.
up to 1952) and has been used in every ornithological standard work such as
Sharpe, 1903, Hand List of the Genera and Species of Birds (4 : 157) ; Hartert,
1910, Die Végel der paldarktischen Fauna (1): 741; Smythies, 1953, The
Birds of Burma : 104, and the entire Russian ornithological literature.

3. In 1952 (Postilla, New Haven No. 13 : 24), however, Ripley pointed
out that the name obscura Berezowsky & Bianchi, 1891, is invalid by reason
of being a junior secondary homonym in the genus Luscinia of the name
obscura Brehm, 1804, and replaced it by the name hachisukae in the combination
Erithacus hachisukae. The name obscura Brehm, however, has never once been
used in ornithology since it was first published, for it is a junior subjective
synonym of cyanecula Meisner, 1804 (Syst. Verz. Vog. Schweiz. : 30), as published
in the combination Sylvia cyanecula (= Luscinia svecica cyanecula (Meisner)).
Even as a synonym, the name obscura Brehm has apparently been cited only
once, namely, by Hartert (1910, Die Végel der paldarktischen Fauna (1) : 748).
It should be noted also that in spite of his having cited this name as a synonym,

_ Hartert (:741) retained the name obscura Berezowsky & Bianchi in combination

with the same generic name (Luscinia) as that under which he had cited
obscura Brehm (as a junior synonym of Luscinia svecica cyanecula).

4. There is thus no danger whatever of the name obscura Berezowsky &

Bianchi, 1891 (which as already explained has been in continuous use for over

sixty years), being confused with the name obscura Brehm, which was a junior
synonym of another name (cyanecula Meisner) at the time when it was first
published and has not been adopted by a single author in the period of one

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 3. February 1955.

94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

hundred and twenty-three years which has since elapsed. In these circumstances
it is considered that no useful purpose would be served by rejecting and replacing
the name obscura Berezowsky & Bianchi and that the interests of stability in
nomenclature will be promoted by the Commission using its Plenary Powers
to prevent this change from taking place.

5. The present application is submitted to the Commission after con-
sultation with, and in agreement with, Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Com-
parative Zoology, Harvard University, Mass.), and with my colleague Dr. Dean
Amadon (Museum of Natural History, New York) who writes: “I am in full
agreement with Dr. Vaurie and support the present application ”

6. For the reasons set out above, the International Commission is asked :—

(1) to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the under-mentioned specific
name for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of those of the
Law of Homonymy :—obscura Brehm (C.L.), 1831, as published in the
combination Cyanecula obscura ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology :—obscura Berezowsky & Bianchi, 1891, as
published in the combination Larvivora obscura ;

(3) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :—

(a) obscura Brehm (C.L.), 1831, as published in the combination
Cyanecula obscura and as suppressed under the Plenary Powers
under (1) above ;

(b) hachisukae Ripley, 1952, as published in the combination Lrithacus
hachisukae (a junior objective synonym of obscura Berezowsky
& Bianchi, 1891, as published in the combination Larvivora
obscura).

OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY

POWERS OF CERTAIN GENERIC NAMES AS FROM RENIER, [1804],

*““PROSPETTO ’*, CONSEQUENT UPON THE REJECTION OF THAT
WORK FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES

By JOSHUA L. BAILY, JR.
(San Diego, California)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 832)
(For the proposal submitted in this case, see 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9(9) : 263)
(Letter dated 27th November 1954)

Since the work in which those four names were originally published has been
suppressed it would seem wiser not to resurrect them again. Let them remain
interred.

"== eS hh ae

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 95

PROPOSED REJECTION FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES OF
EBERHARD (J.P.), 1768, ‘““ VERSUCH EINES NEUEN ENTWURFS
DER THIERGESCHICHTE ”

By T. C. S. MORRISON-SCOTT, D.S.C., M.A., D.Sc.
(British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 721)

The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Com-
mission to give a ruling rejecting for nomenclatorial purposes the work by
Eberhard (J.P.) published in 1768 under the title Versuch eines neuen Entwurfs
der Thiergeschichte. The facts are set out briefly below.

2. Not long ago Mr. Hemming informed me that, in the course of preparing
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for publication in book form,
he had noted that the name Cebus Erxleben, 1777, which had been placed on the
Official List in the Commission’s Opinion 91 was treated by Palmer (1904 : 166)
as a Junior homonym of Cebus Eberhard, 1768 (: 20). Mr. Hemming asked me
if I would examine Eberhard’s Versuch and advise the Commission whether
in it Eberhard had applied the principles of binominal nomenclature and
therefore whether the name Cebus Eberhard was an available name.

8. Eberhard’s Versuch is an obscure book of great rarity of which there is
no copy in the library of the British Museum (Natural History). There is
however a copy in the main library of the British Museum at Bloomsbury.
This I have now examined. I find that in this work Eberhard adopted a
typically non-binominal nomenclature of the kind formerly known as “ binary ”,
his nomenclature being similar to that used, for example, by Frisch in his
Natur-System of 1777, which has already been rejected by the Commission
in its Opinion 258 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 245—252).
It is clearly necessary, in order to clear the position of Cebus Erxleben on the
Official List, that the Commission should now give a Ruling rejecting Eberhard’s
Versuch, but, quite apart from this special reason, I would advocate the same
Course, for in the interests of nomenclatorial stability it is very important
that these old non-binominal works should be finally interred and that by this

means an end put to the risk that later authors may bring forward other invalid
names from them.

4. I accordingly recommend that the International Commission should :—

(1) reject for nomenclatorial purposes the work by Eberhard (J.P.)
published in 1768 under the title Versuch eines neuen Entwurfs der

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 3. February 1955.

96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

ee

Thiergeschichte, as being a work in which the author did not apply
the principles of binominal nomenclature ;

(2) place the title of the foregoing work, as rejected in (1) above, on the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature ; j

(3) place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—Cebus Eberhard, 1768
(a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes).

OBJECTION TO DR. ARKELL’S PROPOSED “DECLARATION ”? THAT

A GENERIC OR SPECIFIC NAME BASED SOLELY UPON THE

‘“APTYCHUS ’”? OF AN AMMONITE (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER

AMMONOIDEA) BE Se sa Wee AVAILABILITY UNDER THE
se R ES 39

By JOSHUA L. BAILY, JR.
(San Diego, California)

ee

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 589)
(For Dr. Arkell’s application, see 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9(9) : 266—269)
(Extract from a letter dated 27th November 1954)

I do not agree with Dr. Arkell that subsection (a) of Article 27 of the Régles
be amended to exclude the Aptychus of Ammonites from its application. The rule
is short and compact and semantically expressed, and to make an exception to it
would complicate it unnecessarily. Simple rules that are easily understood and
easily remembered are the best. If further cases parallel to this one should develop
it would be better to deal with each one separately by suspending the rules, rather
than by amending the rules with complicated exceptions for the purpose of
anticipating emergencies which may not arise.

SUPPORT FOR DR. ARKELL’S PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY
POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAME “TRIGONELLITES ”
PARKINSON, 1811 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA,

ORDER AMMONOIDEA)

By JOSHUA L. BAILY, JR.
(San Diego, California)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 858)
(For Dr. Arkell’s application, see 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9(9) : 266—269)
(Extract from a letter dated 27th November 1954)

On the basis of the information supplied by Dr. Arkell, I would recommend
the suppression of the name Trigonellites Parkinson, as otherwise it would have
to displace one of two universally used and understood names.

a ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 97

PROPOSED ADDITION OF THE NAME “PHORODON”’ PASSERINI,

1860 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA), TO THE “ OFFICIAL

LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ’”’ AND OF “ HUMULI ”’

SCHRANK, 1801, AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL

COMBINATION “APHIS HUMULI’’, TO THE “ OFFICIAL LIST
OF SPECIFIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ”

By F. C. HOTTES
(Grand Junction, Colorado, U.S.A.)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 430)

The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature to place the generic name Phorodon Passerini,
1860 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology and the specific name humuli Schrank, 1801, as published in the
combination Aphis humuli, the specific name of the type species of the foregoing
genus, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

2. The generic name Phorodon Passerini, 1860 (Gli Afidi : 227) was
published in a key of genera, in which the genus so named was characterised.
Passerini designated Aphis humuli Schrank, 1801 (Faun. boic. 2(1) : 110)
as the type species of this genus, using the formula: “ Specie typica Aphis
Humuli Schk.”’.

~ 8. It is accepted by specialists that the nominal species Aphis humuli
Schrank, 1801, and the nominal species Aphis pruni Scopoli, 1763 (Ent. carniol. :
138) represent the same taxonomic species and therefore that, if the specific

name pruni Scopoli, 1763, was an available name, it would be subjectively the

oldest available name for this species and would therefore be its valid name.
Hitherto, however, the name Aphis pruni Scopoli, 1763, has been treated as
a junior primary homonym of the name Aphis pruni Geoffroy, 1762 (Hist.
abrég. Ins. Paris 2 ; 497).

4. In a preceding application (Z.N.(S.) 428)? I have drawn attention
to the fact that, under the general decision taken by the International
Commission in Paris in 1948 regarding the status of names published
by Geoffroy in 1762 in his Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aus
Environs de Paris (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 366—369), the specific
name pruni Geoffroy, 1762, as published in the combination Aphis pruni,
is seen not to be an available name. At the same time I have availed myself
of the invitation extended by the International Commission, when giving the

2 See Hottes, 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 163—165.
Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 3. February 1955.

98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

foregoing ruling, to submit an application that it should use its Plenary Powers
to validate the specific name pruni Geoffroy, 1762, in order to avoid the confusion
regarding the name of the Mealy Plum Aphid which (as I there explain) would
otherwise be unavoidable. On the grant of the foregoing application, the
name Aphis pruni Scopoli, 1763, would definitely become what it has hitherto
been treated as being, namely an invalid junior homonym of the name Aphis
pruni Geoffroy, 1762. A further result would be that the specific name humult
Schrank, 1801, as published in the combination Aphis humuli, the specific
name of the type species of Phorodon Passerini, 1860, would become the oldest
name available subjectively as well as objectively for that species.

5. There is at present no family-group name based on the generic name
Phorodon Passerini, 1860, currently in use.

6. In the light of the considerations advanced in the present application,
I hereby request that, consequentially upon the grant of the application
Z.N.(S.) 428 submitted in regard to the specific name pruni Geoffroy, 1762,
as published in the combination Aphis pruni, the International Commission
should also :—

(1) place the generic name Phorodon Passerini, 1860 (gender of generic
name: masculine) (type species, by original designation: Aphis
humuli Schrank, 1801) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ;

(2) place the specific name huwmuli Schrank, 1801, as published in the
binominal combination Aphis humuli (specific name of type species of
Phorodon Passerini, 1860) on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology ;

(3) place the specific name pruni Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binominal
combination Aphis pruni (a junior primary homonym of Aphis
pruni Geoffroy, 1762, when validated under the Plenary Powers,
as proposed in application Z.N.(S.) 428) on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 99

PROPOSED REJECTION FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES OF
BARTRAM (W.), 1791, ““TRAVELS THROUGH NORTH AND
SOUTH CAROLINA, GEORGIA, EAST AND WEST FLORIDA”
AND OF LATER EDITIONS OF THE SAME WORK (A PROPOSAL
BASED UPON THE PAPERS OF THE LATE JAMES LEE
PETERS)

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 256)

At the time of the death of Dr. James Lee Peters, he and I were in corre-
spondence in regard to the question of the status of new names in the book
by William Bartram first published in 1791 under the title Travels through
North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida, the Cherokee Country,
the extensive territories of the Muscogulges or Creek Confederacy, and the Country
of the Chactaws.

2. So far as the Commission was concerned, this case first arose through
the fact that work on an application (Z.N.(S.) 255) relating to the generic
name Calendra Schellenberg, 1798 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) had shown
that Calandra Fabricius, 1801, an early emendation of Calendra Schellenberg,
had been anticipated in the Class Aves by the name Calandra published in
Bartram’s Travels. This led me to consult Dr. Peters, since, as Bartram’s
name Calandra had been applied to a North American bird, he would, I felt
confident, be in a position to advise the Commission. In his reply, dated
28th October 1947, Dr. Peters wrote as follows :—‘‘ The American Ornitho-
logists’ Union Check-List Committee, of which I am a member, has voted
not to accept any of Bartram’s names, either generic or specific, on the grounds
that Bartram is neither consistently binary or binominal.”

8. In further correspondence Dr. Peters agreed that this question could
not be allowed to rest where it then was, since, as generic names were involved,
the question affected workers in all branches of the Animal Kingdom, it being
necessary for such workers when considering questions of generic homonymy,
to know whether the new names in Bartram’s J'ravels possessed any status in
zoological nomenclature. In a letter dated 24th February 1949, Dr. Peters
wrote as follows :—

I have communicated with Dr. Alexander Wetmore, the Chairman
of the American Ornithologists’ Union Check-List Committee, in regard
to the stand of this Committee on Bartram’s avian names. The Committee
considered only the bird names in the second edition of Bartram’s Travels,
issued in London in 1792, and the explanation of Francis Harper in the ©
Proceedings of the Rochester Academy of Sciences, vol. 8, Sept. 10, 1942,

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 3. February 1955.

100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

pp. 208—221, and the vote of the Committee after examining the proposals
was in the negative with only one member voting in the affirmative. This,
I think, is the information you wanted.

4. In view of the fact that, as shown by Dr. Peters, the present question
had so far been considered only from the standpoint of avian nomenclature,
it was clearly necessary as a first step to examine the treatment accorded by
Bartram to names of animals belonging to other Classes of the Animal Kingdom.
At that time I was unable to obtain access to a copy of Bartram’s Travels,
and other matters later intervened to prevent me from following up this
matter. I have however now examined carefully the copy of the edition of
this work published in London in 1792, belonging to the Zoological Society
of London. This work is, as its title indicates, devoted to an account of the
author’s travels. Scattered throughout the volume there are numerous
observations on the plants and animals observed. The major observations on
animals are gathered together in Chapter X of Part II of the work. This
chapter bears in the Table of Contents but not in the text itself the following
heading :—‘‘ Further account of the rattle snake—account and description of
other snakes and animals—catalogue of birds of North America ; observations
concerning their migration or annual passage from North to South, and back
again.”” As the foregoing title suggests, the treatment accorded to the birds
is much fuller and more ambitious in scope than that attempted for the animals
belonging to other Classes. These include snakes, frogs, lizards, tortoises and
mammals. For the most part these are cited under vernacular names only,
here and there however a non-binominal name being given, such as the name
“Jepus minor, cauda abrupta, pupillis atris ” given for the “rabbit ’. When
we come to the “ Catalogue ”’ of birds, we find that a systematic arrangement
is attempted, the birds being arranged in the following twelve groups, for each
of which an English name is given and for all except two a Latin name also :
(1) Strix. The Owl; (2) Vultur. The Vulture; (3) Falco. Eagle and Hawk :
(4) Milvus. Kite Hawk ; (5) Corvus. The Crow kind ; (6) Picus. Woodpeckers ;
(7) Granivorous Tribes. Here follows the heading ‘“‘Amphibious, or Aquatic
Birds ”, which was apparently intended to serve as a major heading covering
the remaining five groups which were :—(8) Grus. The Crane ; (9) Ardea. The
Heron ; (10) Tantalus. The Wood Pelican; (11) Querquedulae. Teal; (12)
Charadrus [sic]. The Plover kind. There is no consistency in the treatment
accorded to the foregoing names. For example, in the first three groups
(Strix ; Vultur ; Falco) these names are clearly used as generic names, every
species placed in these groups being cited as belonging to the genera Strix,
Vultur or Falco, as the case may be. In the remaining cases the arrangement
adopted is similar to that in the lists given by Brisson in his Ornithologie of
1760, that is, the birds placed in the “ genera” cited in the main headings
appear under a variety of generic names. For example, of the four species
cited under the heading “‘ Milvus ’’, three are cited as belonging to Falco and
one as belonging to Psittacus ; of the eight species cited under the heading
“Corvus ’’, five are cited as belonging to Corvus, two as belonging to Gracula

~weiS~

a eee ee ee eae ee ee

a

Oa a ee

Pe ee es een, eee ee ye

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 101

and one to Cuculus. The next group “ Picus’” embraces forty-two species,
of which the first eight are cited under the name Picus, the remaining thirty-
four being distributed over fourteen other genera (Sitta ; Certhia; Alcedo;
Muscicapa ; Alauda ; Oriolus, etc.). The same lack of consistency is shown
in the treatment of the actual names of species. Many of these are in strict
binominal form, but this appears to be due more to accident than to any other
reason, being attributable in most cases to the fact that the names used were
copied from earlier works by authors who followed the binominal system.
That Bartram himself was no binominalist is shown by the frequent use of names
consisting of (a) a generic name, and (b) a string of Latin words used as
descriptive epithets. This may be illustrated by the following examples :—
(1) Parus viridis gutture nigro ; the green black throated flycatcher (: 290) ;
(2) Ardea purpurea cristata ; the little crested purple or blue heron (: 291) ;
(3) Numenius pectore rufo ; the great red breasted godwit (: 291); (4) Anas
fera torquata major ; the great wild duck, called duck and mallard.

5. The next step was to examine the first edition of 1791 of Bartram’s
Travels in order to determine whether the names discussed in the preceding
paragraph appeared in that edition as well as in the second edition of 1792.
There is a copy of the first edition in the library of the British Museum (Natural
History), in which library there is also a copy of the edition published in Dublin
in 1792. An examination of these editions shows that they are practically
identical with the London edition of 1792 and that in both the names cited in
paragraph 4 of the present note and also the other names there referred to
appear in exactly the same form. The system of nomenclature used in all
three editions is identical.

6. I accordingly recommend that the Commission should pronounce against
the availability of new names in the various editions of Bartram’s Travels,
in all of which the system of nomenclature is, as shown in paragraph 4 of the
present application, non-binominal in character and therefore inconsistent
with the provisions of Article 25 of the Régles. At the same time I recommend
that the Commission should formally reject the name Calandra Bartram, 1791,
(Travels North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida: 289) as
being a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes.

7. The recommendation now submitted is therefore that the International
Commission should :—

(1) give a ruling that neither in the original edition published in Phila-
delphia in 1791 nor in the editions published in London and Dublin
respectively in 1792 of the work entitled Travels through North and
South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida, the Cherokee Country,
the extensive territories of the Muscogulges or Creek Confederacy, and the
Country of the Chactaws did William Bartram apply the principles

102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

of binominal nomenclature and therefore that no name published in
any of the editions of the foregoing work acquired the status of
availability in virtue of being so published ;

(2) place the title of the foregoing work as published at Philadelphia in
1791 and in London and Dublin respectively in 1792 on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature ;

(3) place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—Calandra Bartram, 1791
(a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes).

SUPPORT FOR DR. GISIN’S PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE
PLENARY POWERS OF THE GENERIC NAME “ACHORUTES ”
TEMPLETON, 1835, AND DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES FOR
* HYPOGASTRURA ”’ BOURLET, 1839 (CLASS INSECTA,
ORDER COLLEMBOLA)

By HARLOW B. MILLS
(State Natural History Survey Division, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 303)

(For the application submitted in this case, see pages 38—48
of the present Volume)

(Extract from a letter dated 23rd March 1948)

Hypogastrura Bourlet with Achorutes viaticus Tullberg as the type. While
I do not follow the reasoning clearly that Hypogastrura should replace Achorutes
in this sense, the situation here is different from that outlined for Podura and
Tomocerus. Hypogastrura has been used for this species group by European
workers for many years. On the other hand, American workers and British
specialists have, in general, used the name Achorutes. Because of this confusion
in the use of generic names for the same species group, something should be done
about it and I feel that a ruling of the Commission will be necessary to settle this
matter. I would recommend (however, with considerable regret) that the generic
name Hypogastrura be used, with Achorutes viaticus Tullberg as the type. This
should settle this complex problem.

Neanura MacGillivray. This has been misspelled Noanura in the note in
Science. As I read the literature, Achorutes muscorum Templeton becomes the
type of the genus Neanura without Commission action. However, if there is any
doubt in anyone’s mind I feel that the Commission should indicate, as a suspension
of the Rules if it so desires, that Achorutes muscorum is the type of Neanura
MacGillivray.

—— S|. =” - -—-

:
;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 103

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO PREVENT THE
DISAPPEARANCE IN SYNONYMY OF THE NAME USED FOR THE
ASTRAKAN HORNED LARK FOR THE LAST EIGHTY YEARS
BY THE SUBSTITUTION THEREFOR OF THE NAME “BEI”’
PUBLISHED FOR THAT BIRD BY RIDGWAY IN 1874 AS THE
RESULT OF THE MISREADING OF A MUSEUM
LABEL

By RICHARD MEINERTZHAGEN, D.S.O. (London)
(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 817 : formerly Z.N.(S.) 577)

The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Com-
mission to use its Plenary Powers to provide a valid basis for the continued
use of the name brandti Dresser, December 1874, as published in the com-
bination Otocorys brandti, for the Astrakan subspecies of the Horned Lark by
suppressing the name bei Ridgway, Feb. 1874, as published in the combination
Eremophila alpestris var. bei, as the result of the misreading of a museum
label.

2. The present case was first brought to notice in a letter dated 11th June
1951 addressed by the late James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative Zoology
at Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) to Mr. Francis Hemming,
Secretary to the International Commission, the question of principle involved
in which was placed on the Agenda for the Copenhagen (1953) nomenclature
meetings as Case No. 35 (1953, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 10 : 357—359). The
facts of this case are as follows :—

(1) In 1869 the United States National Museum obtained a collection of
bird skins from the dealer Wilhelm Schliiter. One of these was that
of a Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris (Linnaeus)=Alauda alpestris
Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 166) which bore the label “‘Alauda
alpestris/var. : bei Astrakan ”’.

(2) The foregoing label was misread by Ridgway as meaning that either
the collector or the dealer from whom this specimen was obtained had
given the manuscript name “bez” to the Astrakan subspecies of
the Horned Lark. Ridgway published a description of this sub-
species under this “name” in 1874 (in Baird, Brewer & Ridgway,
Hist. N. Amer. Birds, Land Birds 2 : 141, 142). This appeared in
February 1874.

(3) In 1874 Dresser (Hist. Birds Europe 4(32) : 397, 402) described the
same subspecies of the Horned Lark under the name Otocorys brandiv.
The Part of Dresser’s book containing this name appeared in December
1874.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 3. February 1955.

104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(4) The bird in question has ever since been known by Dresser’s name
brandti but technically that name is a junior subjective synonym
of the name bet Ridgway which, as shown above, has ten months’
priority.

3. When this case was considered by the Fourteenth International Congress
of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, it was decided not to insert a provision in
Article 25 denying availability to names of this kind, the Congress placing
on record its view that such cases could be dealt with more conveniently by
the use by the International Commission of its Plenary Powers (1953, Copen-
hagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 65, Decision 119).

4, It would, in my opinion, be a reproach to zoologists to permit the use
as a scientific name of a term such as be which owes its publication to a ridicu-
lous mistake. Moreover, the acceptance of this name in place of brandti Dresser
which has been in continuous use for over eighty years would clearly run
counter to the principle laid down in the Preamble prefixed to the Régles
by the Copenhagen Congress that one of the primary objects of the Reégles
is to promote stability in nomenclature and that the Commission’s Plenary
Powers exist for the purpose of dealing with cases where that object is
threatened (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 22, Decision 19).

5. I therefore ask the International Commission :—

(1) to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the name bei Ridgway, 1874,
as published in the combination Eremophila alpestris var. bei, for the
purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology :—

(a) alpestris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Alauda
alpestris ;

(b) brandti Dresser, 1874, as published in the combination Otocorys
brandti ;

(3) to place the name bet Ridgway, 1874, as published in the combination
Eremophila alpestris var. bei, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers

under (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific E a

Names in Zoology.

CONTENTS

(continued from front wrapper)

New Applications

Page

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name

Entomobrya Rondani, 1861 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola).

| By Hermann Gisin (Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, Geneva,
Switzerland) ...

~I

Or

Proposed suppression under the Plenary Powers of the generic
name Jphis Meigen, 1800, for the purpose of validating the
generic name Iphis Leach, 1817 (Class Crustacea, Order Deca-
poda) (Proposed correction of an error in Opinion 73). By
Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the Inter national
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ; ee 79

Proposed validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic

name Homalaspis Milne Edwards (A.), 1863 (Class Crustacea,

Order Decapoda) (Proposed validation of an error in Opinion 85).

By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) sa ag 83

, Proposed adoption of a Declaration clarifying Rule (g) in Article 30
in relation to the selection of the type species of a genus in a
case where the nominal species so selected, though not itself
cited at the time of the establishment of the genus in question,
is objectively identical with another nominal species which
was so cited. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ... 86

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to standardize the current use
of Monticulipora d’Orbigny, 1849 (Class Bryozoa, Order Cyclo-
stomata or Trepostomata, Family MONTICULIPORIDAE Nichol-
son). By R. 8. Bassler (Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C.) and Helen Duncan oe nited States ee Survey yp
Washington, D.C.) nas 90

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the specific name
obscura Berezowsky & Bianchi, 1891, as published in the
combination Larvivora obscura (Class Aves). By Charles Vaurie
(The American Museum of Natural History, New York) ane 93

Proposed rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of Eberhard (J.P.),
1768, Versuch eines neuen Entwurfs der Thiergeschichte. By
T. C. 8. Morrison-Scott, D.S.C., M.A., D.Sc. iN is Museum
(Natural History), London) e 95

Proposed addition of the name Phorodon Passerini, 1860 (Class
Insecta, Order Hemiptera) to the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology and of hwmuli Schrank, 1801, as published in the
combination Aphis humuli, to the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology. By F.C. Hottes (Grand Junction, Colorado, U.S.A.) 97

CONTENTS

(continued from inside back wrapper)

Proposed rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of Bartram (W.),
1791, Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, East
and West Florida and of later editions of the same work (a
proposal based upon the papers of the late James Lee Peters).
By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to prevent the disappearance in
synonymy of the name used for the Astrakan Horned Lark for
the last eighty years by the substitution therefor of the name
bei published for that bird by Ridgway in 1874 as the result
of the misreading of a museum label. By Richard Meinertz-
hagen, D.S.O. (London)

COMMENTS ON APPLICATIONS

On Dr. Gisin’s proposal relating to the generic name Entomobrya
Rondani, 1861, by :—(1) Harlow B. Mills (State Natural
History Survey Division, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) ; (2) Frederick
Laing (British Museum (Natural History), jeer (3) John
T. Salmon (Victoria ty One ecanibe fe of bic
Wellington, New Zealand) .

Objection to the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress
the generic name Iphis Meigen, 1800, for the purpose of valid-
ating the generic name [phis Leach, 1817 (Class Crustacea,
Order Decapoda). By Alan Stone (U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, Agricultural Resgarch Service, Entomology Research
Branch, U.S. National Museum, Washington, U.S.A.) ...

Objection to the proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of
certain generic names as from Renier, [1804], Prospetto,
consequent upon the rejection of that work for nomenclatorial
purposes. By Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California) ...

Objection to Dr. Arkell’s proposed Declaration that a generic or
specific name based solely upon the Aptychus of an Ammonite
(Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) be excluded from
availability under the Régles. By Joshua L. Baily, Jr.
(San Diego, California) er aig oa 7) é

Support for Dr. Arkell’s proposed use of the Plenary Powers to
suppress the generic name T'rigonellites Parkinson, 1811 (Class
Cephalopoda, Order ee By Joshua L. Baily, Jr.
(San Diego, California) st pad + Me

Support for Dr. Gisin’s proposed suppression under the Plenary
Powers of the generic name Achorutes Templeton, 1835, and
designation of a type species for Hypogastrura Bourlet, 1839
(Class Insecta, Order Collembola). By Harlow B. Mills
(State Natural History Survey Division, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.)

Printed in Fngland by MetcatFre & Cooper Limirep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C2

VOLUME 11. Part 4 28th February 1955
pp. 105—136 PURCHA

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

CONTENTS :
Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Page

Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoo-
logical Nomenclature of voting on eae Les oan in the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature . m re stony) SD

Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoo-
logical Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain cases saa LO

(continued inside back wrapper)
ee ,

BR 23
LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
and
Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publication Office,
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.
1955

Price Fifteen Shillings

(All rights reserved)

Peet g Se aaron he ae
inet ae Pre: Kaa Seal ries 2 reals (atu Histor), Zookogiaat

a i a - (7a + 3
4 b- ’ J i sal . .
ye } ¢ i ‘ . Peg ad - a! eae oy

igus ‘Cheeta (Cornel or Ithaca, N.Y. USA.
— a er - Bradley ( Ys : )

Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th es 1953)
cari aaa eee (London, ware) (27th July see),

a Br eget hes Be ‘The Members of the Commission | |
aie el ge heey nh pn

“Polar i _Boschima (Bijkemusewm van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
; fe anuary 1 ce E

See Dr. Angel Cabrera (Hva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentine) (27th July 1948)
ae | Mfc Hemming (London, Englan Nosed pars (Secretary)

Dr. Henning Lemehe (Universitetets Zoologiske " Denmark) (27th July 1948)
‘Proteanoe tela sak (Kyushu University, ‘a gest ) (17th April 1950)
Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, F a June 1950)
| Palen eargaileey oar Be Pah dances ot Seow We
wski tute A >
raat) (eh ne 1850 : A mt eee ae

obert M Natur Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenbe Frankfurt
) (5th July 1 stor fe

A . 4 Res Erich Sens "Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt. Universitat 20 Berlin,
nhor Dr. Meets do Amaral ($. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice- President)

face J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953)

Deg pet ar Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., USA.) (12th August 1953)

aE. Vokes (Johns Hopkins peter Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th

£ , es a t ye
ie Profesor a 1858) nké (Mesbgazdasigi Museum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)
vp rae Seana eae R. Stoll (Rockefeller Tnattete for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th

yk Pax vester-Bradle (Sheed University, Shield England) (12th August 1953)
key sr sat a (Bijkemusewn san Repost, Historie, Leiden, The ~Welletionda) (12th

Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra,

Sear Aural) (15th October 1954) Ly

Dr. Alde He ae Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California,

Doe. Dr gas Prantl (Nérodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October
P rofesso: or De Wiheim Kithnelt (Zoologisches: Institut, Der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th

enh imer (The Hebrew Univesity, Jerunm, Ir (11th November 1954)
‘wseum of parati: Regt tot, Beirne

eid 5
‘es
Be .
| ‘1 5 2
¥ i’ . ie cF35
at Riess: Mens Oy
Piper’ , - fa ” ae * ee or ‘
ze ~ : + eS 2 3t>'
z wa tea. 4 : % les f
Ww ae WES “7 Fre Sh
dh = oo - ? ‘tty
Span akc vontnl, Morey el

|
)

a
| BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 11, Part 4 (pp. 105—136) 28th February 1955

NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY

The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the
_ recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56, 57—59), by the Thirteenth Inter-
_ national Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
4 3: 5—13, 131).

(a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published
in the “* Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’

Norice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will
i start to vote upon applications published i in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-

; re on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of
p publication i in the Bulletin of the applications i in question. _Any specialist who

Part (Vol. 11, Part 4) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing
tc the Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible and in any case, in

(b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain cases

a _Nortce i is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers is involved in

106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued)

applications published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature in relation to the following names :—

(1) dingo Meyer, 1793, as published in the combination Canis dingo (Class
Mammalia), validation of, as the name for the Dingo (Z.N.(S8.) 487) ;

(2) Bombina Oken, 1816 (Class Amphibia, Order Anura), conservation of
(Z.N.(S.) 759) ;

(3) Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Myriapoda), designation of a type
species for, in harmony with accustomed usage (Z.N.(S.) 843).

2. Attention is also drawn to the proposed adoption of a Declaration
regarding the specific name to be adopted for the type species of a genus in
cases where that species possesses two or more objectively synonymous such
names (Z.N.(S.) 908).

3. Comments received in sufficient time will be published in the Bulletin :
other comments, provided that they are received within the prescribed period
of six calendar months from the date of publication of the present Part will —
be laid before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at
the time of commencement of voting on the application concerned.

4. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon at the Session held by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 56), corresponding Notices have been sent
to the serial publications Nature and Science.

FRANCIS HEMMING

Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature

28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park,
Lonpon, N.W.1, England.

28th February 1955.

———

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 107

REPORT ON THE WORK OF THE OFFICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE IN THE PERIOD
FROM THE CLOSE OF THE FOURTEENTH INTERNATIONAL
CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY, COPENHAGEN, 1953, TO
31ST DECEMBER 1954 .

First Periodical Report in the Period between the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth International Congresses of Zoology

(Commission Paper I.C.(P.R.) (14/15)1)

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

Periodical Reports : Under an arrangement made at the Session held by

the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at Paris in 1948

Periodical Reports are submitted to the Commission by the Secretary on
the progress of work in the Secretariat during inter-Congress periods. Eight
such Reports were submitted in the period 1948—1953 between the Thirteenth
and Fourteenth International Congresses of Zoology. The present is the

_ First Report in the present Series. In the previous period these Reports were

prepared in mimeographed form but it has now been decided that as from the
beginning of the present period these Reports shall be published in the Bulletin
of Zoological Nomenclature, in view of the wide interest expressed by zoologists
in the work of the Commission and the number of enquiries received on this
subject. .

2. Preparation and publication of the book ‘“‘ Copenhagen Decisions on

_ Zoological Nomenclature ”’ : The period of four and a half months between the

close in mid-August 1953 of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Copenhagen, and the end of December in that year was taken up with the
preparation for publication of the book ‘‘ Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological
Nomenclature’ embodying the decisions taken in this field by the foregoing
Congress. Owing largely to the excellent co-operation afforded by Messrs.
Metcalfe & Cooper Ltd., the printers to the International Trust for Zoological

_ Nomenclature, this book was printed very quickly, publication taking place
_ on the last day of 1953.

3. Resources of the Office of the Commission during the year 1954: The

_ resources of the Office of the Commission in the year 1954 were far greater
_ than in any previous year since the establishment of the Commission sixty
_ yearsearlier. This was due to two reasons : (1) The retirement of the Honorary
_ Secretary from the United Kingdom Civil Service made it possible for him to
_ work on a whole-time basis throughout the year 1954. (2) The decision by

the International Trust to devote the sum accruing from the large anonymous

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 4. February 1955

108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

gift received at the end of 1953 to strengthening the Office of the Commission
made it possible to recruit a staff to assist the Secretary. The staff so recruited
consisted of three persons working either on a threequarter-time or on a half-
time basis. Throughout the period this staff has been in charge of Mrs. 8. C.
Watkins, M.A., who was appointed to the post of Administrative Officer in
December 1953. She was joined in January 1954 by Mrs. J. H. Newman
who has concentrated her attention mainly upon work arising in connection
with the printing and publication of the Commission’s Opinions. The third
post is now held by Miss D. G. Williams. The Commission and zoologists
generally are greatly indebted to this staff to whose energy, enthusiasm and
hard work a large part of the phenomenal output achieved in 1954 is attributable.

4. Programme adopted for dealing with accumulated arrears of work : At
the beginning of 1954 when for the first time it was possible to start a sustained
attack on the arrears which had inevitably accumulated in the preceding period,
there were three main classes of work awaiting attention, namely :—(1) Cases
on which decisions had been taken by the Commission but on which the
decisions so taken had not been promulgated in the form of Opinions ; (2) Cases
which had been published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature for six
months or more and which were awaiting submission to the Commission for
decision by Postal Vote ; (3) Cases which had not reached the stage of being
published in the Bulletin. It was decided that in the first instance a simul-
taneous effort should be made to deal with groups (1) and (2) above and that
the preparation for publication in the Bulletin of cases belonging to Group (3)
should not be started until substantial progress has been made in the prepara-
tion of Opinions on cases already settled and in the issue of Voting Papers
in respect of all cases belonging to Group (2).

5. Preparation of ‘“‘ Opinions’’: The preparation of Opinions on cases
on which decisions had already been taken was begun in November 1953 and
the greater part of the work on sixty-nine Opinions (Opinions 195—263) had
been completed before the end of the year. During 1954 a further ninety-one
Opinions (Opinions 264—354) were completed. Thus, during the fourteen
months concerned the total number of Opinions completed reached the record
total of one hundred and sixty.

6. Preparation of “ Declarations’? : Seven Declarations (Declarations
13—19) were prepared in 1954.

7. Preparation of “‘ Directions’? : During the year 1954 the Commission
instituted a new series styled the ‘‘ Directions Series’’, the purpose of this
Series being to provide a means for recording decisions required to be taken by
the Commission in relation to questions dealt with by it in previously published
Opinions, in order to comply, in relation to those Opinions, with General
Directives issued to it by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Paris, 1948, and by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 109

Copenhagen, 1953. Under these Directives the Commission was required :—
(a) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology any valid generic
names dealt with in those Opinions which had not already been standardised
in this way ; (b) to make appropriate entries on the Official Lists of valid
names and on the Official Indexes of rejected and invalid names of taxa of
other categories established by those Congresses in respect of names dealt
with in the foregoing Opinions ; (c) to make corresponding entries in the
Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature
and in the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological
Nomenclature established by the Copenhagen Congress of the titles of
works already dealt with in Opinions; (d) to determine the gender to be
attributed to each name already placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology. Nine Directions embodying decisions taken under the foregoing
Directives were published during 1954.

8. Issue of Voting Papers : The issue to the Members of the Commission
of Voting Papers on outstanding problems was begun at the end of February
1954. By the end of the year one hundred and twenty-four Voting Papers
had been so issued. In a small number of cases these Voting Papers dealt
with supplementary issues which had arisen in connection with previous cases
but the great majority of these Voting Papers were concerned with problems
on which no decision had previously been taken by the Commission. It will
be appreciated that the decisions taken by the Commission on these Voting
Papers involved a great accession to the number of cases which awaited only
the preparation of Opinions. Nevertheless, by the end of 1954 Opinions had
been prepared on all the cases on which decisions had been taken in 1953
or in earlier years, and a start had been made with the preparation of Opinions

_ on cases on which decisions had been taken in the course of 1954.

9. Preparation of further Parts of the ‘* Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ’’:

; In September 1954 a start was made with the preparation of applications for

publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, and by the end of the
year about fifty applications had been sufficiently advanced to be sent to the

printer.

10. Preparation of Indexes for the publications of the Commission: In

_ earlier periods lack of resources had made it necessary to defer indefinitely the
_ preparation of indexes for the Commission’s publications. The lack of these
_ indexes constituted a serious inconvenience both to individual zoologists and
also to institutional libraries which on this account had been unable to arrange
for the binding of volumes. During 1954 great progress was achieved in this
_ field. Indexes were prepared for three volumes (vols. 6, 8, 10) of the Bulletin

of Zoological Nomenclature, thereby completing the first ten volumes of this

publication with the exception of volume 5, which still lacks the final part and
_ volume 9, the current volume. In the case of the work Opinions and Declara-

tions, indexes were prepared in 1954 for volume 2 and for volume 3, the volume
of which, at the beginning of the year a portion only had been published.

110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

In addition, indexes were prepared during 1954 for six further volumes (vols.
4—9) which were either published or completed in proof during the course of
the year.

11. Parts of the “‘ Opinions and Declarations ’’ Series published in 1954 :
One hundred and thirty-nine Parts of the “‘ Opinions and Declarations”’ Series
comprising 2,280 pages were published in 1954. These included 124 Opiniona,
three Declarations, nine Directions and three Index Parts. The Parts so
published belonged to the following volumes :—

Vol. 2: 7 Parts (Directions 2, 4—9), 106 pp.

2
Vol. 3: 19 Parts (Opinions 195—210 ; Directions 1,3; Index), 274 pp.
Vol. 4: 30 Parts (Opinions 211—239; Index), 410 pp.
Vol. 5: 30 Parts (Opinions 240—268 ; Index), 440 pp.
Vol. 6: 16 Parts (Opinions 269—282, Declarations 18, 19 ; Index), 308 pp.
Vol. 7: 1 Part (Opinion 283), 226 pp.
Vol. 8: 28 Parts (Opinions 284—311), 374 pp.
Vol. 9: 8 Parts (Opinions 312—318, Declaration 13), 142 pp.

Thus, during 1954, volume 3 was completed, the whole of the next three
volumes (vols. 4, 5,7) were published ; volumes 6, 8 and 9 were also completed,
apart from their respective Index Parts, which were in the press at the end of
the year. In addition, volume 2 was completed, except for the Index Part.

12. Parts of the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ’’ published in 1954 :
Eleven Parts (including two Double-Parts) of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature, comprising 468 pages, were published in 1954. Six of these Parts,
published in volume 9, contained a further instalment of applications for
consideration by the Commission. The remaining Parts contained the con-
cluding portions of volumes 6, 8 and 10.

13. Correspondence in 1954 : The total number of incoming letters connected
with the work of the Commission that were handled during 1954 amounted
to about 1,200, an average of about 23 letters a week. There was a steady rise —
in the volume of correspondence during the year until in December it was —
running at an annual rate of about 1,800 letters. The foregoing figures are
exclusive of the substantial correspondence in regard to financial matters
conducted by the Trust.

14. New applications received in 1954: During 1954 ninety-three new —
applications were allotted Registered Numbers in the Z.N.(S.) Series.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 111

15. Revised text of the “ Régles ’? : Work was continued during the year
by Professor J. Chester Bradley on the compilation of the first draft of the
text of the Régles, as revised by the Paris (1948) and Copenhagen (1953)
Congresses. Professor Bradley has reported that he hopes to be able to
furnish this draft to the Secretary during the first half of 1955.

16. ‘* Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ’’ : In the summer of 1954
the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature established a post of
Research Assistant, the holder of which was to work whole-time on the
preparation of the Official Lists for publication in book form. In September
1954 Miss D. N. Noakes, B.Sc., a graduate of Bedford College, London
University, took up the duties of this post. All the necessary decisions in regard
to the entries to be made on the Official Lists and Official Indexes in respect
of Rulings given in the period 1948—1954 were embodied in the Opinions
containing those Rulings, and during the year 1954 the Commission, acting
under the General Directives given to it by the Paris (1948) and Copenhagen
(1953) Congresses (paragraph 7 above) took the supplementary decisions
needed to complete the Rulings given in Opinions rendered in the period
1935—1948. In addition, the Commission during 1954 took decisions
(Declarations 18 and 19) on certain matters relating to the form of the entries
to be made which were required before an actual start could be made with the

‘preparation of the definitive texts of the various Official Lists and Official

Indexes. In the light of the decisions so taken, Miss Noakes has been enabled
to prepare the required texts in respect of all decisions taken in the period
1935—1954. A good start has also been made in the collection of the material
needed to enable the Commission to comply with the Directives referred to
above in relation to the Rulings given in the pre-Lisbon (1935) period, and it is
expected that the first instalment of proposals relating to these matters will be
submitted to the Commission early in 1955. There remains the laborious
task of checking and completing the entries on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology made prior to 1935, a task which it has always been recognised
would involve a large amount of work in view of the fact that in the period in
question the Commission, when making entries on the Official List, did not
include the necessary bibliographical references and, in consequence, occasion-
ally fellinto error. In this field also good progress has been made with the help
of specialists in the groups concerned, but it will inevitably be a considerable

_ time before this part of the work can be completed.

17. Arrangements for the holding of a Colloquium immediately prior to the
Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology, London, 1958: In accordance

with a wish expressed at the close of the Copenhagen meetings, arrangements

for the holding of a Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature immediately
prior to the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology, London, 1958, have
been concerted by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature in
agreement with Sir Gavin de Beer, the President of the Congress.

_ 15th January 1955

112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A “ DECLARATION ’’ REGARDING THE

SPECIFIC NAME TO BE ADOPTED FOR THE TYPE SPECIES OF A

GENUS IN CASES WHERE THAT SPECIES POSSESSES TWO OR
MORE OBJECTIVELY SYNONYMOUS SUCH NAMES

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 908)

The present application arises out of current work on the preparation
of the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for publication in book form
and is in a sense an extension of a proposal numbered Z.N.(S.) 878, in which
it was recommended that the Commission should adopt a Declaration that
‘‘ where two or more nominal species are objectively identical with one another
(the two species being based upon the same type specimen, the two names being
in consequence objective synonyms of one another) and where one of these
nominal species is one of two or more such species included in a nominal genus
established prior to Ist January 1931, a later author is to be accepted as having
made a valid type selection under Rule (g) in Article 30 if he so selects any of
the objectively identical nominal species in question, irrespective of whether
the nominal species so selected is that which was cited by the author of the
generic name at the time when he established the nominal genus so cited ”
(1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11(3) : 86—89).

2. The purpose of the proposal quoted above was to rid the Régles of an
anomaly, under which it has hitherto been necessary to reject as invalid the
selection of a nominal species to be the type species of a genus in a case where,
although the nominal species in question was not one of the nominal species
included in that genus, an objectively identical nominal species was one of the
originally included species. The problem was illustrated in the foregoing
application by the case of the genus Homarus Weber, 1795. One of the nominal
species included in that genus by Weber was Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775.
That nominal species had not however been established by Fabricius as a
new species, the name marinus having been published merely as a substitute
for the name gammarus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination
Cancer gammarus. The nominal species Cancer gammarus Linnaeus and
Astacus marinus Fabricius are thus objectively identical with one another,
each being based upon the same type specimen, and the specific names gammarus
Linnaeus and marinus Fabricius are objective synonyms of one another.
Miss Rathbun (1904) selected Cancer gammarus Linnaeus to be the type species
of Homarus Weber, but, as the nominal species in question had been cited by
Weber under its objective synonym marinus Fabricius and not under the name
gammarus Linnaeus, her type selection for the genus Homarus Weber was

Bull, zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 4. February 1955

— ee ae

ay 2

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 113
technically defective and has had to be rejected. The object of the proposal
submitted in Application Z.N.(S.) 878 was to remove this ritualistic provision
and to secure that in a case such as that described above the selection of either
of the objectively identical nominal species to be the type species of the genus
concerned is to be accepted as a valid selection under Rule (g) in Article 30,
irrespective of which of the nominal species concerned was cited by the original
author at the time when he established the nominal genus in question.

3. The purpose of the present application is to ask the Commission to carry
the above proposal to its logical conclusion by providing, if we may continue
to use the example cited above, that the nominal species to be accepted as the
type species of Homarus Weber, 1795, shall be Cancer gammarus Linnaeus,
1758 (the nominal species having the oldest available of the objectively synony-
mous names concerned) and not Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775 (the nominal
species having the later of the two objectively synonymous names). The
problem here discussed has arisen in connection with a number of generic names
already placed on the Official List. It seems anomalous to be under the
necessity of citing as the type species of a genus a nominal species, the name
of which is not only invalid but also probably unknown to the great majority
of workers in the group, when there exists an objectively synonymous name for
the species in question which is the valid name for that species and is universally
used for it.

4. I accordingly recommend the International Commission to render a
Declaration on the following lines :—

DRAFT DECLARATION :—Where there are two or more identical nominal
species (i.e. nominal species the names of which are objective synonyms of one
another), the designation, indication or selection of any one of these nominal
species to be the type species of a genus is to be treated as the designation,

indication or selection of whichever of the nominal species concerned has the

oldest available name, irrespective of whether or not that nominal species

was cited by the author of the name of the genus in question. Example :
_ The nominal species Cancer gammarus Linnaeus, 1758, and Astacus marinus
_ Fabricius, 1775, are objectively identical with one another. The second,
but not the first, of these nominal species was placed by Weber in his genus
_ Homarus in 1795. Astacus marinus Fabricius was the first of the originally
included nominal species to be selected to be the type species of Homarus
_ Weber. Since the name Cancer gammarus Linnaeus is (a) an available name
and (b) a senior objective synonym of the name Astacus marinus Fabricius,
_ the nominal species Cancer gammarus Linnaeus is to be treated as the type
‘species of the genus Homarus Weber.

114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED REVISION OF THE ENTRY ON THE “ OFFICIAL LIST

OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ”? REGARDING THE GENERIC

NAME ‘“ HOMARUS ”’ WEBER, 1795 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER

DECAPODA) (PROPOSED REVISION OF AN ENTRY MADE BY
THE RULING GIVEN IN “OPINION” 104)

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 879)

The object of the present application is to ask the approval of the Inter-
national Commission for a revision of the defective entry relating to the name
Homarus Weber, 1795 (Nomencl. ent. Fabr. : 94) made on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 104 (1928, Smithson.
misc. Coll. 73 (No. 5) : 25—28).

2. The entry in respect of the foregoing name made on the Official List
by Opinion 104 was as follows :—

Homarus Fabr. in Weber, 1795a, 94, tsd. gammarus = marinus, 8.
vulgaris. Same as Milne Edw., 1837, HnC, 329, 333

8. The first question which calls for consideration is the method by which
a type species was fixed for the nominal genus Homarus Weber, 1795. As will
be seen from the foregoing extract from Opinion 104, it was there stated that
this was by subsequent selection (t[ype by] s[ubsequent] d[esignation)]).
Weber’s little book, as is well known, was completely overlooked or ignored
until Miss Mary Rathbun disinterred it and brought the names in it into use
in her paper published in 1904 (Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 17 : 170) when she stated
that “Homarus gammarus (Linnaeus) ”’, [i.e. Cancer gammarus Linnaeus,
1758] was the type species of this genus. The foregoing nominal species
was not included by Weber in his genus Homarus. The first nominal species
cited by him as belonging to Homarus was however Astacus marinus Fabricius,
1775 (Syst. Ent. : 413), which is objectively identical with the nominal species
Cancer gammarus Linnaeus, 1758, the name published by Fabricius being
no more than a substitute name (nom. nov.) for the earlier name published
by Linnaeus. In 1912, Fowler (Ann. Rep. New Jersey State Mus. 1911 : 333)
selected the nominal species Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775, one of the original
included nominal species, to be the type species of Homarus Weber, 1795.

4, In an application numbered Z.N.(S.) 8781 submitted simultaneously with
the present case, I have recommended the International Commission to adopt
a Declaration under which in a case such as the present where two objectively
identical nominal species are involved, the selection of either as the type species
of a genus established prior to Ist January 1931 is to be accepted as a valid
type selection under Rule (g) in Article 30, it being immaterial whether the

1 See pages 86—89 of the present volume.
Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 4. February 1955

Fe a

tae 13

— Sy — —T a i el ls id il a il

Ca
o<- z

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 115

nominal species so selected is that actually cited by the author of the genus
or whether it is only the nominal species which is objectively identical with
that species. Accordingly, I now ask that consequentially upon the grant,
as I hope, of the application referred to above, the Commission should accept
as a valid type selection for the genus Homarus Weber, 1795, the selection
by Miss Rathbun of the nominal species Cancer gammarus Linnaeus, 1758,
notwithstanding the fact that it was not this species but the objectively identical
nominal species Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775, which was cited by Weber
as belonging to his genus Homarus.

5. At this point is is necessary to refer to the Application Z.N.(S.) 908
(Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 112—113) that the Commission should render
a Declaration that, where there are two or more identical nominal species
(ie. nominal species, the names of which are objective synonyms of one
another), the designation, indication or selection of any one of these nominal
species to be the type species of a genus is to be treated as the designation,
indication or selection of whichever of the nominal species concerned has the
oldest available name, irrespective of whether or not that nominal species
was cited by the author of the name of the genus in question. Further, it
was suggested that the decision so recommended should be illustrated as
follows by the case of the generic name Homarus Weber, 1795 :—‘‘ Example :
The nominal species Cancer gammarus Linnaeus, 1758, and Astacus marinus
Fabricius, 1775, are objectively identical with one another. The second, but
not the first, of these nominal species was placed by Weber in his genus Homarus
in 1795. Astacus marinus Fabricius was the first of the originally included
nominal species to be selected to be the type species of Homarus Weber. Since
the name Cancer gammarus Linnaeus is (a) an available name and (b) a senior
objective synonym of the name Astacus marinus Fabricius, the nominal species

Cancer gammarus Linnaeus is to be treated as the type species of the genus

Homarus Weber.” If, as I hope, the foregoing proposals are adopted by the
Commission, the genus Homarus Weber, 1795, will take, as its type species,
Cancer gammarus Linnaeus, 1758, and not, as otherwise would be the case,
Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775 (which, as explained above, is an identical
nominal species but one possessing a later and therefore invalid name).

6. The last point to which attention must be drawn is the cryptic reference
to Milne Edwards (1837) in the entry regarding the generic name Homarus
Weber made in Opinion 104. In the passage in question Milne Edwards

_ adopted a nominal genus Homarus to which he referred a nominal species

Homarus vulgaris Milne Edwards, 1837 (: 334), which, like Astacus marinus

Fabricius, 1775, is objectively identical with Cancer gammarus Linnaeus, 1758.

Milne Edwards made no reference whatever to Weber and clearly regarded

himself as the author of the generic name Homarus as then used in his book.

Homarus Milne Edwards (H.), 1837 (in Roret’s Suite a Buffon, Hist. nat. Crust.
2: 333) must therefore be regarded as an independently established nominal
genus. As such, its name (Homarus Milne Edwards) is invalid by reason of

being a junior homonym of Homarus Weber, 1795.

116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

7. In order to bring the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology relating to the generic name Homarus Weber, 1795, into a form suitable
for inclusion in that List when published in book form and in order also to
dispose of certain other minor matters outstanding in the present case, I ask
the International Commission to take the following action, namely :—

(1) to substitute the following revised entry for Name No. 494 on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for the incomplete entry
made under the Ruling given in Opinion 104 :—

Homarus Weber, 1795, Nomencl. ent. Fabr. : 94 (gender : masculine)
(type species by selection by Rathbun (1904, Proc. biol. Soc. Wash.
17 : 170) of Cancer gammarus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)
1: 631), a nominal species objectively identical with Astacus
marinus Fabricius, 1775, one of the nominal species originally
included in this genus by Weber: Cancer gammarus Linnaeus,
1758 (under the decision taken on Application Z.N.(S.) 908).

Note :—The above proposal has been drafted on the assumption that approval
will be given by the Commission to the proposal for the adoption of the Declarations
recommended in Applications Z.N.(S.) 878 and Z.N.(S.) 908. If the first of these
proposals were not to be approved, the reference to the selection of the type species
by Rathbun (1904) would need to be replaced by the words “ by selection by Fowler,
1912, Ann. Rep. New Jersey State Mus. 1911 : 333)”. If the second of these

proposals were not to be adopted, it would be necessary ‘to cite the type species as
Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775, instead of as Cancer gammarus Linnaeus, 1758.

(2) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology :—gammarus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the
combination Cancer gammarus (the specific name of the type species of
Homarus Weber, 1795) ;

Note :—See Note to Proposal (1) above. Ifthe Application Numbered Z.N.(S.)908

were to be rejected by the Commission, the words in brackets at the end of
Proposal (2) would cease to be applicable.

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology the under-mentioned generic names, each of which is a junior
homonym of Homarus Weber, 1795 :—

(a) Homarus Milne Edwards (H.), 1837 ;

(b) Homarus Broun, 1881, Manual N. Zealand Coleopt. (1)(2) : 740.

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the under-mentioned specific names, each of which is a junior
objective synonym of the name gammarus Linnaeus, 1758, as pole
in the combination Cancer gammarus :—

(a) marinus Fabricius, 1775, as published in the combination Astacus
Marinus ;

(b) vulgaris Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, as published in the combination
Homarus vulgaris.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 117

REQUEST FOR A RULING AS TO THE SPECIES TO BE ACCEPTED AS
THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS “ LAQUEUS ’”’ DALL, 1870
(CLASS BRACHIOPODA)

By JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr., Sc.D.,
(San Diego, California, U.S.A.)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 868)

The object of the present application is to secure a decision from the
International Commission regarding the species to be accepted as the type species
of Laqueus Dall, 1870 (Class Brachiopoda), under the procedure prescribed
by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (see 1950,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 158—159) to be followed where a nominal genus is
established, or is claimed to have been established, on the basis of a misidentified
type species.

2. The generic name Laqueus was published by Dall in 1870 (Amer. J.
Conch. 6 : 123), the type species of the genus so named being, by original
designation, ‘“‘ Terebratula californica Koch”. Koch never published such
a name but in 1844 Kiister (in Martini, Syst. Conch. Cab. (nov. ed.) 7(1) : pl. 2b,
figs. 21—23) published the name Terebratula californiana Koch MS., and it is
evident that this was the name which Dall intended to cite when he wrote
_ the words “ Terebratula californica Koch ”’.

3. In 1921 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 57 (No. 2314) : 347) Dall claimed that
the species which in 1870 he had figured as ‘“‘ Laqueus californica (Koch) ”
_ was not correctly identified and belonged to a species to which no valid name
had ever been given ; Dall accordingly gave the new name Laqueus erythraeus
_ to the species which he had himself figured in 1870 under the name “ Laqueus
_ californica Koch’ and which in 1864 Carpenter had cited as Terebratula
californica. The species Laqueus erythraeus Dall was thereupon (1921)
designated by Dall as the type species of Lagueus Dall, 1870, in place of the
_ species “ Terebratula californica Koch”, which in 1870 he had himself
_ designated as the type species of this genus.

é 4. Thomson (1927, Brachiopod. Morph. Gen. : 258) discussed the attempt
_ made by Dall in 1921 to change the type species of Laqueus and rejected it
as incorrect under the Régles. At the same time he added that the two species
_ concerned were so closely allied to one another that, even if Dall’s action
in changing the type species had been valid, it would not have affected the
_ previously accepted concept of the genus. Later authors have all endorsed

‘Thomson’s conclusions and have unanimously rejected the claim advanced
__ by Dall in 1921.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 4. February 1955

118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

5. The present case is therefore one where a nominal genus is alleged to have
been based upon a misidentified type species but where the species actually
designated by the original author as the type species and the species later
claimed to have been misidentified therewith are so close to one another that
from the taxonomic point of view it would make no difference which of the two
species concerned was accepted as the type species. It is clearly desirable
that a definitive decision should be given as to the species which is to be accepted
as the type species of Laqueus Dall, but in the circumstances it does not appear
that any practical advantage would be served by asking the International
Commission to undertake, in conjunction with specialists, a detailed investiga-
tion for the purpose of.determining whether Dall’s (1921) claim that he had
made an error of identification in 1870 was well founded. In the absence of
such evidence, the Commission would be free—and indeed bound—to rule in
favour of the acceptance of Terebratula californiana (Koch MS.) Kiister, [1844]
(i.e. the species bearing the name which Dall in 1870 miscited as “ Terebratula
californica Koch ”’) as the type species of Lagueus Dall by original designation.
Such a decision would be in harmony with current practice and is therefore
the course which I recommend.

6. The proposal which I accordingly submit is that the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should :—

(1) give a ruling that, in view of the lack of sufficient evidence supporting
the claim advanced by Dall in 1921 that, when in 1870 he designated
a type species for the nominal genus Laqueus Dall, 1870, he had mis-
identified the species so designated, that species, namely Terebratula
californiana (Koch MS.) Kister, [1844], is to be accepted as the type
species of Laqueus Dall, 1870 ;

(2) place the name Laqueus Dall, 1870 ri He masculine) (type species,
by original designation : Terebratula californiana (Koch MS.) Kister,
[1844]) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ;

(3) place the specific name californiana (Koch MS.) Kister, [1844], as
published in the binominal combination Terebratula californiana, on
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ;

(4) place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :—californica Dall, 1870, as
published in the combination Terebratula californica (an Erroneous _
Subsequent Spelling for californiana (Koch MS.) Kiister, [1844],
as published in the combination Terebratula californiana).

POSTSCRIPT :

1. I have read with great interest the note on the species to be accepted .
as the type species of Laqueus Dall which has been communicated to the
Commission by Dr. Helen Muir-Wood, of which the Secretary has kindly

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 119

sent me a copy. I am very glad to find that she supports the solution of this
case advocated in my application.*

Perhaps I may add that, as Dr. Muir-Wood has drawn attention to the
publication by G. B. Sowerby in 1846 of the name Terebratula californica
(attributed to Kister by Sowerby) it would, I think, be helpful to place this
misspelling which anticipates that by Dall by twenty-four years on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. I would advocate
the same treatment being given also to several other instances of the nomen-
clatorial combination Terebratula californica by Carpenter as follows :—

Terebratula californica Kister in Sowerby (G.B.), Thesaurus Conchyl. (18) :

352, pl. 70, f. 50—52, cited by Carpenter, 1857 Report to the British
Association for the Advancement of Science for 1856: 289. This is the
same reference to which Dr. Muir-Wood referred.

Terebratula californica Koch, mentioned by Carpenter without any further
reference in Supplementary Report to the British Association for the Advance-
ment of Science for 1863 : 568, 586.

Terebratula californica Linsley in Troschel, 1847, Archiv fiir Natur. 2 : 99.

\ Cited by Carpenter in Supplementary Report to the British Association
for the Advancement of Science : 574.

2. So far as I am aware, the generic name Laqueus Dall has not been taken
as a basis for a family-group name.

[intd.] J. L. B.

December, 1954.

2 See page 120 of the present volume.

120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

ON THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE BRACHIOPOD GENUS
“ LAQUEUS ”’ DALL, 1870

By HELEN MUIR-WOOD, D.Sc.
(British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 868)

(Enclosure to a_letter dated 21st September 1950)

The name Laqueus was published by Dall in 1870 (Amer. J. Conch. 6 : 123)
as the name of a subgenus of Terebratella with Terebratula californica Koch as
type-species. The species is said to occur off Catalina I., California, at a depth of
80 fathoms but this is quoted by Dall (1921 : 350) as type locality of L. erythraeus,

2. This species was however originally described under the name Terebratula
californiana (Koch in litt.) Kuster (therefore to be assigned to Kister and not
Koch) in Nov. Ed. Martini, Syst. Conch. Cabinet 7(1) : 38, pl. 2b, figs. 21—23.
The date of the plate is given in our copy as 1844, while the date of the text is said
to be 1848 (see 1937, J. Soc. Bibl. nat. Hist. 1(4) : 97).

8. Dall in 1870 also refers to Sowerby, Thes. Conch. 7 : 352, pl. 52, figs. 50—52,
but this reference is incorrect and should be emended to read: Sowerby (G.B.),
1846, Thes. Conch. 1(7) ; 352, pl. 70, figs. 5|0—52, where this species was described
and figured under Terebratula californica Kiust.

4. The species represented by the figures given by Kiister and Sowerby is
apparently the same.

5. Dall in 1877 (Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 8 : 41) again quoted 7. californica Koch
as the type-species of Laqueus, subgenus of Terebratella.

6. Davidson (1887, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. (Zool.) (2) 4 : 111) quotes the type-
species of Laqueus as L. californicus Koch, though in 1852 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist.
(2) 9 : 364) the species was listed as Terebratula californiana Koch, Kiister. E. E.-
Deslongchamps in 1884 (Bull. Soc. linn. Nermandie (3) 8 : 286) quotes Laqueus
as a subgenus of Terebratella with JT. californica Koch as type-species, and this
is followed by Hall & Clarke in 1895 (13th ann. Rep. State Geol. N.Y. 1893 ; 887),
who used it as a distinct genus.

7. Dall in 1921 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 57 (2314) : 347) quoted Lagqueus as a
separate genus, with, as its type-species, L. californicus Carpenter not Koch
(= Laqueus erythraeus sp. nov.), to which species he refers his figures published
in 1870 (namely pl. 7, fig. f; pl. 8, figs. 9, 10) and also the species described by
Carpenter in 1864 (Suppl. Rep. Brit. Ass. 1863 (33rd meeting) : 568, 574) as
Terebratula californica and (on page 636) as Waldheimia (?) californica. Carpenter
gave no figures and it is by no means clear what was the form to which he intended
to refer.

8. Thomson (1927, Brachiopod Morph. Gen. : 258) quotes the type-species as
T. californica Koch and refers to Dall’s amendment of the type species in a foot-
note, stating that this procedure is not valid but that it does not affect the concept
of the genus. Schuchert & Levene (1929, Foss. Catal. 1(42) (Brach.) : 73) and
Hatai in 1940 (Sci. Rep. Tohoku Univ. (2) 20 : 343) also give the type-species as
Terebratula californica Koch without comment.

9. From this it appears that later authors have ignored Dall’s emended designa-
tion of the type species in 1921, and that Terebratula californiana Kister, [1844],
should be accepted as the type species of Laqueus Dall, 1870, by original designation,

ee ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 121

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE

SPECIFIC NAME “ DINGO ”? MEYER, 1793, AS PUBLISHED IN THE

COMBINATION “CANIS DINGO” AS THE NAME FOR THE DINGO
(CLASS MAMMALIA)

By G. H. H. TATE
(The American Museum of Natural History, New York)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 487)

The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Com
mission to use its Plenary Powers to preserve the specific name dingo Meyer,
1793, as published in the combination Canis dingo, as the specific name for the
Dingo of Australia.

2. The facts of this case are very simple. The generally accepted name
for this animal is Canis dingo Meyer, 1793 (Syst.-summ. Uebers. neust. Entdeck.
Neuholland Africa : 33). Recently, however, T. Iredale (1947, Proc. Roy.
_ xzool. Soc. N.S.W. 1946/1947 : 35) has discovered that the foregoing name for
__ the Dingo is antedated by the hitherto totally overlooked name Canis antarticus
Kerr, 1792 (Anim. Kingd. zool. Syst. Linnaeus : 136).

8. This discovery is extremely unfortunate, having regard to the desir-
ability of retaining the specific name dingo Meyer for this well-known animal
and the unnecessary confusion in nomenclature which would follow upon the
displacement of this name by one which has never been used since the time
when it was first published over a hundred and fifty years ago.

4. I accordingly ask the International Commission :—

(1) to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the specific name antarticus Kerr,
¥ 1792, as published in the combination Canis antarticus, for the purposes
of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ;

(2) to place the name dingo Meyer, 1793, as published in the combination
Canis dingo, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ;

(3) to place the specific name antarticus Kerr, 1792, as published in the
combination Canis antarticus and as suppressed under the Plenary
Powers under (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Specific Names in Zoology.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 4. February 1955

122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED ACCEPTANCE OF THE SPECIFIC NAME “ AUSTRALIS ”

KERR, 1792, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ CANIS

AUSTRALIS’? AS THE NAME FOR THE FALKLAND ISLANDS
WOLF

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 898)

At the time when he proposed that the Commission should use its Plenary
Powers to suppress the name antarcticus Kerr, 1792, as published in the com-
bination Canis antarticus, in order to preserve for the Dingo of Australia
the well-known name dingo Meyer, 1793, as published in the combination
Canis dingo (File Z.N.(S.) 487)3, the late Dr. G. H. H. Tate (The American
Museum of Natural History, New York) suggested also that the Commission
should consider whether it was desirable in the interests of stability in nomen-
clature to suppress another specific name published by Kerr which had long
been ignored but which had been found to be older than the name which had
for many years been in use for the species in question.

2. The name referred to by Dr. Tate was the name australis Kerr, 1792
(Anim. Kingd. zool. Syst. Linnaeus : 144), as published in the combination
Canis australis. This name applies to, and is the oldest available name for,
the Falkland Islands Wolf. For a hundred and thirty years, however, this
name was completely overlooked, the Falkland Islands Wolf being known by
the name antarcticus Bechstein, 1799 (Pennant’s Uebers. vierfiissige Thiere
1 : 271) as published in the combination Canis antarcticus.

3. The identity of the species represented by the two foregoing nominal
species was established by Cabrera in 1931 (J. Mammal. 12 : 66). In the
light of current zoological sentiment against the upsetting of long-established
names by the resurrection of ancient names which have long been consigned
to oblivion, it is unfortunate, as Dr. Tate pointed out, that an application was
not made to the Commission for the suppression of the name australis Kerr
immediately it was discovered that it antedated the established name antarcticus
Bechstein. Now that twenty-five years have elapsed since the re-appearance
of the name australis Kerr, it is necessary to consider whether that name has
during that period established itself sufficiently to make it unnecessary at this
stage to attempt to save the name aniarcticus Bechstein.

4. Shortly before his death Dr. Tate informed me that he had come to the
conclusion that it was now too late to prevent the disappearance in synonymy
of the name antarcticus Bechstein. The same view has been expressed by

* See p. 121 of the present volume.
Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 4, February 1955

—_—e ——

ee

a ee eT

2 te Bae

— eS |

—————— Se Oe

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 123

Dr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (British Museum (Natural History), London), whom
I recently consulted on this subject. In his letter (dated 4th January 1955)
Dr. Morrison-Scott noted that there was only one recent work on the mammals
of South America as a whole; this is the work entitled Mamiferos Sud-
Americanos by Cabrera & Yepes published in 1940, in which work the name
australis Kerr was used for the Falkland Islands Wolf.

5. In view of the fact that this question was raised with the Commission
by Dr. Tate, it seems desirable that a decision should now be taken on it.
Having regard to the evidence summarised above it appears that the general
feeling is that in view of the march of time the best course will be to accept
the change of name made in this case. Accordingly, if this is found to be the
general view, I recommend that the Commission should close this case by
placing the specific name australis Kerr, 1792, as published in the combination
Canis australis, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

FURTHER CONSIDERATION ON THE QUESTION OF THE

AVAILABILITY OF THE SPECIFIC NAME “ ACUTA ” DAVIDSON,

1863, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “SPIRIFERA
ACUTA ’”? (CLASS BRACHIOPODA)

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 848)

The present application is concerned with the question of the name to be
adopted for the species to which in 1809 Martin (W.) gave the name Conchylio-
lithus Anomites acutus in the work entitled Petrificata Derbiensia which was
rejected as an unavailable work by the International Commission at its Session
held in 1948, a decision which has recently been formally embodied in Opinion
231 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 239—248).

2. The foregoing question was laid before the Commission by Dr. Helen
Muir-Wood (British Museum (Natural History), London) and Dr. C. J. Stubble-
field (Geological Survey and Museum, London) in an application relating to this
and certain other names originally published in Martin’s Petrificata Derbiensia
which they submitted to the Commission in May 1951. This application was
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (6 : 18—30) in September
1951. The statement of the case relating to the name acutus Martin will be
found on pages 24 to 25; the proposal actually submitted to the Commission
in regard to this name is set out in point (e) at the top of page 28 of the foregoing

paper.

3. After the publication of the foregoing paper an objection to the portion
of it relating to the foregoing name was received from Dr. Herta Schmidt
(Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Senckenberg-Anlage, Frank-
furt a. M., Germany). Dr. Schmidt’s objection was brought to the attention
of the Commission by being published in the Bulletin in May 1952 (Schmidt,
1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 224). A Postal Vote on the application submitted
by Dr. Muir-Wood and Dr. Stubblefield was taken at the beginning of 1953
and this resulted in approval being given by the Commission to the whole of
the proposals contained in that application, including the proposal relating to
the name Conchyliolithus Anomites acutus Martin, 1809. In that vote I took
the view, in my capacity as a member of the Commission, that it would be well
to hold over a decision on the name acuta until after the meeting of the Fourteenth
International Congress of Zoology which was due to meet at Copenhagen later
that year, for it would not be possible to form a considered view regarding the
objection lodged by Dr. Schmidt until that Congress had clarified Article 19
(relating to the emendation of names), a subject which was to be laid before
it in a Report which the Paris (1948) Congress had directed should be prepared
for its consideration.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 4. February 1955

EE

ee ee ee eee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 125

4, Throughout the spring and early summer of 1953 the whole of the resources
of the Secretariat of the Commission was absorbed in the preparations for the
Copenhagen Session of the Commission and for the Congress and it would not
have been possible in any case to proceed at that time with the preparation of
an Opinion embodying the decision taken by the Commission on the Muir-
Wood/Stubblefield application. Accordingly, as Secretary to the Commission,
I concluded that the position in regard to this case would not be prejudiced
in any way if the result of the vote taken on this case (in Voting Paper V.P.(53)5)
were to be left open until after the Copenhagen Congress. On 3rd April, 1953,
I therefore executed, as Secretary to the Commission, a Minute postponing
the Declaration of the result of the vote taken on the foregoing Voting Paper
until after the close in August 1953 of the Copenhagen Congress. The decisions
in regard to zoological nomenclature taken by the Copenhagen Congress were
published on 31st December, 1953, and early in January 1954 I reviewed,
in the light of the decisions taken by the Copenhagen Congress in regard to
Article 19 of the Régles (Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 43—48), the
problem presented by the names Spirifer acutus Fleming, 1828, and Spirifera
acuta Davidson, 1863, the two names which it had been claimed, in the former
case, by Dr. Herta Schmidt, and, in the latter case, by Dr. Muir-Wood and
Dr. Stubblefield, were the legitimate successors to the name Conchyliolithus
Anomites acutus Martin, 1809. I then reached the conclusion that it was
desirable that the question of the rival claims of the foregoing names should
be further examined by the Commission in the light of the decisions taken by
the Copenhagen Congress. Acting as Secretary to the Commission, I therefore
signed a Minute on 10th January 1954 directing that the case of the foregoing
names should be treated as having been withdrawn for further examination.
At the same time I signed a Declaration that under the vote taken on Voting
Paper V.P.(53)6 the proposals submitted by Dr. Muir-Wood and Dr. Stubble-
field in their Application Z.N.(S.) 534, other than that relating to the name to
be accepted in place of the invalid name Conchyliolithus Anomites acutus
Martin, 1809, had been duly approved by the Commission.

5. The action described above has cleared the air for the further con-
sideration of the problem excepted from the decisions taken on Voting Paper
V.P.(53)5, to which the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 848 has now been allotted.
In order to assist the understanding of the question now to be considered the
following summary has been prepared of the issues involved :—

(1) The first author who clearly applied the specific name acutus exclusively
to the species to which in 1809 Martin had given the invalid name
Conchyliolithus Anomites acutus was Davidson in 1863. Davidson
described and figured this species under the binominal combination
Spirifera acuta.

(2) The specific name acutus—in the combination Spirifer acutus—had
however been used by Fleming in 1828 for a composite consisting
partly of Conch. An. acutus Martin, 1809, and partly of Spirifer
minimus Sowerby (J.) 1821.

126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(3) Owing to the rejection for all purposes of the name Conch. An. acutus
Martin, 1809, the name Spirifer acutus Fleming, 1828, became an
available name and became also potentially available as the name
for the species to which Martin had given the name acutus, but the
question whether Fleming’s acutus was in fact to be the legitimate
successor to the name acutus Martin remained without answer, for
so long as no author, by acting as a First Reviser under Article 31
of the Régles, had given a definite content to the name Spirifer acutus
Fleming, 1828, by choosing either Conch. An. acutus Martin, 1809,
or Spirifer minimus Sowerby (J.), 1821, to be the species to which
the foregoing name should exclusively apply.

(4) In a paper written in 1950 but not published until February 1951,
Dr. Muir-Wood took the view that Davidson’s paper of 1863 con-
taining the name Spirifera acuta was the first in which the invalid
name Conch. An. acutus Martin, 1809, had been validly republished
for the species to which Martin had applied the specific name acutus.
She then designated as the lectotype of this species the specimen,
now in the British Museum (Natural History), which Davidson had
illustrated as figure 17 on plate 52 of his paper of 1863.

(5) At the time of the submission in 1951 of the application reviewed in the
present note, I expressed the view to Dr. Muir-Wood that it was not
possible to ignore the name Spirifer acutus Fleming, 1828, for, although
Fleming had confused two species under this name, he had published
it with a valid indication ; accordingly, if it was desired that the name
acutus, applied in the sense of Martin’s Petrificata of 1809, should
rank as having been first validly applied (in the combination Spirifera
acuta) to the species in question by Davidson in 1863, it would be
necessary, as a preliminary, that the name Spirifer acutus Fleming,
1828, should be disposed of as a competitor by a decision taken under
Article 31 that that name should apply not to Martin’s acutus but to
the second of the species included by Fleming under that name,
namely, Spirifer minimus Sowerby (J.), 1821. Dr. Muir-Wood
accepted this advice and, acting as a First Reviser, made the suggested
determination under Article 31 in her application to the Commission
(Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 25).

(6) The problem described in (5) above was not the only matter which
required consideration before it was possible to conclude that the name
Spirifera acuta Davidson, 1863, was an available name, for it was
necessary also to consider whether or not that name ought not to be
rejected as a junior homonym of the name Spirifer acutus Fleming,
1828. The view taken in the application was that these names were
not homonyms of one another.

(7) In the light of the considerations summarized above the Commission
was asked to recognize that the name Spirifera acuta Davidson,
1863, was the oldest available name for the species originally named —

ee ee

SS | he SS

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 127

Conchyliolithus Anomites acutus by Martin in 1809 and to place the
specific name acuta Davidson, 1863, as published in the combination
Spirifera acuta, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology,
with a note that the species so named was to be interpreted by refer-
ence to the lectotype selected by Dr. Muir-Wood in 1951.

6. The various parts of the application by Dr. Muir-Wood and Dr. Stubble-
field was supported by all those specialists who commented upon it, with the
single exception of the proposal relating to the name Spirifera acuta Davidson,
1863, as regards which (as explained in paragraph 3 above) an objection was
raised by Dr. Herta Schmidt. Dr. Schmidt’s criticism was twofold in nature :—
(1) She argued that a Reviser, acting under Article 31, was under an obligation
to pay regard to the obvious intention of the original author and considered
that this principle had not been observed by the action taken by Dr. Muir-Wood
when making the name Spirifer acutus Fleming, 1828, a junior objective
synonym of Spirifer minimus Sowerby (J.), 1821. (2) Dr. Schmidt further
considered that the names Spirifer acutus Fleming, 1828, and Spirifera acuta
Davidson, 1863, were clearly homonyms of one another, the spelling ‘‘ Spirifera”’
used by Davidson for the generic name used in the binominal combination
which he adopted being no more than an emendation of the name Spirifer
Sowerby (J.), 1816, used by Fleming in a combination which was otherwise
identical. These objections are examined in the two immediately following
paragraphs.

7. As a general principle, everyone will agree that, when an author acts as
a First Reviser under Article 31 for the purpose of giving a determinate content
to a nominal species originally established on material regarded by later workers
as composed of two or more taxonomic species, he should normally seek to take
a decision in harmony with what appear to have been the intentions of the
author by whom the nominal species in question was originally established.
But the concept which constituted the intention of the original author in such
a case is purely subjective in character and the Régles do not contain a provision
under which a selection made under Article 31 is to be rejected if that selection
appears to be in conflict with the intentions of the original author, nor could
any such provision be devised which could be applied automatically without
reference in each case to the Commission. Moreover, it does not follow that the
application of the principle discussed above is desirable in every case, for on
occasion, while possibly securing formal justice to the intentions of some long
deceased author, it may also lead to the most undesirable name-changing
and consequent instability in nomenclature. The problem arises in an exactly
parallel manner in the selection under Rule (g) in Article 30 of type species for
genera. In this latter case, I have often in my own work as a lepidopterist
been faced with the alternative (1) of making a type selection that was clearly
in harmony with the intention of the original author cf the generic name but
which would upset some other well-established name for no useful purpose,
and (2) of preventing any disturbance in generic nomenclature by making a

128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

selection which, though technically permissible under Rule (g) in Article 30,
would nevertheless have greatly astonished the original author of the generic
name in question. In cases of this kind, ] have always taken the side of stability
against the possible claims of equity and have adopted the second of the
alternatives outlined above. It was with such considerations in mind that in
1951 I advised Dr. Muir-Wood to adopt the course which she did in fact pursue,
for that course was designed to secure that the specific name acutus for the
species so named (though invalidly) by Martin in 1809 should rank for priority
from a paper by an author (Davidson), whose material was still extant and from
which a lectotype had already been selected (by Dr. Muir-Wood) rather than
from a paper by an earlier author (Fleming), whose material was no longer
available and from which therefore no lectotype could be selected. To sum
up this part of the subject, (1) the general principle enunciated by Dr. Herta
Schmidt under the first of her criticisms (paragraph 6 above) is one which
will command general support, but there are circumstances when considerations
of stability are more important than the observance of this principle, and the
present is, in my opinion, a case of this kind. (2) The subjective test involved
in the principle put forward by Dr. Schmidt would be inappropriate in a code
of rules and in fact finds no place in the Régles. (3) Accordingly, while there
may be room for differences of opinion as to the appropriateness of the deter-
mination made under Article 31 in the case of the nominal species Spirifer
acutus (though, for my part, I consider that the determination was the most
suitable that could have been made), that decision, having been made, is
perfectly valid and is not open to challenge on nomenclatorial grounds.

8. The second of the two objections lodged by Dr. Schmidt (paragraph 6
above) turns on the interpretation to be given to the provisions in Article 19
on the subject of the emendation of names. Dr. Schmidt contends that the
name Spirifera, as used by Davidson in 1863 in the combination Spirifera
acuta, being no more than emendation of the name Spirifera Sowerby, 1816,
possesses no separate existence of its own and nomenclatorially is therefore
equivalent in all respects to the name Spirifer. Dr. Schmidt draws the
conclusion therefore that the name Spirifera acuta Davidson, 1863, and Spirifer

acutus Fleming, 1828, are homonyms of one another and that Spirifera acuta | d

Davidson, as the later published of these two names, must be rejected as an
invalid (because junior) homonym. Reference has already been made to the
unsatisfactory state of Article 19 prior to its revision by the Copenhagen
Congress in 1953, and it therefore does not seem worthwhile at this stage to
discuss whether prior to that revision the correct view in this matter was that
taken by Dr. Muir-Wood in her application or that taken by Dr. Schmidt
in her criticism of that application, for the Commission is under instructions
from the Copenhagen Congress to apply forthwith in its day-to-day work the
decisions taken by that Congress. It is necessary therefore now to examine
the decisions taken at Copenhagen. For this purpose it will be convenient,
first, to examine the question whether under those decisions an invalid
emendation, such as the emendation Spirifera for the name Spirifer, possesses
any separate existence of its own, for, if the answer to that question were to be

ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 129

in the negative, Dr. Schmidt’s criticism would be found to be well-based and the
name Spirifera acuta Davidson, 1863, would undoubtedly be an invalid junior
homonym of Spirifer acutus Fleming, 1828. It will only be if the answer
given by the Copenhagen Congress to the question posed above is found to be
in the affirmative that it will be necessary to consider the further question
whether the generic name Spirifer and Spirifera are sufficiently different not
to be regarded as homonyms of one another and therefore whether, when
two such names are used separately in combination with the same specific
name, the resulting binomina are also to be regarded as homonyms of one
another.

9. It is common ground among all concerned that the generic name Spirifer
Sowerby (J.), 1816, is an available name, it not being a homonym of any
previously published generic name consisting of the same word. It is necessary
at this point to consider whether Murray (1831), acted correctly when he emended
this generic name to Spirifera. The answer to this question is given in para-
graph 71(1)(a)(i) of the Copenhagen report (Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl.:
43), where it is laid down that, where (as here) there was only one original
spelling for a given name, that spelling is to be “ accepted, provided that there
is no clear evidence in the original publication that this spelling was based on
an inadvertent error”. There is no such evidence in the Mineral Conchology,
the work in which the name Spirifer was published by Sowerby and accordingly
the spelling Spirifer is the “‘ Valid Original Spelling ’’ for this name. It follows
from this that the spelling Spirifera Murray, 1831, is an Invalid Emendation
(loc. cit. : 44, paragraph 71(2)(a)(ii)). We have next to examine what is the
status of an Invalid Emendation ; on this we find that the Copenhagen Congress
decided that an Invalid Emendation “ has status in nomenclature as a separate
name with its own author and date”, that “it is a junior objective synonym
of the same name in its original form and is available as a replacement name ”
and that “it preoccupies any later use of the same spelling’ (loc. cit. : 45,
paragraph 73(3)). We find therefore that the name Spirifera Murray, 1831,
as an Invalid Emendation of Spirifer Sowerby (J.), 1816, possesses a
separate status of its own and constitutes in zoological nomenclature an entity
distinct from that of the name Spirifer Sowerby, 1816, although these nominal

_ genera have the same species as type species.

10. The only question remaining to be considered is whether under Article 34
two separate generic names (such as Spirifer Sowerby, 1816, and Spirifera
Murray, 1831) are to be treated as homonyms of one another by reason of their

__ being of the same origin and differing from one another only in gender as shown

by the terminations used for these names by Sowerby and Murray respectively.
Article 34 is, like Article 19, an Article, the interpretation of which has in the
past given rise to much difficulty, but, again like Article 19, this Article was
clarified by the Copenhagen Congress. The decision taken by that Congress

was that ‘“‘ a generic name is not to be treated as a homonym of another such
name if it differs from it in spelling by even one letter ’ (Copenhagen Decisions

130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

zool. Nomencl. : 78, paragraph 152). We see therefore that the names Spirifer
and Spirifera are not to be treated as homonyms of one another. It follows
from this that the binomina Spirifer acutus Fleming, 1828, and Spirifera acuta
Davidson, 1863, are also not homonyms of one another.

11. We may now conclude as follows our survey of the issues raised in the
present case by the objection lodged by Dr. Schmidt: (1) Dr. Muir-Wood’s
action when she selected Spirifer minimus Sowerby (J.), 1821, to be the species
to which the name Spirifer acutus Fleming, 1828, shall exclusively apply was
in strict accord with the provisions of Article 31 and was perfectly valid (para-
graph 7) ; (2) The name Spirifera Murray, 1821, as an Invalid Emendation of
Spirifer Sowerby (J.), 1816, possesses a separate status of its own in nomen-
clature and ranks as a distinct name published by Murray in 1831 (paragraph 9) ;
(3) The names Spirifer Sowerby, 1816, and Spirifera Murray, 1831, are not to be
treated as homonyms of one another and in consequence the binomina Spirifer
acutus Fleming, 1828, and Spirifera acuta Davidson, 1863, are also not to be
treated as homonyms of one another (paragraph 10). We see therefore that, .
as the foregoing names are applicable to different species, the status of the
later published of these names is in no way connected with that of the earlier
of these names. The name Spirifera acuta Davidson, 1863, is the first binominal
name which applies to the species to which in 1809 Martin gave the invalid
name Conchyliolithus Anomites acutus, and, since (as we have seen) the name
so published by Davidson is an available name, the specific name acuta
Davidson, 1863, is the valid name for the species in question.

12. In these circumstances I now resubmit the proposals in regard to this
matter originally placed before the Commission by Dr. Muir-Wood and
Dr. Stubblefield. For the sake of completeness, there are, however, a few minor
additions which it is desirable should be made to those proposals. First, the
Invalid Emendations (a) Spiriferus Blainville, 1827 (Dict. Sci. nat. 50 : 291)
and (b) Spirifera Murray, 1831 (Edinburgh n. phil. J.11 : 148) published for the
name Spirifer Sowerby (J.), 1816, should now be placed on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, since, under the Copenhagen
decisions both these names are invalid, being objective junior synonyms of
Spirifer Sowerby, 1816, a name which has already been placed on the Official
List (by Opinion 100). Second, the specific name acutus Fleming, 1828, as
published in the combination Spirifer acutus, should be placed on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, since by the action
taken by Dr. Muir-Wood under Article 31 the name Spirifer acutus Fleming,
1828, is a junior objective synonym of Spirifer minimus Sowerby (J.), 1821.
Finally, the specific name minimus Sowerby, 1821, as published in the fore-
going combination, should, as the valid name of a species discussed in the
present case, now be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
The revised proposals now submitted are set out in the Annexe attached to
the present note.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 131
ANNEXE

Revised proposals relating to the specific name to be used for
the species to which in 1809 Martin (W.) gave the
invalid name ‘“ Conchyliolithus Anomites acutus ”’

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked :—

(1) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology :—

(a) acuta Davidson, 1863, as published in the combination Spirifera
acuta, the species so named to be interpreted by reference to
the specimen preserved in the Davidson Collection in the
British Museum (Natural History) (B.M.No. B.7391) from
* Settle, Yorkshire ” selected to be the lectotype of this species
by Muir-Wood in 1951 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (12)4 : 107) (the
specimen figured by Davidson (1863) as fig. 17 on pl. 52) ;

(b) minimus Sowerby (J.), 1816, as published in the combination
Spirifer minimus ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :

(a) acutus Martin, 1809, as published in the combination Conchylio-
lithus Anomites acutus (a name published in a work rejected
for nomenclatorial purposes under Opinion 231) ;

(b) acutus Fleming, 1828, as published in the combination Spirifer
acutus (a junior objective synonym of minimus Sowerby (J.),
1816, as published in the combination Spirifer minimus, conse-
quent upon the determination under Article 31 of the species
to which the name Spirifer acutus Fleming, 1828, is to apply
made by Muir-Wood in 1951) ;

{3) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—

(a) Spiriferus Blainville, 1827 (an Invalid Emendation of Spirifer
Sowerby (J.), 1816) ;

(b) Spirifera Murray, 1831 (an Invalid Emendation of Spirifer
Sowerby (J.), 1816).

132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO CONSERVE THE
GENERIC NAME “ BOMBINA ”’ OKEN, 1816 (CLASS AMPHIBIA,
ORDER ANURA)

By ROBERT MERTENS

(Forschungs-Institut und Natur-Museum Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. Main,
Germany)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 759)

The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission
to take such action as may be necessary to protect the generic name Bombina
Oken, 1816, for the genus of frogs commonly known by that name. This
proposal is based on the following grounds.

2. In 1816 (Lehrbuch Naturgesch. (Zool.) 2: 207) Oken established the
genus Bombina for a genus of frogs. This genus is now considered to contain
four species, two from Europe and two from East Asia. Since 1907 these
species have been referred to under this generic name in numerous works,
not only of a taxonomic, but also of a general zoological, character. These
frogs are referred to also under this generic name in important comprehensive
works in many languages, the name having been re-introduced into zoological
literature by Leonhard Stejneger in his important work “ Herpetology of
Japan” published in 1907 (Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 58 : 50). From the point
of maintaining stability in the nomenclature of this group, it is important
therefore that the name Bombina Oken should be preserved for use in its
currently accepted sense. From the species included in this genus by Oken,
Stejneger (1907 : 50) selected Bufo igneus Laurenti, 1768 (Syn. Rept. : 29, 129),
_ a junior synonym of Rana bombina Linnaeus, 1761 (Fawn. svec. (ed. 2) : 101).

3. Recently there has, however, been a tendency to reject generic names
published by Oken in his Lehrbuch and at the present time the status of that
work is under examination in accordance with a request addressed to the
Secretary to the International Commission by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 365—366).
I agree with the conclusion reached by Mr. Hemming in his Report on this
subject (1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 193—201) that Oken did not apply
the principles of binominal nomenclature in his Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte.
It is important therefore that the Commission should now protect the well-
known generic name Bombina Oken.

4, The genus Bombina Oken, 1816, is not the type genus of a taxon belong-
ing to any family-group and accordingly no question arises of placing any such
name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 4. February 1955

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 133

5. In the interests of stability in zoological nomenclature, I ask the Inter-
national Commission :—

(1) to preserve the generic name Bombina Oken, 1816, with Rana bombina
Linnaeus, 1761, as type species, using for this purpose its Plenary
Powers, if that course is found to be necessary in the light of the
decision to be taken by it when the Commission comes to consider the
Secretary’s Report on the status of Oken’s Lehrbuch :

(2) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology :—Bombina Oken, 1816 (gender: feminine) as
conserved under (1) above (type species, by designation under (1)
above : Rana bombina Linnaeus, 1761) ;

(3) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology :—bombina Linnaeus, 1761, as published
in the combination Rana bombina (specific name of type species of
Bombina Oken, 1816).

134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE FOR
THE GENUS “ SCOLOPENDRA ”’ LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS MYRIA-
PODA) A TYPE SPECIES IN HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED USAGE

By RALPH E. CRABILL, Jr.
(Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 843)

The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Com-
mission to use its Plenary Powers to designate for the genus Scolopendra
Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 637) (Class Myriapoda) a type species.
in harmony with accustomed usage and thus to prevent the appalling dislocation
in the nomenclature of this group, a dislocation which would extend to the family
name and ordinal-name levels, which would result if the normal provisions
of the Régles were to be allowed to apply in the present case. The facts are
set out briefly in the following paragraphs.

2. In 1758 Linnaeus recognised a single genus of chilopods, namely Scolo-
pendra Linnaeus, to which he referred nine nominal species. Of these species,
the third and fifth (both named on page 638) were Scolopendra forficata and
Scolopendra morsitans respectively. Naturally, Linnaeus designated no type
species. The first included species to be selected as the type species by a
subsequent author was Scolopendra forficata Linnaeus which was so selected
by Latreille in 1810 (Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 423, 112).

8. The foregoing type-selection for the genus Scolopendra Linnaeus is.
totally at variance with current usage, the species Scolopendra forficata Linnaeus
being placed now (as shown in paragraph 4 below) in the family LITHOBIIDAE.
In 1891 Pocock (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6) 7 : 229) stated that Scolopendra
morsitans Linnaeus, 1758, was the type species of Scolopendra Linnaeus. This
statement was incorrect under the Régles in view of the prior action by Latreille
in 1810, but it corresponded with the then well-established concept of the
genus Scolopendra, a concept which has remained unchanged to this day.
The genus Scolopendra, so interpreted, is the type genus of the family scoLo-
PENDRIDAE, which was established by George Newport as long ago as 1844
(April 1944, Proc. linn. Soc. Lond. 1844(20) : 192 ; [post-April] 1844, Trans.
linn. Soc. Lond. 19 : 275).

4. In 1814 (Brewster’s Edinburgh Ency. 7(2) : 408) Leach established a
new nominal genus to which he gave the name Lithobius. Leach placed
in this genus a number of species, including Scolopendra forficata Linnaeus, 1758.
He did not designate a type species for this genus. The first author to select
a type species was Latreille who in 1831 (Cours d’Entomol. Ann. 1 : 568) so
selected Scopolendra forficata Linnaeus. This selection is in harmony with
current usage, and this interpretation of the genus Lithobius forms the basis of

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 4. February 1955

{

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 135

the currently accepted family L1rHopuDAaE Newport (G.), April 1844 (Proc. linn.
Soc. Lond. 1844(20) : 192 ; id., [post-April] 1844, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond.
19 : 275, 360).

5. It will be seen from the particulars given in the preceding paragraphs
that the generic names Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758, and Lithobius Leach, 1814,
are objective synonyms of one another, that accordingly under the normal
operation of the Régles, the name Lathobius Leach would disappear in synonymy,
and the name Scolopendra Linnaeus would need to be used for the genus now
universally known as Lithobius. Unless means can be found to preserve the
name Lithobius for the group of species now universally associated with it,
the most devastating changes will be involved, these changes affecting not only
two generic names but also two family-group names and the names of two of
the four chilopod Orders. In that event not only would the well-known
family currently called the LrrHoBmDAE lose that name, but—and this would
be even more confusing—would need in future to be known by the name
SCOLOPENDRIDAE. In that event also the Ordinal name Lithiomorpha would
disappear in synonymy. The genus now known as Scolopendra Linnaeus
would probably have to be called by the name Rhombocephalus Newport,
April 1844 (Proc. linn. Soc. Lond. 1844(20) : 193; [post-April] 1844, Trans.
linn. Soc. Lond. 19 : 275) and the corrected family-group and Ordinal names
for this genus would probably become RHOMBOCEPHALIDAE and Rhombocephalo-
morpha respectively. In other words, one hundred and forty years of termino-
logy, which has become widely established in general, as well as in technical,
works and which involves names which have become tokens of the Chilopoda
for naturalists, would be overturned.

6. The incorrect nomenclature currently in use has become so firmly
entrenched in the literature over so long a period of years that nothing but
confusion would result if an attempt were now to be made to apply the ordinary
rules in this case. I therefore now ask the International Commission :—

(1) to use its Plenary Powers (a) to set aside all type-selections for the
genus Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758, made prior to the Ruling now asked
for, and (b), having done so, to designate Scolopendra morsitans
to be the type species of the foregoing genus ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology :—

(a) Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: feminine) (type species,
by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above :
Scolopendra morsitans Linnaeus, 1758) ;

(b) Lithobius Leach, 1814 (gender: masculine) (type species, by
selection by Latreille (1831): Scolopendra forficata Linnaeus,
1758) ;

136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(3) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology :—

(a) morsitans Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination
Scolopendra morsitans (specific name of type gph of 4
Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758) ;

(b) forficata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Scolo-
pendra forficata (specific name of type species of Lithobius
Leach, 1814) ;

(4) to place the under-mentioned family-group names on the Official List
of Family-Group Names in Zoology :—

(a) LITHOBIIDAE Newport, 1844 (type genus : Lithobius Leach, 1814) ;

(b) SCOLOPENDRIDAE Newport, 1844 (type genus: Scolopendra
Linnaeus, 1758).

> — a lr

such mans cou Her ming,

Bashan a rs Califo : :

ey Carr

as the name for
c “H BB, te ce American 3

121

speci name acuta Da 28 publi Hab - AT Mabe :
, iogi No poe Re, 4 ae mots “ axe ees Fi

ae we re
-
a
rie
de
ie
a
re “
:
oe
ae |
~

CONTENTS
(continued from inside back wrapper)

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to conserve the generic name
Bombina Oken, 1816 (Class Amphibia, Order Anura), By
Robert Mertens (Forschungs-Institut und Natur-Museum
eperee Frankfurt a. Main, Germany)

_ Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate for the genus
Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Myriapoda) a type species
in harmony with accustomed usage. By Ralph E. Crabill, Jr.
(Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.) .. :

Comment
On the type species of the Brachiopod genus Laqueus Dall, 1870.

By Helen Muir-Wood, D.Sc. ee Museum (Watural
History), London)

Printed in England by Mercatre & Cooper LimitEp, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2

VOLUME 11. Part 5 ~4 JUN 195° 31st May 1955

pp. 137—168 PURCHASED

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL

NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

CONTENTS :

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology :

Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoo-
logical Nomenclature of voting on ed tag ama in the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature . +o a as a3

Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoo-
logical Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain cases

(continued inside back wrapper)

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
and
Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publication Office,
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
1955

Price Fifteen Shillings

(All rights reserved)

oy >

adne make creas Reh
Ft aR oes, ET

. a

ae Nee _TeTERRATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL

A, The Officers of the Commission
"3 Seige Soak ate re Mewes a ee
sons er, Balan) it ae

Scr Pras Toes. ane oe (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
_ Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953)

, Seoretary : Mr. Pisice Hemaming (Landon England) (27th July 1948)

B. The Members of the Commission —

(Aoanged in oder pate gang oe gee Saco recent

Professor H. Boschma aes ia van ap Hiri, Leiden, The Netherlands)

Bee Csilprle

Mr. Mr. Norman Deatigh Bey Senge Museum (Natural History) Leila (9th June 1950)
Professor Dr. Tadeusz nstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw,
~ Poland) 15th June 1

Peder . Robert Mectese iMate Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt
Ranh saat der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin,

‘ in useum ni zu
pete (5th July 1950)

Bhat ie ee Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President)

Professor J. ee Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953)

Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
ona es E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th

Pkt 15 Béla Hanké {Masigantasti Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)

ae Ree Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., Us, ) (12th

ugust 1953)
Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th taste 1953)
Pa B. 108) omen (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, T. he Netherlands) (12th

o peat and Industrial Hache Organisation, Canberra,

Z Cal ’ ;
rir fea oar ‘oology, University of California, Berkeley, California,

* eee Prantl (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October

ert | Rah Wilhelm Khnelt (Zoolagischea Inatitut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th
— Bodenhsimer ge Hebrew University, nla Portas Sa November bit

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 11, Part 5 (pp. 137—168) 31st May 1955

NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY

:

3

1 The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the
- recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56, 57—59), by the Thirteenth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
— § :5—13, 131).

(a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on application published
in the ‘* Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’

Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will
start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
_ clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of
2 publication i in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who
_ may desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present
Part (Vol. 11, Part 5) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing
to the Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible and in any case, in
_ sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secretariat
_ of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above.

(b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain cases

__ Nortce is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com-
_ Maission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers is involved in

138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued)

applications published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature in relation to the following names :—

(1) Sphenodon Gray, 1831 (Class Reptilia), validation of emendation to, from
Sphaenodon ; SPHENODONTIDAE Cope, 1870, validation of (Z.N.(S.) 811);

(2) Hemiprocne (Class Aves), validation of, as from Nitzsch, 1829, with
Hirundo longipennis Rafinesque, 1802, as type species (Z.N.(S.) 709 ;

(3) Fistulipora McCoy, 1849 (Class Bryozoa), validation of (Z.N.(S.) 324) ;
(4) Aucella Keyserling, 1846 (Class Lamellibranchiata), validation of
(Z.N.(S.) 827) ;

(5) Muntiacus (Class Mammalia), validation of as from Rafinesque, 1815, —
with Cervus muntjak Zimmermann, 1780, as type species (Z.N.(S.) 481.

2. Attention is also drawn to the proposed adoption of a Declaration defining
the expression “‘ monotypical genus ” (Z.N.(S.) 904).

3. Comments received in sufficient time will be published in the Bulletin :
other comments, provided that they are received within the prescribed period
of six calendar months from the date of publication of the present Part will
be laid before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at
the time of commencement of voting on the application concerned.

4. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon at the Session held by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 56), corresponding Notices have been sent
to the serial publications Nature and Science.

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park,
Lonvon, N.W.1, England.

3lst May 1955.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 139

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS FOR THE PURPOSE

(a) OF VALIDATING THE CURRENTLY ACCEPTED EMENDATION

**SPHENODON ”’ OF THE GENERIC NAME “SPHAENODON ’”’ GRAY

(J.E.), 1831 AND (b) OF VALIDATING THE FAMILY-GROUP NAME
“‘ SPHENODONTIDAE ”’ COPE, 1870 (CLASS REPTILIA)

By ROBERT MERTENS

(Forschungs-Institut und Natur-Museum Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. Main,
Germany)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 811)

The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission
to use its Plenary Powers for the purpose of giving valid force to the currently
accepted emendation Sphenodon for the generic name Sphaenodon Gray (J.E.),
1831. The facts of this case are set out briefly below.

2. In 1831 (Zool. Misc. (1) : 14), Gray (J.E.) gave the name Sphaenodon
to the famous “ Briickenechse ” which he placed with the AGAMIDAE on the
basis of a skull. He did not however then give a name to this species. In
1842, however, he gave this species the name Hatteria punctata (Zool. Misc.
(2) : 72), thus making this nominal species the type species of Sphaenodon by
monotypy.

3. There is no doubt that the word “Sphaenodon”’ is derived from the
Greek word o¢j»(= wedge) and that the spelling ““Sphaenodon”’ is an error
of transcription, the-correct spelling being “‘Sphenodon”. For this reason,
nearly all later authors, notably Gray (1872) himself, have used the emended
spelling Sphenodon, and the “ Briickenechse *’ has been referred to under this
mame in many general works in recent years. Although I am, in general,
a strong opponent of the emendation of names, I consider that in the case of
the name for so well known an animal as the present it is desirable that the
International Commission should validate the currently accepted form for its
generic name.

4. There are two other nominal genera of which Hatteria punctata Gray,
1842, is the type species. The first of these is the genus Hatteria itself which
was established by Gray on the same page (: 72) as that on which he published
_ the name Hatieria punctata, which is the type species of this genus by mono-
typy. The second of these nominal genera is Rhynchocephalus Owen, 1845
(Trans. geol. Soc. Lond. (2)7 : 78). In his 1845 paper Owen introduced this

Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 11, Part 5. May 1955.

140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

generic name in a very casual way and did not make it clear what was the
species which he included init. He discussed this genus again in 1853 (Cat. Coll.
Surgeons 1 : 142, 143). The position in relation to the names Sphenodon
and Hatteria was more fully discussed by Gray in 1869 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist.
(4)3 : 167). Itis clear from these later papers that the type species of Rhyncho-
cephalus Owen is Hatteria punctata Gray. Quite apart from the foregoing
considerations, the generic name Rhynchocephalus Owen, 1845, is invalid by
reason of being a junior homonym of Rhynchocephalus Fischer de Waldheim,
1806 (Mém. Soc. imp. Nat. Moscou 1 : 220). Accordingly, when the generic
name Sphenodon Gray, 1831, is placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology, its two junior objective synonyms Hatteria Gray, 1842, and Rhyncho-
cephalus Owen, 1845, should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

5. Each of the generic names discussed above has been made the basis of
a family-group name, and it is desirable that the present opportunity should
be taken to deal with this aspect of the present case also. First, the family-
group name SPHENODONTIDAE Cope, 1870 (Proc. amer. Ass. Adv. Sci. 19 : 235)
should now be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology.
Second, the family-group name RHYNCHOCEPHALIDAE Hoffmann, 1881 (in
Bronn, Klass. Ordn. Thierr. 6 (Abt. 3, Lief. 18/21) : 1065) (type genus Rhyncho-
cephalus Owen, 1845, a junior objective synonym of Hatteria Gray, 1842, and
of Sphenodon Gray, 1831) should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology, as it is a junior objective synonym
of SPHENODONTIDAE Cope, 1870.

6. We have now to consider the third of the family-group names concerned,
namely HATTERIIDAE Cope, 1864 (Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1864 : 227)
the type genus of which is Hatteria Gray, 1842, which, as shown above, is a
junior objective synonym of Sphenodon Gray, 1831. The name SPHENODONTIDAE
Cope, 1870, which is in current use for this family, is junior by six years to the
name HATTERIIDAE Cope, 1864. Up to 1953, this would not have prevented
the family in question from being known by the family name (SPHENODONTIDAE)
based upon the oldest valid name for its type genus. Unfortunately, however,
the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, when
revising the rules relating to family-group names, inserted a provision that
“* Where the name of the type genus of a taxon belonging to the Family-Group
has to be changed because it is found to be either (i) a junior objective synonym
or (ii) a junior subjective synonym, the name of the Family-Group taxon based
upon the name of that type genus is not to be changed ” (1953, Copenhagen
Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature : 36, Decision 54(1)(a)). This decision
represents a most unfortunate innovation and one calculated to cause much
name-changing and confusion at the family-name level, and it is much to be
hoped that it will be reversed by the next (London, 1958) International Congress
of Zoology. In the present case this decision, if applied, would lead to the
rejection of the well-known family name SPHENODONTIDAE and its replacement

a a aT

= 7 ee

= —- *

Rr ee ey ee ee ee ae Oe Oe ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 141

by the long-rejected and inappropriate name HATTERIDAR. In present cir-
cumstances the only way by which this result can be avoided is for the Com-
mission to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the Family-Group name HaTreERrt-
IDAE Cope, 1864, thereby validating the accepted name SPHENODONTIDAE Cope,
1870. This course the Commission is therefore now asked to take.

7. I accordingly recommend that the International Commission should :-—

(1) use its Plenary Powers :—

(a) to validate the currently acce ted emendation Sphenodon for the
A Pp Pp
generic name Sphaenodon Gray (J.E.), 1831 ;

(b) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those
of the Law of Homonymy the Family-Group name HATTERIIDAE
Cope, 1864 (type genus : Hatteria Gray (J.E.), 1842) ;

(2) place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology :—Sphenodon (emend. of Sphaenodon) Gray (J .E.),
1831 (gender : masculine) (type species, by monotypy: Hatteria
punctata Gray, 1842) ;

(3) place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology ‘—punctata Gray, 1842, as published in the com-
bination Hatteria punctata (specific name of type species of Sphenodon
Gray, 1831) ;

(4) place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : Sphaenodon Gray (J.E.), 1831
(an Original Spelling rejected under the Plenary Powers under (1)
above) ;

(5) place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official List of
Family-Group Names in Zoology :—SPHENODONTIDAE Cope, 1870,
Proc. amer. Ass. Adv. Sci. 19 : 235 (type genus : Sphenodon (emend. of
Sphaenodon) Gray (J.E.), 1831).

(6) place the under-mentioned Family-Group names on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :—

(a) HATTERIIDAE Cope, 1864 (type genus : Hatteria Gray (J.E.), 1842,
as suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above) ;

(b) RHYNCHOCEPHALIDAE Hoffmann, 1881 (type genus: Rhyncho-
cephalus Owen, 1845) (invalid because a junior synonym of
SPHENODONTIDAE Cope, 1870, the names of the respective
type genera of these family-groups being objective synonyms
of another).

142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE
GENERIC NAME ‘“ HEMIPROCNE’’ AS FROM NITZSCH, 1829
(CLASS AVES)

By JOHN T. ZIMMER
(The American Museum of Natural History, New York)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 709)

The object of the present application is to seek from the International
Commission a Ruling in regard to the application to be given to the generic
name Hemiprocne, doubts on this subject having called in question the names
properly applicable to three distinct genera of birds, namely the Whiskered
Tree-swifts, the Edible-nest Swiftlets, and the Collared Swifts.

2. Up to 1906 the generic name Hemiprocne was commonly treated as
having been first published by Nitzsch in 1840 and was used for the Collared
Swifts, while the Whiskered Swifts were referred to the genus Macropteryx
Swainson, [1831] (Zool. Illustr. (2) 2(11) : pl. 47) (type species, by monotypy :
Hirundo longipennis Rafinesque, 1802, Bull. Sci. Soc. philomat. Paris No. 68 :
153). In 1906, however, Oberholser (Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 19 : 6769) advanced
the argument that the name Hemiprocne ought to be accepted as from Nitzsch,
1829 (Observationes de Avium Arteria carotide communi : 31), where, however,
it had appeared only in the nominative plural as ‘‘ Hemiprocnes”’. At that
time there existed no clear provision in the Régles on the question whether,
in order to be available, a generic name must actually have been published
in the nominative singular and Oberholser took the view that this was not
an essential requirement, guiding himself in this matter by Canon VI of the
Code of Nomenclature of the American Ornithologists’ Union which accepted
such plural usage as valid and provided (in the attendant remarks) for change
to the required nominative singular. From the species cited by Nitzsch in
1829 for his ‘‘ Hemiprocnes’’ Oberholser selected Hirundo longipennis
Rafinesque, 1802 (cited by Nitzsch as “‘ Cypselus longipennis Temminck ’’) as
type species. Under this arrangement the name Hemiprocne (emend. of
Hemiprocnes) Nitzsch, 1829, became the oldest available name for the Whiskered
Tree-swifts, the name previously used, Macropteryx Swainson, [1832], falling
as a junior synonym. The removal of the name Hemiprocne from the Collared
Swifts left that genus without a name. Oberholser accordingly published
the new name Streptoprocne Oberholser, 1906 (Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 19 : 69)
for this genus, designating Hirundo zonaris Shaw, 1796 (in Miller, Oimelia
physica : 100) as type species.

3. Oberholser’s arrangement came into general use, but has been found
to be incorrect under the Régles on the basis of Opinion 183 (1944, Ops. Deels.
int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 13—24), which ruled that a generic name does
not acquire a status of availability until it is published in the nominative

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 5. May 1955.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 143

singular. It is necessary therefore to examine the later literature for the
purpose of determining as from what date and in what sense the generic name
Hemiprocne was first validly published.

4. The first use of the name Hemiprocne subsequent to 1829 is also very
questionable in character, though for different reasons. This was by Nitzsch
(1833, Pterylographia Avium (1): 21) who gave anatomical characters for
a number of genera, including Hemiprocne, but did not cite any one
character as distinguishing Hemiprocne from the other genera cited. Whether
or not such undiscriminating treatment can properly be accepted as providing
for the generic name Hemiprocne an “ indication ” as required by Proviso (a)
to Article 25 of the Régles is a matter which can be settled only by the Com-
mission. The name Hemiprocne as of Nitzsch, 1833, has generally been treated
by subsequent authors as a nomen nudum, though, as Nitzsch gave characters
jointly for this and other genera, it is not an absolute nomen nudum, though
a virtual one. If this generic name were to be ruled available as from Nitzsch,
1833, for which no type selection has ever been made, it would be possible
to select a type species which would be in harmony with existing usage.

5. The name Hemiprocne was next used in 1838 (Leitfaden fiir Realschulen
und Gymnasien : 34) when Riemann applied it to a single species “‘ H. esculenta,
die indianische Schwalbe”. By this action the nominal species Hirundo
esculenta Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 191) became the type species,
by monotypy, of the genus Hemiprocne, if Riemann is treated as the first
author validly to publish this generic name. On this basis the name Hemiprocne
would become the oldest available generic name for the Edible-nest Swiftlets
and would replace the name Collocalia Gray (G.R.), 1840 (List. Gen. Birds : 8),
of which also Hirwndo esculenta Linnaeus, 1758, is type species by monotypy.

6. In 1840 (System der Pterylographie : 31, 123) Nitasch again used the
generic name Hemiprocne, on this occasion in acceptable form. He cited
two species as belonging to this genus. One of these species, then cited as
“ Hirundo collaris Temm.” (i.e. Hirundo collaris Wied, 1820 (Reise nach
Brasilien 1 : 75)) was selected by Gray (G.R.), 1855 (Cat. Gen. Subgen. Birds :
12) as the type species of the genus Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1840. If this usage of
Hemiprocne were to be accepted, that generic name would become the oldest
available generic name for the Collared Swifts and would replace the substitute
name Streptoprocne published by Oberholser in 1906 (see paragraph 2 above) ;
for Hirundo zonaris Shaw, 1796, the type species of Streptoprocne Oberholser,
is considered to be the same species as Hirundo collaris Wied, the type species
of Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1840.

7. Oberholser (1906, Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 19 : 68) proposed the family
name HEMIPROCNIDAE to replace the then current MACROPTERYGIDAE, basing
the name on Hemiprocne (emend. of Hemiprocnes) of Nitzsch, 1829. HEmI-
PROOCNIDAE thereupon came into general usage and is still current. Any change

144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

in the present application of the name Hemiprocne would, therefore, present an
added source of confusion in family names. I can find no family names based
on usages of Hemiprocne subsequent to 1829 which are herein proposed as
nomina rejecta. The other two genera of swifts involved in the present petition
belong to the family apoprpaz and their current generic names have had no
family names based thereon as far as I can determine.

8. I have discussed the details of the present proposals with Dr. Dean
Amadon of this Museum who agrees with the need for action and the solution
advanced.

9. Under strict application of the Régles, except for the complication
offered by the 1833 reference (paragraph 4 above), it appears that the name
Hemiprocne must be credited to Riemann (1838) and replace the name Collocalia
for the Edible-nest Swiftlets, while the Whiskered Tree-swifts, now known as
Hemiprocne would revert to the name Macropteryx, by which they were known
prior to Oberholser’s paper of 1906. If the Riemann (1838) usage as well
as the earlier usages by Nitzsch were to be officially rejected, the name Hemt-
procne, ranking from Nitzsch (1840) would replace Streptoprocne for the Collared
Swifts, Macropteryx would become the name for the Whiskered Tree-swifts,
and the Edible-nest Swiftlets would retain the name Collocalia. If however
the Commission were to validate the name Hemiprocne as from Nitzsch (1829),
that name would become the valid name for the Whiskered Tree-swifts, and
the Edible-nest Swiftlets and the Collared Swifts would retain the names
(Collocalia and Streptoprocne) by which they are currently known. In the
interests of stability this is the course which I recommend the Commission
to take. Such action would moreover be in harmony with the general principle
laid down by the Commission that it is particularly desirable to prevent the
changing of names as the result of changes in, or of new interpretations of, the
Réegles, for in the present case it was only the interpretation of Article 8 given
in Opinion 183 (paragraph 3 above) which led to the displacement of the name
Hemiprocne Nitzsch as the generic name for the Whiskered Tree-swifts.

10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked :—

(1) to use its Plenary Powers to validate in the form H emiprocne the generic
name published in the nominative plural as Hemiprocnes by Nitzsch
in 1829 with Hirundo longipennis Rafinesque, 1802, as type species ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology :—

(a) Hemiprocne (emend. of Hemiprocnes) Nitzsch, 1829, as validated
under the Plenary Powers under (1) above (gender : feminine)
(type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under
(1) above : Hirundo longipennis Rafinesque, 1802) ;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 145

(b) Collocalia Gray (G.R.), 1840 (gender : feminine) (type species, by
original designation : Hirundo esculenta Linnaeus, 1758) ;

(c) Streptoprocne Oberholser, 1906 (gender : feminine) (type species,
by original designation : Hirundo zonaris Shaw, 1796) ;

(3) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—

(a) Hemiprocnes Nitzsch, 1829 (an Invalid Original Spelling of Hemi-
procne) ;

(b) the under-mentioned names, each of which is a junior homonym
of Hemiprocne (emend. of Hemiprocnes) Nitzsch, 1829, as
validated under the Plenary Powers under (1) above :—(i)
Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1833; (ii) Hemiprocne Riemann, 1838 ;
(iii) Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1840 ;

(c) Macropteryx Swainson, [1831] (a junior objective synonym of
Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1829, as validated under the Plenary
Powers under (1) above) ;

(4) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology :—

(a) longipennis Rafinesque, 1802, as published in the combination
Hirundo longipennis (specific name of type species of Hemi-
procne Nitzsch, 1829) ;

(b) esculenta Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Hirundo
esculenta (specific name of type species of Collocalia Gray
(G.RB.), 1840) ;

(c) zonaris Shaw, 1796, as published in the combination Hirundo
zonaris (specific name of type species of Streptoprocne Oberholser,
1906).

(5) to place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official List
of Family-Group Names in Zoology : HEMIPROCNIDAE Oberholser, 1906
(type genus : Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1829).

146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

REQUEST FOR A “ DECLARATION ”’ DEFINING THE EXPRESSION
“* MONOTYPICAL GENUS ”’

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 904)

The purpose of the present application is to ask the Commission to adopt
a Declaration defining the expression “‘monotypical genus”. The need
for such a Declaration has come to light in the course of current work in the
Office of the Commission on the preparation for publication in book form
of the first instalment of the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Briefly,
the need for a Ruling on this subject arises out of an apparent inconsistency
between two amendments to the Régles made by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948. The first of the provisions so adopted by
that Congress contained a definition of the expression “ originally included
species ”’ for the purposes of Article 30, the second had as its object a relaxation
of the terms of Proviso (c) to Article 25 in relation to the “ indication ”’ of a
type species for a nominal genus under Rule (c) in Article 30 (Rule relating to
the determination of the type species of a genus by monotypy).

2. 'The question of what is “ an originally included species ”’ for the purposes
of Article 30 (the Article which prescribes the manner in which the species to
be accepted as the type species of a nominal genus is to be determined) was
discussed at length by the Commission at a Public Session held at Paris in
1948 during the Thirteenth International Congress. Everyone was agreed
that it was a serious defect in Article 30, as it then existed, that it contained
no definition of what was to be regarded as an originally included species for
the purposes of this Article, for the lack of such a definition meant that an
author making a type selection under Rule (g) was given no guidance as to
what were the nominal species from which he was entitled to choose a type
species. The whole of the discussion was concerned with Rule (g) (type species
by subsequent selection). It will be seen from the following extract from the
Official Record of the meeting concerned that in the course of the discussion
which led up to the recommendation submitted by the Commission and later
approved and adopted by the Congress it was pointed out that, “if it had been
practicable, the most satisfactory course would have been to restrict the field
of selection for the type species of a given nominal genus to those nominal
species which had been accepted by the original author as taxonomically valid
species and had been included by him in the genus. In a large number of cases,
however, the currently adopted type selection of a nominal genus was one
in which some author had selected as the type species a nominal species which
had been included by the original author of the generic name not as a taxono-
mically valid species but as a synonym of one of the nominal species accepted

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 5. May 1955.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 147

by him as a taxonomically valid species and included by him as such in the
nominal genus concerned ” (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 178). It was in the
light of these considerations that it was decided that in the interests of
nomenclatorial stability it was necessary, when defining an “ originally included
species ’’ for the purposes of Rule (g) in Article 30 to bring within the scope of
the definition nominal species cited as synonyms of nominal species accepted
by the author of the generic name as taxonomically valid species belonging
to the genus so named. It is clear from correspondence received after the
Congress that any other definition of what constitutes an “ originally included
species’ for the purposes of Rule (g) in Article 30 would have upset many
currently accepted type selections and would have led to a great deal of
name-changing, dissatisfaction and confusion.

3. The following is the decision taken by the Paris Congress on the subject
of the species to be accepted as species originally included in a nominal genus
(1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 179—180, Decision 69(3)(a)) :—

(3) that words should be inserted at appropriate points in Article 30 to
make it clear :—

(a) that the nominal species to be regarded as having been included
in a given nominal genus at the time when the name of that genus
was first published are (i) the nominal species cited by the
original author as valid taxonomic species belonging to that
genus and (ii) any nominal species cited on that occasion as
synonyms of nominal species falling in (i) above and that for
such a nominal genus the foregoing nominal species were alone
eligible for selection as type species ;

4. It will be seen from the terms of the decision quoted above that, although
the discussion which led up to that decision was concerned only with the
problem arising in connection with the interpretation of Rule (g) in Article 30
(Rule relating to the selection of a type species by a subsequent author), the
terms of that decision were quite general in character and appear to apply
that decision to that Article as a whole, for it prescribes that the definition of
“ an originally included species ” then adopted is to be inserted “‘ at appropriate
points in Article 30 ’”’, a phrase which would not have been used if the intention
had been expressly to confine that definition to Rule (g) alone. If this were the
only decision taken by the Paris Congress bearing on this problem, it would
be necessary to conclude that, although the special case arising in connection
with Rule (c) in Article 30 (Rule relating to the indication of type species
by monotypy) was not expressly considered at the time when the foregoing
decision was taken, the definition of “an originally included species” then
adopted nevertheless applied to Rule (c) equally with Rule (g). As we shall

148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

see however, a decision was taken by the Paris Congress in connection with
Rule (c) which shows clearly that it was not the intention of the Congress to
apply the foregoing definition to Rule (c) in the foregoing Article.

5. Rule (g) in Article 30 is applicable only to names published for nominal
genera before Ist January 1931, since under the amendment to Article 25
adopted at Budapest by the Tenth International Congress of Zoology the new
Proviso (Proviso (c)) to the above Article then inserted came into force as
from the above date. Under this Proviso no generic name published on or
after Ist January 1931 was to acquire the status of availability unless
accompanied by an unequivocal designation of the type species of the genus so
named. Accordingly, under that provision Rule (g) was restricted in its
application to generic names published not later than 31st December 1930.

6. During the period between the Budapest (1927) and Paris (1948)
Congresses experience showed that the well-intentioned provisions then
incorporated into Article 25 were unduly restrictive in character, having the
effect of invalidating names for purely technical nomenclatorial reasons. These
“‘ ritualistic ’’ provisions, as they were called by their critics, gave rise to
much dissatisfaction, and there was a strong demand for their relaxation.
When this matter was considered by the Commission and the Congress at Paris
in 1948, extensive changes were made in Proviso (c) to Article 25 for the purpose
of removing the objectionable ritualistic features in question. These amend-
ments related to the expressions (1) “summary of characters’, (2) “ definite
bibliographic reference ”’ and (3) “‘ definite and unambiguous designation of the
type species”. It is the last of these amendments with which we are here
concerned. In this case it was agreed by the Paris Congress to relax Proviso
(c) to Article 25 in such a way that a generic name published after 31st December
1930 should be an available name not only when accompanied by an
unambiguous type designation of the genus concerned but also when a type
species was “indicated” in accordance with one or other of the Rules laid
down in the first group of Rules in Article 30 (i.e., the group of Rules headed
“Cases in which the generic type is accepted solely upon the basis of the
original publication’). In other words, the Paris Congress decided that a
generic name published after 31st December 1930 was to be accepted as having
acquired the status of availability if at the time when it was first published
its author “‘ indicated ” the type species for the genus so named under Rules
(b), (c) or (d) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 72, Decision 8(1)) as well as when
he “‘ designated ”’ a type species under Rule (a). It is this amendment to Article
25 in relation to Rule (c) in Article 30 which it is now necessary to consider.

7. So far as concerns generic names published after 31st December 1930
and regarded by their authors as containing only one taxonomically valid
species, we have two decisions by the Paris Congress which must be considered.
These are : (1) the decision (paragraph 6 above) under which, while maintaining
the provision that names published in this period must, in order to be available,
have been published with a type species, provides that this condition is to be
regarded as being satisfied if the author when publishing the generic name in

EE

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 149

question treated that genus as containing only one species (or cited in con-
nection with it only one species) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 153), and
(2) the decision (quoted in paragraph 3 above) that, where a nominal species
is identified by the author of a generic name with (i.e., where its name is
synonymised with that of) a nominal species regarded as a taxonomically
valid species by the author of the generic name both the nominal species
concerned are to be treated as “ originally included species”’. If Decision
(2) (which was taken with special reference to Rule (g) in Article 30) were
to apply—as the wording used suggests—to Rule (c), the effect would be
that any generic name published after 3lst December 1930 which was
treated by its author as containing only one taxonomically valid species
but for which he cited, as a synonym, the name of some other nominal
species, would be the name of a genus established with two originally
included species. Accordingly, in every case where the author of such a generic
name omitted expressly to designate as the type species of his new genus, the
only species which on taxonomic grounds he recognised as belonging to that
genus, the nominal genus in question would be a genus established after
31st December 1930 without a designated or indicated type species and the
generic name in question would automatically have no status in zoological
nomenclature.

8. Quite apart from the fact that it is certain that this was not the result
intended by the Commission and the Congress when amending Proviso (c) to
Article 25 (in the way described in paragraph 6 above), it is not possible
reasonably to read such an intention into the amendment so adopted, for, if
that had been what was intended, the amendment adopted would have applied
only to the names of those genera regarded by their authors as being
monotypical and where no synonyms were cited for the sole species recognised
by the author of the generic name as being referable on taxonomic grounds
to the genus so named. Thus, any generic name, for the type species of which a
synonym was cited by the original author would gain no benefit from the
relaxation of Proviso (c) made by the Paris Congress and would remain subject
to the ritualistic provisions adopted by the Budapest Congress which it was
the object of the Paris Congress to delete from Article 25.

9. In these circumstances the only reasonable course appears to be to
conclude that the provision containing the definition of ‘‘ an originally included
species ” adopted by the Paris Congress for the purpose of remedying a defect
in Rule (g) in Article 30, was not intended to apply to Rule (c) in that Article,
notwithstanding the fact that (as noted in paragraph 4 above) the words used
in recording that decision seem to imply such an intention. There is indeed a
formal inconsistency between the decisions described respectively as Decision
(1) and Decision (2) in paragraph 7 above, for under the interpretation here
suggested, the opening words used in Decision (1) must be regarded as unduly
wide, while under the opposite interpretation, the amendment of Proviso (c)
to Article 25 adopted by the Paris Congress would become circumscribed to

150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

such an extent that it clearly could not represent the intention of the Congress.
For these reasons therefore it is highly desirable that the Commission should
render a Declaration clarifying the relationship of the foregoing provisions
inserted in the Régles by the Paris Congress.

10. Two possible interpretations appear to be possible: (A) The Com-
mission might direct that the Paris definition of “an originally included
species ’’ applies to generic names published before Ist January 1931 but not
to generic names published on or after that date. (B) The Commission might
tule that the foregoing definition does not apply to Rule (c) in Article 30,
applying only to Rule (g) in that Article. Interpretation (A) would resolve
the inconsistency noted between the two Paris decisions there discussed, but
it would involve an anomalous distinction in the matter of the species to be
deemed to be “ originally included species” as between names published
(a) before, and (5) on, or after, Ist January 1931. Interpretation (B) (which is,
I am convinced, in harmony with the actual intention of the Paris Congress)
avoids the foregoing anomaly, but it creates a distinction in the matter of
what constitutes “‘ an originally included species ” as beteetn genera, the type
species of which fall to be determined under Rule (c) and those, the type species
of which are determinable under Rule (g). There are, however, in my view,
sound logical grounds for making this distinction.

11. It is necessary, however, at this point, to turn to the practical question
whether such a distinction would be in harmony with, or contrary to, current
nomenclatorial practice. Valuable light on this subject is thrown by the
experience gained in the work now in progress in the Office of the Commission
in the preparation for publication in book form of the first instalment of the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Of the names now on the Official”
List many (a) were stated by the original applicant to be monotypical, (b) were
placed on the Official List by the Commission as being the names of monotypical
genera and (c) are currently accepted by specialists in the groups concerned
as being the names of genera, the type species of which were determined by
monotypy. The genera concerned are drawn from a wide range of groups in
the Animal Kingdom and the names concerned afford a fair sample of the
practice of zoologists in this matter. In a certain number of cases (mostly, so
far, in the mammals, birds and Decapod Crustacea) the original author (1)
was of the opinion that his genus contained only one taxonomically valid
species but (2) cited in connection with the name of that species the name
of one or more nominal species which he identified with the species which
on taxonomic grounds he regarded as the sole species belonging to that genus.
In every such case the applicant regarded the genus concerned as being
monotypical and that view was accepted by the Commission. From the
evidence afforded by this sample it appears to me to be likely that the general
practice has been to treat such genera as being monotypical.

12. In the case of the great majority of names published before Ist January
1931 it is likely that no disturbance in the matter of the type species of the

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 151

genera concerned would result if in such cases the genera concerned were not
treated as being monotypical, for it is reasonable to expect that in most cases
the first subsequent author to specify by name the type species of these genera
so specified the nominal species accepted by the author of the generic name in
question as the sole taxonomically valid included species. In this class of
case there would be no change in the currently accepted type species, the only
change being that, instead of that species being regarded, as hitherto, as being
the type species by monotypy, it would in future be regarded as the type
species by subsequent selection (under Rule (g)). No doubt, however, cases
can be found where such a genus has not been treated as being monotypical,
and the currently accepted type species is not the nominal species regarded
by the author of the generic name as the sole taxonomically valid species
referrable to the genus so named but a nominal species identified with that
species by the author of the generic name and therefore specified by him in
the synonymy of that species. For the reasons explained in paragraph 11
above, this is, however, I believe, a rare class of case.

13. While therefore no great interference with current nomenclatorial
practice would be likely, very serious inconvenience and waste of time better
spent on genuine taxonomic work would be involved if the Paris definition of “‘an
originally included species ” were to be held to apply to Rule (c) in Article 30.
For it would involve in every group two bibliographical investigations which
would otherwise be unnecessary. First, it would be necessary to re-check the
original book or serial containing the first publication of every name for a
genus currently treated as being the name of a monotypical genus for the
purpose of ascertaining whether the author of that generic name, when citing
the name of the sole species recognised by him on taxonomic grounds as
belonging to that genus, had in addition cited some other specific name as a
synonym. Second, in every case where it was found that the author of such
a generic name had cited a synonym for the single species which he regarded
himself as placing in the genus so named, it would be necessary to make a
search of the literature for the purpose of ascertaining by whom, when and
where one or other of the two nominal species concerned had first been selected
by a subsequent author to be the type species of the genus concerned. It is,
in my view, of great importance that zoologists should be spared this fruitless
and time-consuming search.

14. My general conclusion is therefore of the two possible interpretations
that the more logical (paragraph 10 above) and also the more desirable from
the point of view of avoiding unnecessary bibliographical investigations
(paragraph 13 above) is that under which the definition of “an originally
included species” adopted by the Paris Congress should be restricted to the
purpose for which it was devised (that is, for giving guidance to authors when
making type selections under Rule (g) in Article 30) and that it should not
apply to Rule (c) in that Article,a Rule for which it was not designed and for
which it would be much better (as here proposed) to follow the clear intention
of the original author.

_ 152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

15. I accordingly recommend the International Commission to adopt
a Declaration on the following lines :—

DRAFT DECLARATION : (1) The definition of the expression “ originally
included species” adopted by the Thirteenth International Congress of
Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 179—180, Decision 69(3)(a))
is to be interpreted as applying only to Rule (g) in Article 30, that is, for the
purpose of providing guidance as to what are the nominal species from which
alone an author acting under the foregoing Rule may select a type species for a
nominal genus established prior to Ist January 1931, for which no type species
was designated or indicated by the original author under the earlier Rules in
the said Article.

(2) Where an author, when publishing a new generic name, cites by name
only one species as belonging to the genus so named, the nominal species so
cited is to be accepted as the type species of the genus in question, irrespective
of whether the author concerned cites in the synonymy of that species the name
of another, or the names of other, nominal species (type species by monotypy).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 153

PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC
NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” OF THE SPECIFIC NAME “ VULGARIS ”’
MOLL, 1803, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ ESCHARA
VULGARIS ” AS DETERMINED BY THE LECTOTYPE SELECTION
MADE BY BROWN (D.A.) IN 1952 (CLASS ECTOPROCTA)

By D. A. BROWN
(University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 792)

The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission
to stabilise the name Eschara vulgaris Moll, 1803 (Eschara ex Zoophyt : 55, 56)
by placing the specific name vulgaris Moll on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology. The nature of this case is explained in the following paragraphs.

2. The circumstances in which Moll established the nominal species
Eschara vulgaris were rather peculiar, for he regarded it as being composed
of two varieties which he styled “var.x.” and “ var. B”; he provided an
indication and figures for each of these “ varieties ”, but he gave no indication
or figures for the species itself. For the first. of his “‘ varieties’ he wrote
“var. « labio inferiori [sic] fisso’ and for the second “ var. B labio inferiore
integro”’. Both these “ varieties” he illustrated on his plate 3, “ variety ”«
as figs. 10A and 10B, “ variety ” B as figs. 11A—C.

3. Moll’s two “ varieties” have long been regarded as taxonomically
distinct species. The name vulgaris Moll has been commonly used for Moll’s
variety «, but that ‘‘ variety ” was not formally selected to be the lectotype of
Moll’s species until this was done by myself in 1952 (Tertiary Cheilostomatous
Polyzoa of New Zealand : 228). Moll’s “ variety 8” has been variously treated
as being identical with, or as closely allied to, the taxon represented by the
nominal species Eschara ciliata Pallas, 1766 (Elench. Zoophyt : 38), a species
which is the type species of M tcroporella Hincks, 1877 (Ann. M. ag. nat.
Hist. (4) 20 : 526). Froma nomenclatorial point of view, however, the identity
of Moll’s “var. 8” has ceased to be of importance now that his “var. «”
has been selected to be the lectotype of his species Eschara vulgaris.

4. In 1836 Milne Edwards (H.) established the nominal genus Escharina
(tn Lamarck, Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vertebr. (ed. 2) 2: 218, 230) and designated
Eschara vulgaris var. « as the type species of this genus. Milne Edwards’
action clearly indicated which of Moll’s so-called “ varieties ” he desired should
be the type species of this genus, but from the nomenclatorial point of view
the nominal species Hschara vulgaris was at that time indeterminate and
remained so until the lectotype selection made in 1952.

Bull. zool. Nomencel, Vol. 11, Part 5. May 1955.

154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

5. I accordingly now ask the International Commission :—

(1) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology :—

(a) Escharina Milne Edwards (H.), 1836 (gender: feminine) (type
species, by original designation: Eschara vulgaris, Moll, 1803
(as defined by the selection by Brown (D.A.) (1952) of Moll’s
“var. a’ as lectotype) ;

(b) Microporella Hincks, 1877 (gender: feminine) (type species,
by original designation : Eschara ciliata Pallas, 1766) ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology :—

(a) ciliata Pallas, 1766, as published in the combination Eschara

ciliata (specific name of type species of Microporella Hincks,
1877) ;

(b) vulgaris Moll, 1803, as published in the combination Eschara
vulgaris and determined as in (1)(a) above (specific name of
type species of Escharina Milne Edwards (H.), 1836.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 155

PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF
“ FISTULIPORA ’? McCOY, 1849 (CLASS BRYOZOA, ORDER
CYCLOSTOMATA, FAMILY FISTULIPORIDAE)

By HELEN DUNCAN
(United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.)

ALFRED R. LOEBLICH, Jr.
(United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.)

and

RAYMOND C. MOORE
(University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 324)

An unfortunate state of nomenclatural confusion has resulted from the
recent discovery that the name Fistulipora McCoy, 1849, widely applied for
nearly a century to a genus of the Paleozoic Bryozoa, is preoccupied by
Fistulipora Rafinesque, 1831, an indeterminate fossil.

2. McCoy (1849, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 3 : 130—131) defined Fistulipora
and described two species, F'. minor and F. major. In 1850 Milne Edwards
(H.) and Haime (Monogr. Brit. Fossil Corals : lix) selected Fistulipora minor
McCoy, 1849, as type species of the genus. Subsequently scores of species
from America, Europe, Asia, and Australia have been described under or
referred to McCoy’s genus. Fistulipora McCoy is well established in an
extensive literature as one of the most long-ranging and important genera of

Paleozoic Bryozoa. The family risrULIPoRIDAE Ulrich (1882, J. Cincinn.
Soc. nat. Hist. 5 : 156) derived its name from McCoy’s genus, and genera
included in the family as well as their most characteristic structural features
are commonly designated “ fistuliporoid ’’.

3. The fact that Fistulipora McCoy is preoccupied was apparently first
discovered by Lang, Smith, and Thomas (1940, Index of Paleozoic Coral
Genera : 61), who furnished the information to Neave for inclusion in the
Supplement to the Nomenclator Zoologicus (4 : 736), published in 1940.

4. In an obscure 8-page pamphlet entitled Enumeration and Account of
Some Remarkable Natural Objects of the Cabinet of Prof. Rafinesque, in Phila-
delphia ; Being Animals, Shells, Plants, and Fossils, collected by him in North

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 5. May 1955.

156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

America, between 1816 and 1831, Philadelphia, 1831, Rafinesque published on
page 5 the following brief characterisation of his monotypic genus :—

FISTULIPORA, Raf. Differ [sic] from Millepora by being tubular.
1. F. teres. Cylindrical, nearly simple, smooth, pores round, nearly equal.
Limestone of Kentucky.

Rafinesque classed this fossil in a group termed “‘ Polypites or Erismites ”’,
but it is impossible to tell whether Fistulipora teres Rafinesque, 1831, referred
to a coral, hydrocoralline, sponge, bryozoan, or to some other organism. It
is highly improbable that the type specimen of the species was preserved or
could be identified as such even if the specimen still exists. Biographers
(1895, Call, Life and Writings of Rafinesque : 59—60; 1911, Fitzpatrick,
Rafinesque, a Sketch of his Life with Bibliography : 43, 56) report that at the
time of Rafinesque’s death his collections had suffered much from neglect and
his inability properly to care for them and that most of the mineral and
conchologic materials were entirely without labels and were sold for mere
trifles. Further, information on the locality and geologic formation is
indeterminate, although it might be assumed that /F’. teres came from the
“Limestone of Blue licks in Kentucky”, the locality specified for the
immediately preceding species Milleporites verrucosa Raf., known to be in an
area of Ordovician rocks.

5. It seems doubtful whether Rafinesque’s Enumeration should be
considered adequate publication. It was apparently privately printed and,
inasmuch as no price is indicated on the tract, probably was not offered for
sale. Very few copies are known to have been preserved. Actually the
“tract? purports to be little more than a list of specimens for sale, as is
indicated by the author’s statement in the introductory paragraph that “ they
have been conveyed at great expense to this City, and will soon be sent to
Europe for sale, unless disposed of in the United States”. It would be
difficult, if not impossible, however, to demonstrate that this pamphlet should
not be recognised as a bona fide publication inasmuch as other books and
articles published at about the same time or earlier seem to belong in about the
same category but nevertheless are considered to be validly published.

6. It cannot be disputed, however, that Rafinesque’s Fistulipora is
unrecognisable from the description, and as no illustrations were provided, the
organism cannot be identified. The possibility of the labelled specimen or
specimens of the type species Fistulipora teres being recovered is extremely
remote. For all practical purposes, therefore, the name Fistulipora Rafinesque,
1831, for an organism of indeterminate zoological relationship, has no meaning.

7. On the other hand, Fistulipora McCoy, 1849, is by far the best known
and most prolific of the genera that have been included in the family FISTULI-
PORIDAE. The suggestion (1944, Moore and Dudley, Bull. Kans. geol. Surv.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 157

52 : 254—255) that the name Cyclotrypa Ulrich, 1896 (Zittel, T'eat-Book
- Palaeont. (Engl. ed.) 1, pt. 1 : 269) (genotype: Fistulipora communis Ulrich,
1890, Geol. Surv. Illinois 8 : 476) “‘ may contain a majority of the bryozoans
that formerly have been placed in Fistulipora”’, does not satisfy zoological
requirements, for Cyclotrypa communis (Ulrich, 1890), has structural features
differing from those of Fistulipora minor McCoy and many allied species.
Numerous species that have been referred to Fistulipora McCoy probably will
be assigned to other genera when restudied. Cyclotrypa does not constitute a
a suitable repository for “typical species” of Fistulipora McCoy. Certainly
the name Fistulipora Rafinesque, 1831, can find no practical application in
paleontology, and its retention would produce a highly undesirable instability
in bryozoan nomenclature.

8. The International Commission is accordingly asked :—

(1) to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the under-mentioned generic
name for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and for those of
the Law of Homonymy :—Fistulipora Rafinesque, 1831 ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology :—Fistulipora McCoy, 1849 (gender:
feminine) (type species, by selection by Milne Edwards (H.) &
Haime (1850): Fstulipora minor McCoy, 1849) ;

(3) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology :—minor McCoy, 1849, as published in
the combination Fistulipora minor (specific name of type species of
Fistulipora McCoy, 1849) ;

(4) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—Fistulipora
Rafinesque, 1831, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers under
(1) above ;

(5) to place the family-group name FISTULIPORIDAE Ulrich, 1882 (type
genus: Fistulipora McCoy, 1849) on the Official List of Family-
Group Names in Zoology.

158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO PRESERVE
THE GENERIC NAME “ AUCELLA ’”? KEYSERLING, 1846 (CLASS
LAMELLIBRANCHIATA, ORDER ANISOMYARIA, FAMILY
AVICULIDAE) AND THE SPECIFIC NAME OF ITS TYPE SPECIES
“ AVICULA MOSQUENSIS ”’ VON BUCH, 1884, AND TO SUPPRESS
THE GENERIC NAME “ BUCHIA ”’ ROUILLIER, 1845*

By J. A. JELETZKY
(Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 827)

The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers for the purpose
of preserving the very well-known generic name Auwcella Keyserling, 1846
(Wiss. Beobacht. Petschora, 1846 : 297—301, pl. 16) which, in the absence
of intervention by the Commission, must fail as a junior objective synonym
of the long-overlooked or ignored name Buchia Rouillier, 1845 (Bull. Soc.
imp. Nat. Moscou 18 : 289), for the species Avicula mosquensis von Buch,
1844 (Neue Jahrb. f. Min. 1844 : 537) is the type species of Aucella by selection
by Herrmannsen (1852, Ind. Gen. Malac., Suppl.: 14) and of Buchia by
monotypy. The original material of von Buch has been re-studied by Pavlov
(1907 : 23—25, pl. IT, figs. 5—7) who selected the specimen shown as fig.
5a—5c on plate II to be the lectotype of this species. The need for the pro-
tection of the name Awcella Keyserling is one of urgency if serious confusion is
to be avoided, for, while some palaeontologists have attempted to replace this
name by the name Buchia Rouillier, the majority of palaeontologists and
biostratigraphers throughout the world still adhere to the name Awcella.

2. Representatives of the genus Awcella (Class Lamellibranchiata, Order
Anisomyaria, Family AVICULIDAE) are distributed virtually world wide in rocks
of the Upper Jurassic (from Oxfordian to Portlandian stage inclusive) and
early Lower Cretaceous (from Infravalanginian to Hauterrivian stage inclusive)
age, and are perhaps the most conspicuous faunal element of rocks of this
age throughout the extended circumpolar region. The genus includes over
one hundred of recognised species and varieties, most of which are fair to
excellent zonal fossils with an extremely wide (mostly intercontinental to
circumboreal) horizontal distribution and a great facies tolerance. In particular
for the extended circumpolar region of the upper Jurassic and early Lower
Cretaceous times, which is generally referred to as the Boreal province, the
stratigraphical importance of Awcella species appears to be second only to
that of the ammonites. In this region a stratigrapher often does not meet any
diagnostic forms but Aucella in the rocks of that age and must needs to base his

* Published by permission of The Deputy Minister, Department of Mines and Technical Surveys,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Bull, zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 5. May 1955.

SS

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 159

correlations on the representatives of this genus alone. Also in the Indo-
Pacific region species of Aucella provide valuable zonal fossils for the rocks of
the above age.

3. Because of its geographical distribution and stratigraphical importance
the name Awcella entered most textbooks on stratigraphical palaeontology,
historical geology, textbooks and treatises of invertebrate palaeontology
(including many elementary texts), and manuals of index fossils and regional
stratigraphy throughout the world before its validity was challenged. It is
not possible to give a complete list of publications in which this name appears
but the following selection of the most important references known to the
writer gives an idea of its truly universal use.

(i) Textbooks, treatises, and manuals of stratigraphical palaeontology,
historical geology, and regional stratigraphy : (a) England : Neaver-
son’s Stratigraphical Palaeontology (1928 : 387); Gregory & Barrett’s
General Stratigraphy (1931 : 164—165) ; Stamp’s Introduction to the
Stratigraphy of British Isles (1931 : 164165, 1950: 248—259) ;
(0) France: Haug’s (1911) and Lapparent’s (1900) classical treatises
of geology ; Gignoux’s Geologie Stratigraphique (1933, 1944, 1950 : 345,
376—377, 429, 449); (c) Germany: all editions of Kayser’s
Grundztiige der Geologie (incl. 1924); Kayser & Brinkmann’s
Grundziige der Geologie (1948 : 210, pl. 40(2)) ; Salomon’s Grundziige
der Geologie (1926, II : 413, 374, fig. 19); Daque’s Wirbellose der
Jura (1933, 1937) and Wirbellose der Kreide (1944); Bubnoff’s
Geologie von Europa (1935); (d) U.S.S.R.: Standard treatises of the
general Historical Geology by Borissiak (1935 : 256, 259—260, 270—
274, 293); Masarovich (1937); Korovin (1941 : 303, 306, 322, 326,
342, 346, fig. 154—158), and Strachov’ (1938, 1948, 2: 166, pl.
XXII (3) and : 204, pl. XXIV (3)); Masarovich’s (1938) and
Arkhangelsky’s (1935, 2 : 18—24, 27, 50, 52, 54, 61) standard
manuals of the Geology and Stratigraphy of U.S.S.R. ; (e) U.S.A. :
Pearson & Schuchert’s (1914 : 848, 850, 871—872, 884, fig. 464) ;
Longwell’s e¢ al. (1941, 1950 : 207, pl. VI—7); Dunbar’s (1949,
pl. 14—16), and Grabau’s (1920 : 653, 666, 669—670, 709, 714, 727,
fig. 1651) standard textbooks of historical geology and Willis (1912)
Index to the Stratigraphy of North America ; (f) New Zealand :
Marshall’s Geology of New Zealand (1912 : 187, fig. 104); (g) Brazil :
de Oliveira & Leonardo’s Geologia do Brasil (1943: 565); (h)
Indonesia : van Bemelen’s The Geology of Indonesia, General Geology
(1949 : 65—66, 69—71, 74).

(ii) Textbooks and treatises of invertebrate palaeontology : (a) England :
Wood’s Palaeontology (1950 : 253, and the older editions) ; (6) France :
Piveteau’s Traité de Palaeontologie, II (1952 : 276, fig. 69); (c)
Germany: all editions of the classical Zittel’s Grundziige der
Palaeontologie, including Zittel/Broily (1924) and his Handbuch der

160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Palaeontologie; (d) U.S.S.R.: all older standard textbooks of
palaeontology, e.g., such of Borissiak (1905—1906), Yakovlev (1918,
1928); Russian revision of Zittell’s Grundziige (Zittel/Riabinin,
1934 : 611—612, text fig. 1016); latest Soviet textbooks of
palaeontology by Ilovaisky (1937) and Davitasvili (1941, 1949 : 244,
fig. 234); (e) U.S.A.: Zittel/Eastman’s English Revision of Zittel’s
Grundziige (1912). §

4. The number of papers and monographs devoted to the description of
representatives of Aucella or dealing with its individual species among the
other faunal groups, runs into several hundreds. Though it is not possible
to list them all here, a selected bibliography of most important modern papers
appended to this paper gives an idea about the number of Avucella papers and
monographs involved. The older literature on the subject is well covered in
Pavlow’s (1907) monograph of the genus.

5. Thus, since its first proposal and until 1929—1930 the name Aucella
Keyserling, 1846, was in very frequent and constant use throughout the world
and the writer does not know of a single case where the name Buchia Rouillier,
1845, was used, although it was known practically to everybody (see for
example Lahusen, 1888; Pavlow, 1907; Pompeckj, 1901).

6. As the greater part of the publications listed above was published
subsequent to the previously mentioned attempt to discredit the name
Aucella, it appears quite evident that the majority of leading palaeontologists
and biostratigraphers throughout the world rejected summarily this attempt.
Subsequent to this latter date only the following textbooks, treatises, and
manuals known to the writer adopted the name Buchia: (1) Germany: Teichert’s
Geology of Greenland (1939; (2) U.S.A.: Shimer & Shrock’s Index Fossils of
North America (1943 : 393—394, pl. 153, figs. 12—16) and Moore’s e¢ al.
Invertebrate Fossils (1952 : 432—433, figs. Ia—Ib); (3) Australia: David’s
Geology of Australia (1950 : 464, 468).

7. Similarly among the authors of scientific papers and monographs
on palaeontology only a few have accepted the name Buchia (e.g., Crickmay,
1933; Spath, 1935, 1947, 1952; Donavan, 1953; Teichert, 1939, 1941;
Glaessner, 1941; Marwick, 1953), while some others (e.g., Anderson, 1938 :
102; 1945 : 963; Mayng, 1949: 14) have emphatically rejected its use. Most of
palaeontologists and biostratigraphers the world over have, however, simply
ignored the issue and proceeded to use the well established name Aucella
indiscriminately. In addition to the above given selection of textbooks,
treatises, and manuals, see papers of Bodylevsky (1936, 1943), Frebold (1933,
1953), Frebold & Stoll (1937), Krumbeck (1934), Imlay (1953), Imlay & Reeside
(1954), McLearn & Kindle (1950), to mention only a few. The doubts of
Stewart (1930) quoted below as to the possibility of the universal acceptance of
the name Buchia were, as we see, wholly justified.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 161

8. Furthermore, it should be noted that most of the modern authors who
have adopted the name Buchia have either used it concurrently with Aucella
(e.g., Buchia (‘‘ Aucella’’)) throughout their papers or have indicated in some
other way that they use it instead of this latter name. Thus, they have clearly
shown that they are well aware of the fact that the name Buchia is likely to
be completely unfamiliar to their readers.

9. Cox (1929 : 147) apparently was the first to accept the priority of the
name Buchia but he did not give any reasons.

10. In 1930 Stewart (1930: 106—108) made another attempt to
revindicate the name Buchia presuming it to have priority over that of Aucella
and has made the following statement on the subject :

The name Awcella was proposed by Keyserling in 1846 (Wissenschaft. Beobacht.
Petschora, 1846: 297—301, pl. 16) for a number of species including Avicula
mosquensis von Buch which was later designated as the type species (Herrmannsen,
Ind. Gen. Malac. Suppl. 1852 : 14).

The name Buchia was proposed by Rouillier in 1845 (1845 Bull. Soc. Imp. Nat.
Moscow, 18 : 289){ for the already figured Avicula mosquensis von Buch as the
monotype species. He also published illustrations of this fossil the following
year, but without an explanation of the plate (ibid. 1846, 19 (2) : pl. D, fig. I, 2).
Tn 1848, an explanation of the plate was published (Rouillier, ib¢d., 1848, 21 (2) :
272) and it was also pointed out that the name Buchia had priority over Aucella
Keyserling, 1846. The 1848 reference to Buchia was listed by Lahusen (Mem.
Com. Geol., 1888, 8 (1) : 2) and Pavlow (Soc. Imp. Nat. Moscow Nou. Mem. 1907,
17 (1) : 3), while Pompeckj (1901 N. Jahrb. Min. Beil. Bd. 14 : 321) cited the
1845 reference but refused to accept the older name. The validity and priority of
Buchia is clear and there seems no ground for not recognising it unless the name
be arbitrarily set aside in favour of Aucella which is so well known. Rouillier also
claimed to have published this name in “ Discours 1845, p. 52”, apparently later
than in the Bulletin. This Discours probably refers to Rouillier’s paper on the
fauna of the Moscow region which was also mentioned by Pavlow (op. cit. : 23).
I have not seen this paper. Erman published an extensive resumé of it in 1847
(Arch. Wissensch. Kunde Russland 5 : 443—482) in which Avicula mosquensis is
mentioned on pp. 460, 461, but Buchia is not mentioned. According to Pavlow,
however, Buchia mosquensis was mentioned on page 52 of the original and a
reference to von Buch’s figures was cited so that the name was probably proposed
twice by Rouillier in 1845 though the second time may have been in the Russian
language.

In order to avoid the transfer of familiar generic names from one group to
another, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has waived
the rules for Holothuria and Physalia and Spirifer (Opin. 76. 80, 100). The
Commission may likewise decide to retain Aucella. However, since the name
Aucella is not to be transferred to some other group but suppressed for an earlier

+ ‘“‘ Le premier Sécretaire Mr. le Professeur Rouillier, a présenté un exemplaire caractéristique
de l’avicula mosquensis récemment décrite par M. de Buch. Mr. Rouillier trouvant que ce
fossile différe par ses caractéres génériques de toutes les coquilles connues jusqu’aé présent
propose d’en constituer un nouveau genre sous le nom de Buchia, en Phonneur de Mr. de Buch
qui le premier a montré les caractéres distinctifs de l’Inoceramus dubius ”’.

162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

name, I think it unlikely that the Commission will ignore the earlier Buchia in
favour of Aucella. Buchia should have been adopted long ago when the change
would have been relatively easy. Now it will be many years, if ever, before the
change will be universally accepted.

11. The writer deplores the action of Stewart (1930) in accepting the
priority of Buchia instead of continuing to use the name Avucella, all the more
so in view of the fact that he actually considered the question of an appeal
being made to the International Commission to validate the latter name.
Clearly, the right thing for him to have done would have been to ask the —
Commission to preserve the name Aucella under its Plenary Powers and to
have continued to use that name while his application was under consideration
by the Commission.

12. Even if the name Buchia should be ruled available by the Commission
from the second paper of Rouillier (1845a), or the above mentioned anonymous
lay report should be considered by the Commission as a valid scientific
publication, the writer does not consider it advisable to give Buchia the priority
over Aucella. The proper course would then appear to be to rule the former
name arbitrarily out, under the suspension of Rules, in favour of Aucella.
Indeed, as demonstrated in the previous pages of this application, and as
recognised even by Stewart (1930) himself, the latter name has a well
documented, long established record ; it has been used by all authors concerned
throughout the world ever since its proposal, has entered all important
palaeontological monographs, textbooks, stratigraphical manuals, etc. Even
now, 25 years after the unfortunate attempt to discredit it, the name Aucella
is still in general use among palaeontologists and stratigraphers of the world,
the adherents of the name Buchia being in a clear minority. In the opinion
of the writer the name Aucella is so deeply rooted in the literature that no
Rule of Priority should be invoked now to upset the usage. As already stated
by Anderson (1938:102) and by Stewart (see quotation in paragraph 10
above) any such attempt is likely to produce greater confusion than uniformity.

13. Thus, it is proposed that the name Buchia be suppressed under the
Plenary Powers in favour of Aucella, and that the name Aucella be added to the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. This is to be done either because the
name Buchia is not available from the original publication, or because of a well
documented and long established, and still current, usage of the name Aucella.
It is hoped that it will be possible for the International Commission to reach
an early decision on these questions, as such a decision is urgently required in
connection with the preparation of the forthcoming international Treatise on
Invertebrate Palaeontology.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 163
14. The International Commission is accordingly asked :—

(1) to suppress the under-mentioned generic name under its Plenary Powers
for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law
of Priority :—Buchia Rouillier, 1845 ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology :—Aucella Keyserling, 1846 (gender :
feminine) (type species, by selection by Herrmannsen (1852) :
Avicula mosquensis von Buch, 1844) ;

(3) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—Buchia Rouillier,
1845, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1) above;

(4) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology :—mosquensis von Buch, 1844, as published
in the combination Avicula mosquensis, as defined by the lectotype
selected by Pavlow (1907) (specific name of type species of Aucella
Keyserling, 1846).

REFERENCES :

Anderson, F. M., 1938. ‘‘ Lower Cretaceous deposits in California and
Oregon”. Geol Soc. Amer., Special Paper 16, 339 pages, 84 plates,
3 text-figs., 2 tables (Aucella described : 101—108).

Anderson, F. M., 1945. ‘‘ Knoxville Series in the California Mesozoic ’”’.
Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull. 56 (10) : 909—1014, 15 plates (Awcella
described : 963—973).

Bodylevsky, V., 1936. ‘‘ On the Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous Fossils from
the collection of A. Petrenko from Novaya Zemlya”. Trans. Arctic
Institute, USSR, Leningrad, 1936 : 113—136, plates I—II.

Bodylevsky, V., 1943. ‘‘ On the Lower Cretaceous Fauna of the Suchan Coal
Region ”. Comptes Rendus (Doklady) Acad. Sci. USSR, 41 (No. 6) :
252—254.

Cox, M. A., 1929. ‘Synopsis of the Lamellibranchia and Gastropoda of the

Portland Beds of England”. Proc. Dorset nat. Hist, & Arch. Soc.
50 : 131—202, 6 plates. (‘‘ Buchia”’ mosquensis (Buch) described
without any taxonomic comments : 146—147).

Crickmay, C. M., 1933. ‘‘ Some of Alpheus Hyatt’s unfigured types from the
Jurassic of California’. U.S. geol. Survey, Prof. Paper 175 : 51—58,
plates 14—18 (the name Buchia is used without taxonomic comments :
53—56).

164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Donovan, D. T., 1953. “The Jurassic and Cretaceous stratigraphy and
palaeontology of Trail @, East Greenland.” Meddelelser om Gronland,
111(4), 150 pages, 25 plates, 41 text-figures.

Erman, A., 1848. Abstract of: “ Rouillier, K. Uber die Fauna des Moskauer
Gouvernements und ihre Veranderungen in der einzelnen Epochen der
Erdbildung”’ (vgl. K. Rouillier, 1845b). Archiv fiir wissenschaftl.
Kunde in Russland 5, Berlin.

Frebold, H., 1933. Untersuchungen uber die Verbreitung, Lagerungsver-
haltnisse und Fauna des oberen Jura von Ostrongland. Meddelelser
om Gronland, 94 (No. 1), 81 pages, 3 plates, 14 text-figs.

Frebold, H., 1953. ‘‘ Correlation of the Jurassic of Canada.”’ Geol. Soc. Amer.
Bull. 64(10) : 1229—1246, correl. chart.

Frebold, H. und E. Stoll, 1937. ‘‘ Das Festungsprofil auf Spitzbergen. IIT.
Stratigraphie und Fauna des Jura und der Unterkreide”. Skrifter om
Svalbard og Ishavet 68 (Oslo), 85 pages, 1 plate, 2 text-figs.

Glaessner, M. F., 1943. ‘‘ Problems of Stratigraphic Correlation in the Indo-
Pacific Region.” Proc. R. Soc. Victoria 55 (n.s.) (1) : 41—80, correl.
chart.

Imlay, W. R., 1952. “ Correlation of the Jurassic Formations of North America,
exclusive of Canada.’ Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull. 63(9) : 953—992, 4 text-
figs., 2 correl. charts.

Imlay, W. R., and Reeside, J. B., Jr., 1954. “ Correlation of the Cretaceous
Formations of Greenland and Alaska ’’. Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull. 65(3) :
223—246, 1 correl. chart.

Keyserling, A., 1846. Wissenschaftliche Beobachtungen auf einer Reise in
das Petschora-Land im Jahre 1843, St. Petersburg, Carl Kray, (Aucella
proposed).

Krumbeck, L., 1934. ‘“‘Beitrige zur Paliontologie des Ostindischen
Archipels. 10. Die Aucellen des Malms von Misol”. Neue Jahr. fiir
Min., Beil. Bd. 71 (Abt. B) : 422—469, plates XIV—XVI.

Lahusen, I., 1888. ‘‘ Uber die russischen Aucellen”. Mém. Comité géol. 8
(Pt. 1), St. Petersburg.

McLearn, F. H., 1949. ‘‘ Jurassic Formations of Maude Island and Alliford
Bay, Skidegate Inlet, Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia.”
Geol. Survey Canada Bull. 12, 19 pages, 2 geol. maps.

McLearn, F. H., and Kindle, E. D., 1950. ‘‘ Geology of north-eastern British
Columbia.” Geol. Survey Canada Memoir 259, 236 pages, 8 plates, 17 geol.
maps and sections, | correl. table, 5 tables.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 165

Marwick, J., 1953. ‘‘ Divisions and Faunas of the Hokonui System (Triassic
and Jurassic).”” New Zealand Geol. Survey, Palaeont. Bull. 21, 142
pages, 17 plates.

Mayne, Wolf, 1949. ‘The Cretaceous beds between Kuhn Island and Cape
Franklin (Gauss Peninsula), Northern East Greenland”. Meddelelser
om Gronland 133 (No. 3), 291 pages, 4 plates, 70 text-figs.

Pavlow, A. P., 1907. ‘‘ Enchainement des Acuelles et des Aucellines du
Crétacé russe.” Nowy. Mém. Soc. imp. Nat. Moscou t. 17, 93 pages
6 plates, 8 text-figs., 1 table.

,

Pompeckj, I. F., 1901. ‘“‘ Ueber Aucellen und Aucellen-ahnliche Formen ”’.
Neues Jahrb. fiir Min., Beilage Bd. 14 : 319—368, plates XV—XVII.

Rouillier, Ch., 1845a. Discours sur les Animaux du gouvernement de Moscou,
prononcé & la cloture du cours academique de I’année scholaire
1844—1845 (=O jivotnych Moskowskoi gubernii, etc.). Moskwa,
W’Universitetskoi tipografii, 4 to, 96 pages (non vidi).

“ Rouillier, Ch.”, 1845b. [No title of the paper as in the report there is only an.
anonymous remark about the name Buchia proposed by Prof. Rouillier
for Avicula mosquensis Buch.] Bull. Soc. imp. Nat. Moscou 18 (Proto-
koly) : 289.

Rouillier, Ch., 1846. ‘‘ Explication de la Coupe géologique des environs de
Moscou. 2° partie’. Soc. imp. Nat. Moscow 19 : 359—467, plates A—E.
[On the plate D3 species of “ Buchia” are figured without any text
or explanation to the plate, which have been given only later (see
Rouillier, 1848)] .

Rouillier, Ch., 1848. “ Etudes progressives sur la Géologie de Moscou”’. Bull.
Soc. imp. Nat. Moscou 21 : 263—288, pls. F. G. H. [This publication
represents the explanation of the plates A—E of the previous publication
(see Rouillier, 1846). Here the name Buchia is formally introduced and
a claim is made for the validity of the publication of this name in
1845a—b].

Spath, L. F., 1935—1936. “The Upper Jurassic invertebrate faunas of Cape
; Leslie, Milne Land. 1. Oxfordian and Lower Kimmeridgian ; 2. Upper
Kimmeridgian and Portlandian”. Meddelelser om Gronland 99 (Nos.
2—3).

Spath, L. F., 1947. “ Additional observations on the Invertebrates (chiefly
ammonites) of the Jurassic and Cretaceous of East Greenland. I.
The Hectoroceras fauna of S.W. Jameson Land”. Meddelelser om
Gronland 132 (No. 3), 69 pages, 5 plates, 8 text-figs.

166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Spath, L. F., 1952. ‘Additional observations on the invertebrates (chiefly
ammonites) of the Jurassic and Cretaceous of East Greenland. II. Some
Infra-Valangian ammonites from Lindemans Fjord, Wollaston Forland ;
with a note on the base of the Cretaceous.’’ Meddelelser om Gronland,
133(4), 140 pages, 4 plates, 1 text-fig.

Stewart, Ralph B., 1930. ‘‘ Gabb’s California Cretaceous and Tertiary Type
Lamellibranchs”’. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad., Special Publ. No. 3, 314
pages, 17 plates, 5 text-figs.

Teichert, C., 1939. Geology of Greenland (in : ‘‘ Geologie der Erde. Geology
of North America 1’’, 1939). Verlag. Gebr. Borntraeger, Berlin, pp.
100—175, 13 text-figs., 1 table.

Teichert, C., 1941. ‘‘ Marine Jurassic of East Indian affinities at Broome,
North-Western Australia”. J. Roy. Soc. Western Australia 26 : 103—
118, 1 map, 1 plate (1939/40).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 167

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE WELL-
KNOWN GENERIC NAME “ MUNTIACUS’”’ IN THE CLASS MAMMALIA
FIRST PUBLISHED BY RAFINESQUE IN 1815

By T. C. S. MORRISON-SCOTT, D.S.C., M.A., D.Sc.
(Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 481)

The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to provide a
valid status for the well-known generic name Muntiacus (Class Mammalia)
first published by Rafinesque in 1815 (Analyse Nature : 56).

2. The following is the text of the passage in which this name occurs in
Rafinesque’s Analyse :

“Cornes solides, simples ou rameuses, permanentes ou caduques.
G.1. Cervus L. 2. Muntiacus R. do. sp. 3. Giraffa R. Camelopard-
alis L.”

3. In spite of the fact that Rafinesque gave some descriptive words for this
group of genera as a whole, it must be admitted that he gave no indication by
which the genera comprised in this group could be separated from one another.
If he had cited any nominal species (the names of which had previously been
published), the lack of a definition for these genera would not have invalidated
the generic name in question (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 78—80), but,
as he did not do so, it must be admitted that Muntiacus, as published by
Rafinesque, is a nomen nudum.

4. The name Muntiacus is in current use for the muntjaks and, unless it
is validated, it will be necessary to substitute for it the name Cervulus Blainville,
1818 (Bull. Sci. Soc. philomat. Paris 1818 : 74), which would be a confusion
unaccompanied by any advantage.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 5. May 1955.

168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

5. In order to avoid this result, and in the interests of stability, I ask the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :—

(1) to use its Plenary Powers to validate the under-mentioned generic
name and to designate as its type species the species specified below :—

Name of Genus Species proposed to be designated
under the Plenary Powers of the
genus specified in Col. (1)

(1) (2)

Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815, Cervus muntjak Zimmermann,
Analyse : 56 1780, Geogr. Gesch. 2 : 131

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic
name specified in Col. (1) in (1) above, with the masculine gender and
with, as its type species, the species specified in Col. (2) ;

(3) to place the undermentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology :—muntjak Zimmermann, 1780, as published in the
combination Cervus muntjak (specific name of type speciesof Muntiacus
Rafinesque, 1815).

SUPPORT FOR DR. TATE’S PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY

POWERS TO VALIDATE THE SPECIFIC NAME “ DINGO ’’ MEYER,

1793, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “CANIS DINGO ’’ AS
THE NAME FOR THE DINGO (CLASS MAMMALIA)

By T. C. S. MORRISON-SCOTT, D.S.C., M.A., D.Sc.
(British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 487)
(Letter dated 20th October 1950)

(For the proposal submitted in this case, see 1955,
Bull. zool. Nomencil. 11 : 121)

I understand that Dr. G. H. H. Tate of the American Museum of Natural
History, New York, has submitted an application to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature regarding the name of the Dingo of Australia.

Iredale wants to bring into use the name Canis antarticus Kerr, 1792, a virtually
unknown name. I should like strongly to support Dr. Tate’s appeal that the name
Canis dingo Meyer, 1793, should be saved. It is by this latter name that the
Australian Dingo has been known for years, and it would be irritating and absurd
to upset the nomenclature of this animal after all this time.

May I at the same time beg colleagues who discover cases of priority of this
sort to hurry their unfortunate finds off to the Commission for burial, rather than
broadcast them. The Régles are intended to be our servants and not our masters,
and it is sheer masochism to inflict unnecessary inconvenience on oneself in this
way—to say nothing of the wear and tear on the tolerance of colleagues.

asatt CONTENTS RP as
Renae Ligh “ag et a fe

meld: ae ry.
oes f
Sapa oS: :
+P aes ees te
UT a cae %

States: National et Washington D. and
Moore (University of Kansas, Sar ae

ete Bees;

ee re need =
Pe piatactra ca Ottawa, Ontario, a aap

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the well-kno tg ie a
By Rafeenae a macus in the Class Mammalia first published Ky ae
by ear in 18165. ee Cc. 8. ae oe eee oe

.A., D.Sc. Pa nag Zoology, British Museum gfe ae!

/), London) oe oe oe ih 4.) ue ae 167° ea Ry

CONTENTS
(continued from inside back wrapper)

Comment

Support for Dr. Tate’s proposed use of the Plenary Powers to
validate the specific name dingo Meyer, 1793, as published in
the combination Canis dingo as the name for ‘the _Dingo (Class
Mammalia). By T. C. 8. Morrison-Scott, D.S.C., M.A., D.Se. a,
(British Museum (Natural. History) London) - 168... Sag

Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper LimiTep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2

Off
VOLUME ll. Part 6 t ED 31st May 1955
>

pp. 169—200 PURCHASE

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by

FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

CoNTENTs :
Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Page

Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published

in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. . ; 169
Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on

Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain

cases .. : ae ae ne es 169

(continued inside back wrapper)

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
and
Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office,
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.
1955

Price Fifteen Shillings

(All rights reserved)

4 vi Sz
USE

Z =

ce ary oe ‘a bt
~ 4 i Duk > ee {
gone ~ i Tas e a iv —

renon, ‘COMMISSION on ‘ZOOLOGICAL |
hagas AOA

i

a the omteers AE tie bcnnriledGs

” * on co P. : ; ‘
pedage aoe Karl Jordan tana Hse (Natural History) an

: > ti _ Zoli asics Chester aos mat University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
fos BCcearvns terete ewer sche es Paulo, ae August 1953)

‘s e = 3 = er B. The Members of the Commission
se oe to 1 of most 1
eke 3 rma se rte ap hess Rs

es iain, (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
a 1947)
pamce Beoaear ones (Eva Peron, FONGR» Argentina) (27th July 1948)
gee _ Mr. Francis Hemming (London, Er see July 1948) (Secretary) .
ty ter abet ae eet ears useum, Co; geese (27th July 1948)
Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu Uni svi, Ful Joon) (th Ape 18
Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)
Mr. Norman Petey Bib (British Museum (Natural — London) (9th June 1950)
ae a i (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw,
sae Professor Dr. Robert Sirs Mince (VeaNar atNclin ws See Jiskhd Bonabenbeny, Frankfurt
Rg ss M, Sermomg) (Oi Foy 1860) tus
Professor Sy Ta) Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin,
_ Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral ($. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President)
"Professor J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953)
Profon J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, ‘.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)

% iB Buk fog E. Vokes (Johns panies. University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th

me “Béla fank6 (Mesiguidosiyi Mussum, Budoped, Hungary) (12h

August 1953)
BeSonic Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th

eae )
iP “ Baap ee gr he Tateaniy: hee ner August 1953)
ie 3. Hat Ge van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The See se (12th

~,

mie . and Prantl (Narodni Museum w Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October
| Wilhelm Kahnelt Zoolopisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th

© . — rF, oe Heros University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954)

: “ewer ive Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa-

¥ isa rtonese (I. “ des Zoologia della i Torino,

“rs r co Torton titulo useo di Universita d Torino,
ee tly) canbe

OE OR rey aa

2 & ¢ ng e sexs aX

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 11, Part 6 (pp. 169—200) 31st May 1955

NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY

The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the
recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56, 57—59), by the Thirteenth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencel.
5 : 5—13, 131).

(a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published
in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’

Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will

start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-

clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of
publication in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who

4 _ May desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present

Part (Vol. 11, Part 6) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing
to the Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible and in any case, in
sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secretariat
of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above.

(b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain cases

Notice is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers is involved in
applications published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-

_ elature in relation to the following names :—

(1) Scorpio Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Arachnida), designation of Scorpio maurus
Linnaeus, 1758, as type species of, and suppression of the name
europaeus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Scorpio
europaeus (Z.N.(S.) 567) ;

170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued)

(2) Oxypoda Mannerheim, 1831 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), designation
of type species for, in harmony with current usage (Z.N.(S.) 443) ;

(3) Heliosciurus Trouessart, 1880 (Class Mammalia), validation of the
name gambianus Ogilby, 1835, as published in the combination
Sciurus gambianus, and designation of species so named to be type
species of (Z.N.(S.) 909) ;

(4) silvestris Schreber, [1777], as published in the combination Felis (Catus)
silvestris, validation of, as name for the European Wild Cat (Z.N.(S.)
910) ;

(5) Phacochoerus Cuvier (F.), 1826 (Class Mammalia), validation of, as
generic name for the Wart Hog (Z.N.(S.) 756) ;

(6) Odobenus Brisson, 1760 (Class Mammalia), validation of (Z.N.(S.) 614).

2. Attention is drawn also to the proposed rejection of the names given
to the so-called ‘‘ Piltdown Man” as being names given to a fictitious form
(Z.N.(S.) 883).

3. Notice is given also of the proposed adoption of a Declaration defining
the combination to be attributed to a specific name for a species described as
belonging to one genus but for which at the same time a second genus is
established conditionally (Z.N.(S.) 894).

4, Comments received in sufficient time will be published in the Bulletin :
other comments, provided that they are received within the prescribed period
of six calendar months from the date of publication of the present Part will
be laid before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at
the time of commencement of voting on the application concerned.

5. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon at the Session held by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 56), corresponding Notices have been sent
to the serial publications Nature and Science.

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park,
Lonpon, N.W.1, England.

3lst May 1955.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 171

PROPOSED REJECTION OF THE GENERIC AND SPECIFIC NAMES
PUBLISHED FOR THE SO-CALLED “ PILTDOWN MAN ”

By Sir GAVIN de BEER, M.A.,. D.Sc., F.R.S.
(Director, British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 883)

The International Commission has no doubt read the reports on the recent
investigations of the Piltdown remains. These investigations have established
conclusively the fraudulent nature of the so-called ‘‘ Piltdown Man ”’. Weiner,
J.S., Oakley, K. P., and Le Gros Clark, W. E., Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.),
Geol. vol 2, No. 3 (Nov. 21, 1953: 139) ; Weiner, J. S., Le Gros Clark, W. E.,
Oakley, K. P., Claringbull, G. F., and Hey, M. H.; Edmunds, F. H., Bowie,
S. H. U., and Davidson, C. F. ; Fryd, C. F. M.; Baynes-Cope, A. D.; Werner,
A. E. A., and Plesters, R. J., ibid., vol. 2, No. 6, (Jan. 21, 1955 : 225).

2. When the remains were first brought to notice, they were examined
by the late Sir Arthur Smith Woodward who believed that they belonged to
a new genus and species of primitive man to which he gave the name Hoanthropus
dawsoni nov. gen., nov. sp. (Woodward, April 1913, Quart. J. geol. Soc. 1913 :
137).

3. M. Boule ({circ. mai] 1915, L’ Anthropologie 26 : 54) preferred the name
Homo dawsoni, and (ibid. : 60) was of the opinion that in isolation the mandible
would have been more appropriately named T'roglodytes dawsoni.

4. G.S. Miller (24 November 1915, Smithson. miscell. Coll. 65 : 19) removed
the mandible from Eoanthropus dawsoni and placed it in Pan vetus sp. nov.
Miller (: 19) selected the temporal bone of the Piltdown skull as the type
Specimen (lectotype) of Eoanthropus dawsoni.

5. Sir Arthur Keith (1931, New Discoveries relating to the Antiquity of Man,
London : 459) regarded the skull, as finally reconstructed, as representing
a species of Homo which he named Homo piltdownensis.

6. H. F. Friedrichs (1932, Z. f. Anat. Entwgesch. Berlin, Bd. 98, Heft 1—7,
259) regarded the mandible and more doubtfully the canine as representing
a new genus and species of ape, Boreopithecus dawsoni.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11. Part 6. May 1955.

172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

7. Now that it has been proved that the characters exhibited by the skull
and mandible which were relied upon by Woodward when publishing the
name Eoanthropus dawsoni were fictitious, it is desirable that this episode
should be brought to a close by the permanent rejection of these names.
Fortunately, a ready means already exists for this purpose by the provision
inserted in the Régles by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Paris 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 144) that a name based upon a
hypothetical form has no status in zoological nomenclature.

8. I accordingly ask the International Commission :—

(1) to take note that the recent investigations have established the fraudu-
lent character of the remains of the so-called “‘ Piltdown Man” to
which in 1913 the name Hoanthropus dawsoni was given by Wood-
ward and to which also were later applied the names specified in
(2)(b) to (2)(e) below ;

(2) to place :—

(a) the generic name Hoanthropus Woodward, 1913, and the specific
name dawsont Woodward, 1913, as published in the combination
Eoanthropus dawsoni,

(b) the specific name dawsoni Boule, 1915, as published in the com-
binations Homo dawsoni and Troglodytes dawsoni respectively,

(c) the specific name pilidownensis Keith, 1931, as published in the
combination Homo piltdownensis,

(d) the specific name vetws Miller, 1915, as published in the combination
Pan vetus,

(e) the generic name Boreopithecus Friedrichs, 1932, and the specific
name dawsoni Friedrichs, 1932, as published in the combination
Boreopithecus dawsont,

as severally rejected under (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology and the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, respectively.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 173

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE

SPECIFIC NAME “ EUROPAEUS ”’ LINNAEUS, 1758, AS PUBLISHED

IN THE COMBINATION “SCORPIO EUROPAEUS ” AND TO

DESIGNATE FOR THE GENUS “SCORPIO ” LINNAEUS, 1758

(CLASS ARACHNIDA) A TYPE SPECIES IN HARMONY WITH

ACCUSTOMED USAGE (AMENDMENT OF A RULING GIVEN IN
“OPINION ”’ 104)

By FRANCIS HEMMING, ©.M.G., C.B.E.,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 567)

The object of the present application is to ask the Commission to use its
Plenary Powers to such extent as may be necessary to provide the genus
Scorpio Linnaeus, 1758, with a type species in harmony with accustomed
usage and thus to make it possible to substitute a revised entry relating to
this name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for the very unsatis-
factory entry made under the Ruling given in Opinion 104 when this name
was first placed on the Official List. The facts of this case are set out in the
following paragraphs.

2. When Linnaeus established the genus Scorpio (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)
1 : 624), he placed in the genus so named five nominal species, of which the first
species was Scorpio maurus (: 624) and the fifth was Scorpio europaeus (: 625).
Linnaeus neither designated nor indicated a type species for this genus. The
first author to select one of the originally included species to be the type species
of this genus was Latreille who in 1810 (Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arach.
Ins. : 424, 118) so selected what he called “ europaeus Fab.’’, i.e. europaeus
Linnaeus, since Fabricius never himself published such a name, this name as
used by him always being attributed to Linnaeus.

3. By the Ruling given in its Opinion 104 (1928, Smithson. misc. Coll.
78 (No. 5) : 25—28) the Commission placed the name Scorpio Linnaeus, 1758,
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Scorpio europaeus Linnaeus,
1758, as type species.

4. When in 1943 I was engaged in a preliminary survey of the entries so
far made on the Official List with the object of estimating the amount of further
work which would be required before the List as so far compiled could be
published in book form, I encountered difficulties in regard to the name Scorpio
Linnaeus, as I could not find that the name ewropaeus Linnaeus was currently
applied by specialists in this group to a species of this genus. I accordingly
consulted Mr. R. J. Whittick who was then in charge of this part of the British

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 6. May 1955.

174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Museum collection. Owing to the difficulties at that time arising from war
conditions (including the evacuation of much of the library at the Museum),
Mr. Whittick was unable to clear up this matter but he confirmed that it would
require further examination before the Official List was published. Following
the resumption in the autumn of 1954 of active steps to prepare the Official
List for publication I consulted Dr. G. O. Evans who by this time had succeeded
Mr. Whittick in charge of the Arachnida at the British Museum. In a letter
dated 12th January 1955, Dr. Evans kindly furnished the following informa-
tion :—

Type species of ‘‘ Scorpio’’ Linnaeus

(1) The name ewropaeus Linnaeus, 1758, is not currently applied to a species
of Scorpio Linnaeus.

(2) In recent specialist works on the Scorpiones the species Scorpio maurus
Linnaeus is considered the type species of Scorpio. I am in full agree-
ment with this.

(3) The genus Scorpio is placed in the family scorPiontDAE Pocock, 1893
(ref.: ‘‘ Notes on the Classification of Scorpions, followed by some
observations upon synonymy, with descriptions of new Genera and
Species”. Pocock, Oct. 1893, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6) 12 : 305).

5. I have since (10th February 1955) had a further discussion in regard
to this case with Dr. Evans who confirms that the unfortunate type
selection by Latreille, by reason of its early date (1810), is without doubt the
first such selection to be made for this genus and informs me that the first
author to accept as its type species Scorpio maurus Linnaeus, the species
now universally accepted as such was Karsch (F.) (1879, “ Scorpionologische
Beitrage ”, Mitt. Miinch. Ent. Ver. 3: 20). Dr. Evans considers that in the
interests of maintaining stability and of putting an end to the unfortunate
situation created by Latreille’s type selection for the genus Scorpio Linnaeus,
it is desirable that the Commission should use its Plenary Powers for the
purpose of setting aside that selection and validating Scorpio maurus Linnaeus
as the type species of this genus. Dr. Evans is of the opinion that it is desirable
that the same opportunity should be taken to suppress the specific name
europaeus Linnaeus, 1758, this ancient nomen dubium serving no useful purpose,
representing, as it does, a potential threat to stability in nomenclature in view
of the risk that at any time some author might claim to be able to identify
the species so named by applying to this name the provisions of Article 31
of the Régles.

6. It is clear from the information kindly furnished by Dr. Evans that the
entry on the Official List relating to the name Scorpio Linnaeus must be revised
before the List can be published in book-form and that the revision of that entry
by the use of the Plenary Powers to designate Scorpio maurus Linnaeus to be
the type species of this genus would accord with the current practice of specialists

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 175

in this group and thus promote stability, while at the same time providing the
nominal genus Scorpio Linnaeus with a determinate content which by reason
of having an unrecognisable species as its type species it at present lacks.
Tagree also with Dr. Evans that it is very desirable that the potentially dangerous
nomen dubium europaeus Linnaeus should be suppressed and thus deprived
of power to cause confusion in the nomenclature of this group at some later
time.

7. I accordingly recommend the Commission :—

(1) to use its Plenary Powers :—

(a) to set aside all selections of type species for the nominal genus
Scorpio Linnaeus, 1758, made prior to the Ruling now asked
for and, having done so, to designate Scorpio maurus Linnaeus,
1758, to be the type species of this genus ;

(b) to suppress the specific name ewropaeus Linnaeus, 1758, as published
in the combination Scorpio europaeus for the purposes of the
Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ;

(2) to substitute the following entry for the name Scorpio Linnaeus, 1758,
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for that made therefor
by the Ruling given in Opinion 104 :—

Scorpio Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 624 (gender : masculine)
(type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers (under
(1)(a) above) : Scorpio maurus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)
1 : 624);

(3) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology :—maurus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the
combination Scorpio maurus (specific name of type species of Scorpio
Linnaeus, 1758) ;

(4) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :—europaeus Linnaeus,
1758, as published in the combination Scorpio europaeus and as
suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above ;

(5) to place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official List
of Family-Group Names in Zoology :—SCORPIONIDAE Pocock, 1893
(type genus : Scorpio Linnaeus, 1758).

176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE FOR
“ OXYPODA ’’ MANNERHEIM, 1831, A GENUS BASED UPON A
MISIDENTIFIED TYPE SPECIES, A TYPE SPECIES IN HARMONY
WITH CURRENT USAGE (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA)

By C. E. TOTTENHAM, M.A.
(Zoological Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 443)

The present application by the use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers to designate as the type species
of the genus Oxypoda Mannerheim, 1831 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera)
a species other than that which would be the type species under Article 30
of the Régles is submitted under the procedure prescribed by the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 :
158—159) as that to be followed in the case of genera based upon misidentified
type species. The facts of this case are set out in the following paragraphs.

2. In 1831 (Mém. Acad. imp. Sci. St. Petersb. 1(5) : 483) Mannerheim
established the nominal genus Oxypoda, in which he included a number of
species, but for which he neither designated nor indicated a type species.
The first of the species so included was cited as follows :—“ ruficornis Grav,
Gyll. Ins. Suec. P.II, p. 422”.

3. The first author validly to select a type species for the genus Oxypoda
Mannerheim was Westwood who in 1838 (Introd. mod. Classif. Ins. Syn. : 20)
so selected the foregoing species referred to by him as “Aleoch. ruficornis
Grav.” It may be regarded as reasonably certain that the species to which
Westwood referred was not the true ruficornis Grav. but was the species which
Gyllenhal later misidentified with ruficornis of Gravenhorst and which was the
species which Mannerheim included in his genus Oxypoda under that name.
Not only was Westwood careful to select as type species species which had been
included in the genera concerned by their respective authors, but in this case he
gave Oxypoda Mannerheim as being equivalent to ‘‘ Aleochara D.’’ of Stephens’
Catalogue. In this section of Aleochara, Stephens placed a number of species
of Oxypoda (sensu accepto), including “‘ ruficornis Gr.” This species he described
in his Jl. Brit. Ent., Mand. (5 : 150), and it is obvious from his description that
it was the Gyllenhal species to which he referred under the name ruficornis ;
furthermore, the true ruficornis Gravenhorst was not recognised by Stephens
but was described by him in another section of Aleochara under the name
daltoni. The species misidentified as ruficornis Gravenhorst by Gyllenhal,
Mannerheim, Stephens and Westwood did not acquire a valid name until
1844 (Z. Ent. (Germar) 5 : 217) when Maerkel named it Oxypoda spectabilis.
The true Aleochara ruficornis Gravenhorst, 1802, (Coleopt. micropt. brunsvic. :
91) was not among the species included by Mannerheim in his genus Oxypoda.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 6. May 1955.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature i ee

4. The present is thus a typical case of a nominal genus based upon a
misidentified type species. If in accordance with the provisions of Article 30,
it were necessary to accept the true Aleochara ruficornis Gravenhorst, 1802,
as the type species of Oxypoda Mannerheim, 1802, the following consequences
would ensue :—(1) The name Oxypoda Mannerheim, 1831, would fall as a junior
subjective synonym of Aleochara Gravenhorst, 1802 (Coleopt. micropt. brunsvic. :
67) or—and this would be even more confusing—would replace Ceranota
Stephens, 1839 (Manual brit. Col. : 351), with which it would become objectively
synonymous, as the name for the subgenus of Aleochara Gravenhorst now known
as Ceranota Stephens. (2) The little known name Sphenoma Mannerheim, 1831
(Mém. Acad. imp. Sci. St. Petersb. 1(5) : 482) would need to be used for the
genus now universally known as Orypoda Mannerheim. (3) A new subgeneric
name would be needed for the species now placed in what is currently regarded
as the nominate subgenus of Oxypoda Mannerheim. The genus Oxypoda
Mannerheim would have as its type species a species not originally included
by the author.

5. If on the other hand the Commission were to use its Plenary Powers
for the purpose of designating Oxypoda spectabilis Maerkel, 1844 (=the species
referred to by Mannerheim when he cited “‘ ruficornis Grav. Gyll.” as the first
species in the genus Oxypoda) to be the type species of Oxypoda Mannerheim,
the uniformity which has hitherto existed almost universally in the use of the
very well-known name Oxypoda Mannerheim would be permanently established.

6. I accordingly submit the present application under the procedure
prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology for adoption in cases such
as the present. The application now submitted is that the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should :—

(1) make a declaration that it is satisfied that Mannerheim misidentified
the species Aleochara ruficornis Gravenhorst, 1802, and, as is clearly
indicated by the reference he gave, intended to cite the species
described under that name by Gyllenhal and placed by him (Manner-
heim) in the genus Oxypoda Mannerheim, 1831, and subsequently
selected by Westwood (1838) to be the type species of that genus ;

(2) consequently upon (1) above, use its Plenary Powers (a) to set aside
all type-selections for the genus Oxypoda Mannerheim, 1831, made
prior to the Ruling now asked for, and (b) designate Oxypoda specta-
bilis Maerkel, 1844, to be the type species of the foregoing genus ;

(3) place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology :—Oxypoda Mannerheim, 1831 (gender : feminine)
(type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (2)
above : Oxypoda spectabilis Maerkel, 1844) ;

(4) place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology :—spectabilis Maerkel, 1844, as published in the

combination Ozxypoda spectabilis (specific name of type species of
Oxypoda Mannerheim, 1831) ;

178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(5) place the under-mentioned family-group*name on the Official List of
Family-Group Names in Zoology :—oxyPopIDES Thompson, 1859 ;

(6) place the under-mentioned invalid family-group name on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :—
oxypopaTEs Mulsant & Rey, 1874 (invalid because a vernacular
(French) word and not a Latin or Latinised word).

7. The present application in a slightly different form was submitted by
myself in 1949 to the Coleoptera Sub-Committee of the Committee on Generic
Nomenclature of the Royal Entomological Society of London. At that time
the members of the Coleoptera Sub-Committee were, in addition to myself:
H. E. Andrewes ; W. A. F. Balfour-Browne ; K. G. Blair; M. Cameron. The
Sub-Committee in its Third Report expressed its concurrence in the recom-
mendations which I had submitted in the present case and attached my paper
dealing with this and certain other names as Appendix II to its Report. The
Sub-Committee’s Report was submitted to, and approved by, the Committee
on Generic Nomenclature, by which, through the Secretary, it was submitted
to the Council of the Royal Entomological Society of London. At that time
the Committee on Generic Nomenclature was composed as follows :—Francis
Hemming (Chairman) ; W. A. F. Balfour-Brown ; K. G. Blair ; 0. W. Richards ;
N. D. Riley (Secretary). The documents referred to above were published by
the Royal Entomological Society of London on 30th August 1949 in Part 9
of the work entitled The Generic Names of British Insects : 345—346 (Report of
Committee on Generic Nomenclature) ; 347 (Third Report of the Coleoptera
Sub-Committee) ; 444449 (‘‘ Request for Rulings on Questions of Nomen-
clature” by C. E. Tottenham). I am informed that on 22nd December 1949
the foregoing documents were communicated by the Society to the International
Commission under cover of a letter by the Secretary commending, on behalf
of the Council of the Society, the present and other proposals relating to
nomenclature for favourable consideration by the Commission and expressing
the hope that the material so submitted would prove sufficient for the purposes of
the Commission. Unfortunately, circumstances have so far combined to prevent
the Commission from taking this application into consideration, but the
Secretary to the Commission has (October 1954) informed me that the Com-
mission is now in a position to take up the study of applications with which
it has not hitherto been able to deal and that it is its wish to arrange as soon as
possible for the publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of the
present application and also the other applications submitted in the Report
referred to above. The present application is a revision of that submitted in
1949 carried out in order to comply with certain additional requirements im-
posed upon the Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of
Zoology, Paris, 1948, in relation both to the procedure to be followed in dealing
with cases relating to the names of genera based upon misidentified type species
and to the placing of names on the Official Lists established by the Congress.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 179

REQUEST FOR A “ DECLARATION ’”’ PRESCRIBING THE COMBINATION

TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE SPECIFIC NAME OF A NOMINAL

SPECIES ESTABLISHED AS BELONGING TO ONE GENUS BUT FOR

WHICH AT THE SAME TIME ANOTHER NOMINAL GENUS IS ESTABLISHED
CONDITIONALLY

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 894)

The object of the present application is to ask the Commission to render
a Declaration prescribing the combination to be attributed to the specific
name of a nominal species established as belonging to one genus but for which
at the same time another nominal genus is established conditionally.

2. The present problem was brought to notice by Mr. Denys W. Tucker
(British Museum (Natural History), London) who in a letter dated 18th August
1954 raised it in connection with a specific name gracilis published by Lowe
(R.T.) in 1843 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 11 : 81—95) in the following circumstances.
On page 82 of this paper Lowe dealt with the ‘‘ Genus Seriola Cuv. & Val.’’,
this legend appearing as a heading for the portion which followed. Beneath
this heading Lowe wrote the name “ Seriola gracilis’, a name then introduced
as the name for a new species. This was followed by a description of the
species so named. In this description Lowe referred to the relationship of
his new species (Seriola gracilis) to the species Seriola bipinnulata Quoy &
Gaimard, 1825 (Voy. “‘ Uranie”’ (Zool.) : 363). Lowe then added the following
note :—“ Still it is not unlikely that a comparison of the two fishes may warrant,
on some future occasion, their separation from Seriola into a genus which
may be called Cubiceps...’’ The question which arises in this case is whether
the specific name gracilis Lowe, 1843, should be treated as having been
originally published in the combination Seriola gracilis or in the combination
Cubiceps gracilis.

3. The question posed above is not dealt with in the Régles and it is the object
of the present application to make good this deficiency. The Commission
and the International Congress of Zoology have both frowned upon the
publication of names conditionally. The Commission did not feel justified
in recommending the Congress to insert in the Régles a provision invalidating
names published in this way and accordingly in 1948 on the proposal of the
Commission a provision incorporating the Ruling given previously by the
Commission in its Opinion 49 (1912, Smithson. Publ. 2060 : 112—113) that
such names must be accepted as being available as from their original date of

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11. Part 6. May 1955.

180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

publication and authorship was adopted by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 144—145, Decision 17).
At the same time however the Commission submitted a proposal to the Congress
that there should be inserted in the Régles a Recommandation deprecating the
publication of names conditionally. This also was approved by the Congress.

4. It appears to me that the logical course would be to treat a specific
name such as gracilis Lowe, 1843 (paragraph 2 above) as having been published
in combination with the generic name Seriola (i.e. in combination with the name
of the previously established nominal genus in which it was placed by its
author) rather than as having been published in combination with the generic
name Cubiceps (the name of a nominal genus then conditionally established
for the reception of that species, if later this generic separation was judged to be
desirable on taxonomic grounds). The foregoing solution of this problem is
supported by Mr. Tucker, the specialist by whom (as noted above) the present
problem was brought to the notice of the Commission.

5. I accordingly recommend the Commission to render a Declaration on
the following lines :—

DRAFT DECLARATION :—Where an author, in publishing a name for
a new nominal species, cites that name in combination with a previously
published generic name but at the same time establishes conditionally a new
nominal genus for the taxon so named, the specific name in question is to be
treated as having been first published in combination with the previously
published generic name and not in combination with the generic name of the
new nominal genus then conditionally establishes. Example: The specific
name gracilis published by Lowe in 1843 for a new species of fish which was
placed by him in the previously established genus Seriola but for which also
he then established conditionally the new genus Cubiceps is to be treated as
having been first published in the combination Seriola gracilis and not in the
combination Cubiceps gracilis.

ee ae a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 181

PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES
IN ZOOLOGY’? OF THE GENERIC NAMES “SERIOLA’”’ CUVIER (G.),
[1816], AND “‘ CUBICEPS ’”’ LOWE (R.T.), 1843 (CLASS ACTINOPTERYGII)

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 905)

The present application is in the nature of a complement to the immediately
preceding application in which a recommendation is submitted that the
Commission should render a Declaration prescribing the combination to be
attributed to the specific name of a nominal species established as belonging
to one nominal genus but for which at the same time another nominal genus
was conditionally established.

2. The foregoing application was illustrated by the specific name gracilis
published by Lowe in 1843 for a new species of fish which that author placed
in the genus Seriola Cuvier (G.), [1816]*. Regn. Anim. 2 : 315) but for which
also he then established conditionally the new nominal genus Cubiceps Lowe,
1843 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 11 : 82). The name gracilis was published on the
same page as the generic name Cubiceps.

3. Under the General Directive given to the Commission by the International
Congress of Zoology that it shall deal comprehensively with every case submitted
to it and shall place on the appropriate Official List every name accepted by it
as a valid name makes it necessary in connection with the foregoing case to
consider whether the foregoing names should be placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology.

4, The generic names Seriola Cuvier and Cubiceps Lowe are both available
names in the sense that they are not junior homonyms or junior objective
synonyms of previously published generic names. Mr. Denys Tucker (British
Museum (Natural History), London) by whom the problem discussed in para-
graph 1 above was brought to the attention of the Commission, reports that
both the foregoing names are currently accepted as being the names of taxo-
nomically valid genera. Accordingly under the Directive given to the
Commission both these names now fall to be placed on the Official List. The
type species of Seriola Cuvier is Caranx dumerili Risso (A.), 1810 (Ichth. Nice :
175, pl. 6, fig. 20), by original designation ; the type species of Cubiceps Lowe
is Seriola gracilis Lowe, 1843, by monotypy. Mr. Tucker reports that both
these names are the oldest available names for the species concerned. Both
should therefore now be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

* For the date attributed to the Régne Animal see 1922, Cat. Library Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.)
6 : Add. et. Corrig. : 26.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11. Part 6. May 1955.

182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

5. There is a junior homonym of Seriola Cuvier, [1816], namely Seriola
Topsent, 1892 (Résult. Camp. sci. Monaco 2:8), an Emendation of Seiriola
Hanitsch, 1889 (Proc. Liverpool biol. Soc. 3 : 170). This name should now be
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

6. I accordingly now recommend that in compliance with the General
Directive referred to in paragraph 3 above, the Commission should :—

(1) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology :—

(a) Cubiceps Lowe (R.T.), 1843 (gender: masculine) (type species,
by monotypy : Seriola gracilis Lowe, 1843) ;

(b) Seriola Cuvier (G.), [1816] (gender : feminine) (type species, by
original designation : Caranx dumerili Risso (A.), 1810) ;

(2) place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology :—

(a) gracilis Lowe, 1843, as published in the combination Seriola
gracilis (specific name of type species of Cubiceps Lowe, 1843) ;

(b) dumerili Risso (A.), 1810, as published in the combination Caranx
dumerili (specific name of type species of Seriola Cuvier, 1817) ;

(3) place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official Indea of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—Seriola Topsent, 1892 (a
junior homonym of Seriola Cuvier (G.), [1816]).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 183

PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC
NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ’”’ OF THE GENERIC NAME “ MORMOOPS ”’
LEACH, 1821 (CLASS MAMMALIA)

By T. C. S. MORRISON-SCOTT, D.S.C., M.A., D.Sc.
(British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 513)

The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Com-
mission to stabilise the generic name Mormoops Leach, 1821 (Class Mammalia)
by placing it upon the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. This name is
in universal use for a well-known genus of American bats and it is important
that there should be no doubt regarding its availability. The facts of this
case are set out briefly below.

2. In a paper published in 1821 (Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 138(1)) Leach
established two new nominal genera of bats. To the first of these he gave
the name Aéllo (: 69, 70), to the second, the name Mormoops (: 76). These
are both monotypical genera, the type species of Aéllo Leach being Aéllo
cuviert Leach (:71), the type species of Mormoops Leach, being Mormoops
blainvillit Leach (: 77).

3. The relative status of these genera and species was discussed by Dobson
(1878, Cat. Chiroptera Brit. Mus.) who took the view that the names Mormoops
blainvillit and Aéllo cuvieri applied to the same species (: 456) and therefore
that the generic names Mormoops (which he referred to under the emended
form Mormops) and Aéllo were subjective synonyms of one another. For
the reasons explained in the following passage (which appeared as a footnote
on page 454) he rejected the name Aéllo in favour of the name Mormoops
published later in the same paper :—

Aéllo, previously characterised by Leach, is undoubtedly a synonym of this
genus [i.e. of Mormoops Leach], as the type of Aéllo cuviert shows ; but the definition
of the genus is quite incorrect, as the type specimen from which it was taken had lost
all trace of the cutaneous processes on the muzzle, and the number of the teeth is
incorrectly given. Therefore, although the name Aéllo has precedence of Mor-
moops, I retain the latter, which was published at the same time and has the
advantage of correct definition.

4. Other authors have followed Dobson, including Rehn (1902, “‘A Revision
of the Genus Mormoops”’ in Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 54 : 160) who added
the following note :—

While the genus and species Aéilo cuviert have page priority over Mormoops
blainvillii, the very poor definition and absolute unidentifiability of the former
(without a close examination of the type such as Dobson made) should give occasion
to use the better defined, almost simultaneous and universally recognised name.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11. Part 6. May 1955.

184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

5. The present Régles were not in existence at the time when Dobson
wrote the passage quoted above and, although they had been adopted by the
Berlin Congress in 1901, they had not been published when Rehn wrote his
revision of the genus Mormoops. Under the Berlin Régles the principle of
the First Reviser was given official recognition for determining the relative
priority to be accorded to subjective synonyms published in the same work
and on the same date (Article 28). The Régles did not give any guidance on the
question of the action needed to be taken by an author in order to qualify
that action for acceptance as that by a “ First Reviser’’. It was reasonable
however to conclude that the action by Dobson, Rehn and others was sufficiently
precise to secure effective priority for the generic and specific names Mormoops
and Mormoops blainvillit over the generic and specific names Aéllo and Aéllo
cuviert. The position was however completely reversed in 1948 by the decision
of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology to substitute the Principle
of Page and Line Precedence for the Principle of the First Reviser. Thereafter
until 1953 the long-neglected generic and specific names Aéllo and Aéllo cuviert
undoubtedly became the valid names for the bat concerned. Fortunately,
however, this change was not made by any author, the names Mormoops and
Mormoops blainvillii remaining in use. In 1953 the Fourteenth International
Congress of Zoology restored the First Reviser Principle and, in order to
facilitate the interpretation of the revised Article, inserted a definition of the
action needed to be taken by an author in order to qualify that action as that
by a First Reviser (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 66—67,
Decisions 123 and 124).

6. It is arguable that neither Dobson, Rehn nor any other author has
effectively acted as a First Reviser in the present case within the meaning
of the definition adopted by the Copenhagen Congress, though on a common
sense view the unbroken and long-extended usage of Mormoops in preference
to Aéllo should, it seems to me, be sufficient ground for the permanent rejection
of the name Aéllo in favour of the name Mormoops. In order however to
prevent the possibility of the stability of the name of this genus being endangered
by an attempt to substitute the name Aéllo for the name Mormoops, I ask the
International Commission to protect the latter name by placing it on the
Official List with a note that it is to be treated as having precedence over the
name Aéllo and by taking corresponding action as regards the specific name
blainvillii Leach. I recognise that, as we are concerned here only with a
case of subjective synonymy, it is not possible for the Commission to place the
generic name Aéllo Leach and the specific name cuvieri Leach, as published
in the combination Aéllo cuvieri, on the Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid
Names without resort to its Plenary Powers. In the present case this does not
seem to be a serious disadvantage, provided that the entries to be made on the
Official Lists relating to the generic name Mormoops Leach and blainvillit
Leach, as published in the combination Mormoops blainvillit, are endorsed
in the manner recommended above.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 185

7. The generic name Mormoops Leach has been taken as the base for a
family-group name by.a number of authors, of whom the first was Koch who
in 1864 (Jahrb. nassau. Ver. Naturk. 18 : 358) published the name MoRMOPIDA.
This genus is not currently treated by mammalogists as the type genus of
a family-group taxon, being placed in the subfamily CHILONYCTERIINAE.
In the circumstances there is no need to place the family-group name based on
Mormoops on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology.

8. For the reasons set out above I ask the International Commission :—

(1) to rule that Dobson (1878 : 454, nota), acting as First Reviser under
Article 28 of the Régles, selected :—

(a) the generic name Mormoops Leach, 1821, to the exclusion of the
generic name Aéllo Leach, 1814, for use by specialists who con-
sider on taxonomic grounds that these are no more than different
names for the same genus ;

(b) the specific name blainvillii Leach, 1821, as published in the
combination Mormoops blainvillii, to the exclusion of the specific
name cuviert Leach, 1821, as published in the combination
Aéllo cuvieri, for use by specialists who consider on taxonomic
grounds that these are no more than different names for the
same species ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology :—Mormoops Leach, 1821, the entry so to be made
to be endorsed in the manner specified in (1)(a) above (gender :
feminine) (type species, by monotypy : I ormoops blainvillet (correction
of blainvillit) Leach, 1821, a name having precedence as specified in
(1)(b) above) ;

(3) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology :—blainvillei (correction of blainvillii) Leach, 1821,
as published in the combination Mormoops blainvillii, the entry so -
to be made to be endorsed in the manner specified in (1)(b) above ;

(4) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—M. ormops Cuvier
(F.), 1829 (Dict. Sci. nat. 59 : 422) (an Invalid Emendation of Mor-
moops Leach, 1821) ;

(5) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :—blainvillii Leach,
1821, as published in the combination Mormoops blainvillii (an Invalid
Original Spelling of blainvillet).

186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS FOR THE PURPOSE

OF DESIGNATING FOR THE GENUS “ HELIOSCIURUS ”’

TROUESSART, 1880, A TYPE SPECIES IN HARMONY WITH

ACCUSTOMED USAGE AND FOR VALIDATING THE SPECIFIC

NAME “ GAMBIANUS ”’ OGILBY, 1835, AS PUBLISHED IN THE

COMBINATION “SCIURUS GAMBIANUS’’, AS THE NAME FOR
THE SUN SQUIRREL (CLASS MAMMALIA)

By T. C. S. MORRISON-SCOTT, D.S.C., M.A., D.Sc.
(British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 909)

The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission
to use its Plenary Powers for the purpose (a) of designating for the genus
Heliosciurus Trouessart, 1880 (Class Mammalia) a type species in harmony
with accustomed usage and (b) of providing a secure basis for the specific
name gambianus Ogilby, 1835, as published in the combination Sciurus
gambianus, as the name for the Sun-Squirrel. The facts relating to this case are
set out below.

2. The nominal genus Heliosciwrus was established in 1880 (Le Naturaliste
1 : 292) by Trouessart who designated Sciwrus annulatus Desmarest, 1822
(Ency. méth. (Mamm.) (2): 338) as type species. This specific name was
interpreted by Trouessart as applying to the Sun-Squirrel.

3. This genus was considered again in 1898 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1897 : 933)
by Thomas who then accepted annulatus Desmarest as the type species.
Thomas, like Trouessart, applied this name to the Sun-Squirrel but added that
he did so “ without making prolonged nomenclatural investigations ”, thereby
signifying presumably that he was not fully satisfied with this identification.
Later, however, Thomas (1909, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (8) 3 : 470) rejected the
name annulatus Desmarest on the grounds that the original description was
insufficient, that the locality given by Desmarest was uncertain and that the
type specimen was no longer in existence. Thomas thereupon adopted the
name Sciurus gambianus Ogilby, 1835 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 3(31) : 103) for
the Sun-Squirrel. In this action he was fully justified, if the name annulatus
Desmarest is not available, for in that event the name gambianus Ogilby is the
oldest available name for this species. In addition, Thomas then designated
Sciurus gambianus Ogilby as the type species of Heliosciurus Trouessart. In
so doing, Thomas was of course in error, since from the nomenclatorial stand-
point the fact that the type species of a genus is considered to be unrecognisable
is irrelevant and a genus having such a type species becomes a genus dubium.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11. Part 6. May 1955.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 187

4. Thomas’s (1909) action has however been followed by all subsequent
workers, all of whom have used the name gambianus Ogilby for the Sun-
Squirrel and have accepted that speciesas the typespecies of Heliosciwrus Troues-
sart. There would clearly be no justification for disturbing this long-established
practice for the technical nomenclatorial reasons described above. Two things
are needed however in order to provide a secure legal basis for current usage.
First, it will be necessary for the Commission to use its Plenary Powers to
designate Sciwrus gambianus Ogilby to be the type species of Heliosciwrus
Trouessart, thereby giving that genus a determinate content by providing it
with a recognisable type species. Second, in order to secure the position of the
name gambianus Ogilby, it is necessary that the nomen dubium annulatus
Desmarest should be suppressed under the Plenary Powers, for, like every
nomen dubium, this name will remain a constant danger to nomenclatorial
stability as long as it remains an available name, for, until it is suppressed, it
will always be open to some later worker to claim to recognise Desmarest’s
species and accordingly to sink gambianus Ogilby as a junior synonym of
annulatus Desmarest.

5. I accordingly ask the International Commission :—
(1) to use its Plenary Powers :—

(a) to suppress the specific name annulatus Desmarest, 1822, as
published in the combination Sciwrus annulatus, for the purposes
of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homo-

nymy ;

(b) to set aside all designations or selections of type species for the
genus Heliosciurus Trouessart, 1880, made prior to the Ruling
now asked for, and, having done so, to designate Sciurus
gambianus Ogilby, 1835, to be the type species of the foregoing
genus ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology :—Heliosciurus Trouessart, 1880 (gender : masculine)
(type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b)
above : Sciurus gambianus Ogilby, 1835) ;

(3) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology :—gambianus Ogilby, 1835, as published in the
combination Sciurus gambianus (specific name of type species of
Heliosciurus Trouessart, 1880) ;

188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(4) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :—

(a) annulatus Desmarest, 1822, as published in the combination
Sciurus annulatus, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers
under (1)(a) above ;

(b) annulatus Desmoulins, 1824 (Dict. Class. Hist. nat. 6 : 73), as
published in the combination Sciwrus annulatus (a junior
primary homonym of annulatus Desmarest, 1822, as published
in the combination Sciwrus annulatus).

SUPPORT FOR THE COUNTER-PROPOSAL THAT THE GENERIC
NAME “NOTROPIS ’? RAFINESQUE, 1818 (CLASS OSTEICHTHYES)
SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS BEING OF THE FEMININE GENDER

By JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr.
(San Diego, California)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 663)
(Letter dated 27th November 1954)

(For the proposal submitted in this case, see 1954,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 274—275)

The list of 60 writers who favour changing the gender of the name Notropis
from feminine to masculine looks impressive, especially so when compared with the
list of seven who do not, but if the list be critically considered I believe it will be
found to be somewhat misleading. The authors of the application of which the
list forms a part state that the names are those of ichthyologists. If the entire
field of zoological systematics had been circularized I believe there would have been
a different story to be told.

The termination “ -tropis”’ is fairly common in generic terminology. If the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should rule that some of
these names are masculine and some feminine it would compel every writer who
contemplated publishing anything involving the use of any of these names either
to go to the trouble of consulting the Opinions dealing with the names, or of
burdening his memory with what is after all, a relatively unimportant matter.

If, on the other hand, the Commission should rule all such names to be masculine,
then it would be necessary to change the termination of many of the specific names
in the genera Chelitropis, Ditropis, Gyrotropis, Heliotropis, Omphatotropis, Plecto-
tropis, Prionotropis, Spirotropis, and Trichotropis. This would be a source of great
vexation of spirit ; further, the list just cited is not exhaustive. Somewhere I have
seen the names Monotropis and Anomalotropis, but I cannot find them now. There
is an alternative to these two courses which would avoid the confusion that would
result if either of the other two were adopted, and that alternative would be to
declare that since the names ending in “ -tropis’’ are properly feminine and have
generally been so considered, this practice should continue. .

It may be that in the case of Notropis it has been more usual to give the specific
names masculine terminations, but notwithstanding this I would recommend that
the feminine gender be retained unless it can be shown that the masculine termina-
tions have been more generally used in all the other generic names used in the
animal kingdom. I doubt very much that this will be found to be the case.
Certainly I have never considered these names to be anything but feminine.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 189

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE

THE SPECIFIC NAME “SILVESTRIS ’? SCHREBER, [1777], AS

PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ FELIS (CATUS)
SILVESTRIS ’’, FOR THE EUROPEAN WILD CAT

By T. C. S. MORRISON-SCOTT, D.S.C., M.A., D.Sc.
(British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 910)

The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Com-
mission to use its Plenary Powers to validate the specific name silvestris Schreber,
[1777], as published in the combination Felis (Catus) silvestris, the name
universally applied to the European Wild Cat. The facts of this case are set
out below.

2. The name Felis silvestris was first published after the starting point of
zoological nomenclature by Brisson who in 1762 (Regn. Anim. (ed. 2) : 192)
applied it to the European Wild Cat. Brisson however used many polyverbal
designations for species and certainly cannot be claimed to have applied the
principles of binominal nomenclature. Although a number of important
generic names are currently accepted as from Brisson, none of his specific names
are accepted as available.

3. The next author to use the specific name silvestris for the European
Wild Cat was Schreber (Die Sdugthiere 3:397) who under the heading
“ Die Wilde Katze ” wrote :—

Felis (Catus) silvestris ; Felis pilis ex fusco flavicante & albido variegatis,
cauda annulis alternatim nigris & ex sordide albo flavicantibus. BRISS.
quadr. p. 192.

4. The portion of Schreber’s book containing the foregoing description was
published in 1777. Unfortunately the plate (pl. 107A) on which Schreber
figured the “ Die wilde Katze ” was published in 1775 and on this plate Schreber
gave the legend “ Felis Catus Linn. ferus”. Thus, the specific name ferus
Schreber has two years’ priority over the name silvestris Schreber, which,
as already explained, is the name always used for this well-known species.
The name ferus Schreber appears to have been completely overlooked and has
never been used. It would be absurd to upset the name which has been accepted
for this species for nearly one hundred and eighty years, having regard to the
many hundreds of times that this name has appeared not only in specialist
literature but also in general zoological works, both scientific and popular.
Such action would be all the more absurd in the present case in view of the fact
that the earlier name appeared on a plate in the same work as the name now
universally used.

Sr ere ESSE EDO Wg EG a
Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11. Part 6. May 1955.

190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
5.¥I accordingly ask the International Commission :—

(1) to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the specific name ferus Schreber,
[1775], as published in the combination Felis catus Linn. ferus, for the
purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology :—silvestris Schreber, [1777], as published
in the combination Felis (Catus) silvestris ;

(3) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :—

(a) ferus Schreber, [1775], as published in the combination Felis
catus Linn. ferus, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers under
(1) above ;

(b) ferus Erxleben, 1777 (Syst. Régn. Anim. 1: 518), as published
in the combination Felis catus var. ferus (a junior homonym of
Felis catus Linn. ferus Schreber, [1775]).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 191

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE
GENERIC NAME “ PHACOCHOERUS’”’ AS FROM CUVIER (F.),
1826, AS THE GENERIC NAME FOR THE WART HOG

By T. C. S. MORRISON-SCOTT, D.S.C., M.A., D.Sc.
(British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 756)

The object of the present application is to ask the International Com-
mission to take such action as may be necessary to validate as from Cuvier (F.),
1826, the generic name Phacochoerus for the Wart Hog, the name universally
adopted for the genus for this well-known species. This case is somewhat
complicated, partly because there is a considerable number of names which
require to be considered and partly because the name Phacochoerus is commonly
treated as having been published by Cuvier in 1817 in a work in which in fact
he did not introduce this generic name. The relevant facts are set out below.

2. The Wart Hog was first described in 1766 (Misc. zool. : 16) by Pallas,
who then (on the same page) established for it the new nominal genus Aper
Pallas, at the same time giving this species the name A per aethiopicus Pallas.

3. The name aethiopicus Pallas at once came into use for this species but the
generic name Aver Pallas was not adopted, the zoologists of that day apparently
taking the view that this name was a junior synonym of Sus Linnaeus, 1758.

4, At the present time the generic name used for the Wart Hog is Phaco-
choerus and this name has been employed in this sense for many years. So
used, this name is attributed to Cuvier (G.) and is treated as having been
published by that author in 1817 (Régne Anim. 1 : 236). On the question of
the date to be used for this name, it should be noted that in the part of Index
Animalium published in 1929, Sherborn adopted the date “1817” and that
this was copied by Neave in his Nomenclator Zoologicus. In the bibliography
to the Index Anim. (: xli) published in 1922 Sherborn gave, however, the date
as “1816”. In Sherborn’s manuscript slips now preserved in the British
Museum (Natural History) there is a manuscript note in red ink in Sherborn’s
handwriting to the effect that volume 1 of the Régne Anim. was published
in December 1816.* I think it clear that the entry in the body of the Index
was compiled at an earlier date than the manuscript amendment on the slip
and that it was only through inadvertence that the entry in the book was not
corrected. I accordingly accept the date “1816” for this volume. The
alleged name Phacochoerus Cuvier, 1816, is a cheironym, as was pointed out
by Lyon as long ago as 1915 (Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 28 : 141). Cuvier published

* See also 1922, Cat. Libr. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) 6 Add. et Corrig. : 26.
Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11. Part 6. May 1955.

192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

no such generic name in 1816. What he did was to use no more than the
heading ‘‘ Les Phaco-Choeres (Fred. Cuv.)” at the beginning of the section
dealing with the Wart Hogs. In a footnote he added :—‘‘ Phaco choerus ;
cochon portant une verrue”’. This is merely an etymological note by Cuvier
(G.) inserted for the purpose of explaining to readers the derivation of the term
‘“* Les Phaco-Choeres ’’ employed by his brother Cuvier (F.). The use of the
expression ‘‘ Phaco choerus”’ in this footnote cannot possibly be construed as
constituting a generic name consisting of the word Phacochoerus. Nevertheless,
in spite of the clear exposition published by Lyon the generic name Phaco-
choerus, attributed to Cuvier (G.), 1817, has continued in uninterrupted use.

5. In the year (1817) following that to which the cheironym Phacochoerus
Cuvier (G.) is attributed the nominal genus Zureodon was established by Fischer
de Waldheim (1817, Mém. Soc. imp. Nat. Moscow 5 : 373, 417) with Aper
aethiopicus Pallas as type species. This name is invalid as a junior synonym
of Aper Pallas, 1766, but, unless suppressed, would become an available name
if Aper Pallas were to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers. It is barely
known to zoologists, presumably because it has been regarded as a junior
synonym of Phacochoerus Cuvier, 1816, the cheironym discussed in paragraph 4
above.

6. It must be noted next that the name Phacochoerus was published by
Fischer de Waldheim in 1817 (5: 417) in synonymy with his own genus
Eureodon. Fischer de Waldheim gave, however, no separate diagnosis for
Phacochoerus, doing no more than give a bibliographical reference to the passage
in Cuvier (G.) discussed in paragraph 4 above, and-no one has since claimed
that this name ranks from Fischer de Waldheim, 1817. The question of the
status to be accorded to generic names published in synonymies was considered
at Copenhagen in 1953 by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology
which inserted in the Régles a provision that a generic name published in the
manner described above possesses no status in zoological nomenclature (1953,
Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 63, Decision 115). All that is now
required is therefore that the name Phacochoerus Fischer de Waldheim, 1817,
should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names.

7. During the next five years five further nominal genera were established
for the Wart Hog. First, in 1820, Ranzani published (Zlem. Zool. 2 : 536, 537)
the name Phascochoeres and the variant spelling Phascochoerus. These
names are clearly both Latinised variants of the French designation
“* Les Phaco-Choeres ” devised for the Wart Hog by Cuvier (F.) and, as shown
in paragraph 4 above, published by Cuvier (G.) in 1816. Second, in 1821
Gray (J.E.) (London med. Reposit. 15 : 306) published the name Phacochaeres
as a variant of the reputed but non-existent name Phacochoerus Cuvier (G.),
1816. Third, in 1822 two further variants of the name Phacochoerus which
every author of that time considered had been published by Cuvier (G.) in

——

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 193

the Régne Anim. saw the light. The first of these, Phacocherus, was introduced
by Fleming (Phil. Zool. 2 : 200), the second, Phascochaerus, by Desmarest
(Ency. méth. (Mamm.) (2) : 393).

8. Finally, in 1826 (Dict. Sci. nat. 39 : 383) this genus was dealt with by
Cuvier (F.), the original author of the French designation “‘ Les Phaco-Choeres ”’
who on this occasion published this name in due Latin form as Phacochoerus.
In view of the fact that Sherborn gave this name as having been published as
Phacochaerus, i.e. with an “‘ ae”’ and not an “ oe” in the penultimate syllable,
I have checked the original carefully and the diphthong, as printed, is certainly
“oe” and not “ae”. Admittedly, the “oe” used in this printing is very
like the “ae” and the erroneous entry in the Index Animalium is readily
understandable. The differences between the two diphthongs used in this
work are small but are clear enough if comparison is made with other names
containing diphthongs printed in the same work. In these circumstances the
universally employed ‘‘ oe ”’ spelling for this name is correct and no action by
the Commission is needed, beyond its giving recognition of this fact. The type
species of this genus is, by monotypy, Ayer aethiopicus Pallas, 1766 (cited by
Cuvier under the form Sus aethiopicus Gmelin).

9. The name Phacochoerus has been used so consistently for the Wart Hog
for well over a hundred years that it is clearly desirable in the interests of
nomenclatorial stability that it should be retained as the generic name for this
well-known species. In order that this end may be secured, it will be necessary
for the International Commission to use its Plenary Powers to (1) suppress
the two generic names (Aper; Hureodon) published in or before 1817, the
year in which all the earlier nineteenth century mammalogists considered
(incorrectly, as we have seen) that Cuvier (G.) had published the generic name
Phacochoerus, (2) to suppress all the variant forms of that name published
between that year and 1826, and (3) to validate the generic name Phacochoerus
Cuvier (F.), 1826.

10. This proposal will, I believe, have the general support of zoologists,
both because of the fact that the name Phacochoerus is universally employed by
mammalogists for the Wart Hog and because the publication in 1953 by Eller-
man and myself (Southern African Mammals 1758 to 1951: A Reclassification :
171) of our intention to submit the present proposal to the International
Commission elicited no objection from any source.

11. The genus Phacochoerus Cuvier is currently treated as belonging to the
family surpaz and no question arises of placing on the Official List of Family-
Group Names in Zoology the name of a family-group taxon based upon the
generic name Phacochoerus.

194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

12. I accordingly ask the International Commission :—

(1) to use its Plenary Powers :—

(a) to suppress the under-mentioned generic names for the purposes
of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homo-

nymy :—
(i) Aper Pallas, 1766 ;
(ii) Hureodon Fischer de Waldheim, 1817;
(iii) the under-mentioned variants of the reputed but non-
existent generic name Phacochoerus Cuvier (G.), [1816] :—
(a) Phascochoeres Ranzani, 1820 ;
(B) Phascochoerus Ranzani, 1820 ;
(y) Phacochaeres Gray (J.E.), 1821;
(8) Phacocherus Fleming, 1822 ;
(e) Phascochaerus Desmarest, 1822 ;
(b) to suppress the following name for the purposes both of the Law

of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy :—Phacochoerus, all
uses of, prior to Cuvier, 1826 ;

(c) to validate the under-mentioned generic name Phacochoerus
Cuvier (F.), 1826;

(2) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology: Phacochoerus Cuvier (F.), 1826, as validated
under the Plenary Powers under (1)(c) above (gender: masculine)
(type species, by monotypy : Aper aethiopicus Pallas, 1766) ;

(3) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology :—aethiopicus Pallas, 1766, as published in the
combination Aper aethiopicus (specific name of type species of
Phacochoerus Cuvier (F.), 1826) ;

(4) to place the under-mentioned generic names or reputed generic names
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology :—

(a) the seven generic names specified in (1)(a) above, as there
suppressed under the Plenary Powers ;

(b) the reputed but non-existent generic name Phacochoerus Cuvier
(G.), [1816] ;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 195

(c) Phacochoerus Fischer de Waldheim, 1817 (invalid because
published in a generic synonymy without an independent
indication) ;

(d) the under-mentioned junior objective synonyms of Phacochoerus
Cuvier (F.), 1826, validated under the Plenary Powers under
(1)(c) above :—

(i) Phascochaeres Cretzschmar, 1828, in Riippell, Atlas Reise
nordl. Afr., Saugth. : 61;
(ii) Dinochoerus Gloger, [1841], Gemeinniitz. Naturgesch.1 : 131 ;

(iii) Macrocephalus Palmer, 1904, N. amer. Faun. 23 : 391
(commonly cited as ‘“‘ Index Gen. Mamm.”’) ;

(e) Macrocephalus Frisch, 1775, Natur-Syst. vierfiissig. Thiere: 3 (a
name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes
by the Ruling given in Opinion 258).

196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

SECOND REPORT ON THE STATUS OF THE GENERIC NAMES

“ODOBENUS” BRISSON, 1762, AND “ROSMARUS”

BRUNNICH, 1771 (CLASS MAMMALIA) (A REPORT PREPARED

AT THE REQUEST OF THE THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL
CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY, PARIS, 1948)

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 614)

The following Report is submitted to the Commission in accordance with
a request addressed to me, as Secretary to the Commission, by the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, that I should examine, in
consultation with interested specialists, the situation created by a decision taken
during that Congress by the International Commission that the new generic
names in Briimnich’s Zool. Fund. of 1771 were available names and therefore
that the generic name Rosmarus Briinnich, 1771 (: 34, 383—39) was an available
name, the future status to be accorded to which required investigation.

2. The name Rosmarus Briinnich, 1771, is the name of a nominal genus
established without cited nominal species. The species which alone are
eligible for selection as the type species of this genus are those which were
cited under this generic name on the first occasion on which any such species
were so cited (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 159—160, 346). The first author
to cite any nominal species in connection with this generic name was Palmer
who in 1904 (NV. Amer. Fauna 23 : 612) so cited the single species Phoca
rosmarus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 38). This action constituted,
under the provisions cited above, an “ indication ’’ under Rule (c) in Article 30
of this species as the type species of Rosmarus Briinnich by monotypy. In
addition, Palmer so selected this species under Rule (g) in the same Article.
The generic name Rosmarus Briinnich is an available name in the sense that it
is not a junior homonym of any earlier such name consisting of the same word.
It is necessary therefore next to consider whether it is an available name also
from the point of view of synonymy. Here we find that the same species
(Phoca rosmarus Linnaeus) is the type species, by selection by Merriam (1895,
Science (n.s.) 1(14) : 375) of the nominal genus Odobenus Brisson, 1762 (Regn.
Anim. (ed. 2) : 30). Thus, if Brisson’s Regnum animale of 1762 were a nomen-
clatorially acceptable work, the generic name Rosmarus Brimnich, 1771, would,
as a junior objective synonym of Odobenus Brisson, 1762, thus be the valid
generic name for the Walrus.

3. It is sufficient here to note (1) that under another decision by the Paris
Congress of 1948 a detailed survey of the status of, and of the names used in,

Bull, zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 6. May 1955.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 197

Brisson’s Regnum animale of 1762 is in course of preparation for submission
to the Commission, (2) that, like the same author’s later (1763) Ornithologie,
the Regnum animale is a typically non-binominal work of the type formerly
known as “ binary ”’ (that is, a work in which universal generic names are
employed, but the principles of binominal nomenclature are not applied and
in the case of many species the “ specific name ”’ used consists of a string of
Latin words constituting an abbreviated specific diagnosis). My view is there-
fore that, in the absence of action by the International Commission, the Regnum
animale of 1762 is not an available work and in consequence that the name
Odobenus Brisson, 1762, is not an available name. Thus, under the Régles
the next name, Rosmarus Briinnich, 1771, is the oldest available, and, therefore,
the valid, generic name for the Walrus.

4, The International Congress of Zoology has laid it down that the Com-
mission is to consider the question of validating under its Plenary Powers
generic names published in works rejected by it as not complying with the
requirements of Article 25 where such names are in common use and for this
purpose has inserted in the Régles an Article prescribing a simplified procedure
under which the Plenary Powers may be used by the Commission when con-
sidering applications for the validation of names as from works rejected for
the foregoing reason (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:65). It is necessary
here to consider whether or not it is desirable that the generic name Odobenus
Brisson, 1762, should be validated under the foregoing provisions.

5. In the winter of 1951/1952 I prepared an Interim Report on the present
case, in which I appealed to specialists to furnish statements of their views
on the action which it was desirable should be taken in this case and this was
published in April 1952 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 225—226, Case 27). At the
same time Public Notice of the possible use by the Commission of its Plenary
Powers for the purpose of validating the name Odobenus Brisson, 1762, was
given in the manner prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology.

6. Two comments were received in response to the foregoing appeal. These
were from :—(1) Dr. T. C. 8. Morrison-Scott (British Museum (Natural History),
London) ; (2) Professor E. Raymond Hall (University of Kansas, Lawrence,
Kansas, U.S.A.). Dr. Morrison-Scott, after drawing attention to the fact that
in the Checklist of palaearctic and Indian Mammals 1758 to 1946 by J. R. Eller-
man and himself published in 1951, the name Odobenus Brisson had been used in
preference to the name Rosmarus Briinnich and this course had been ‘“‘ adopted
by Miller, Ognev, Simpson, and virtually all recent authors’. Dr. Morrison-
Scott added that he hoped that the International Commission would endorse
this action, since considerable confusion would be caused if this and other
names proposed by Brisson were to be rejected. Professor Hall took the
opposite view, stating that, if Brisson’s Regnum animale were to be rejected,
he would favour the use of the name Rosmarus Briinnich if that were the next
available name after Odobenus Brisson.

198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

7. At the time when I was requested to furnish the present Report, I was
asked to include in it ‘‘ Recommendations as to the action to be taken”’ by the
Commission (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 313, Point 7). I have accordingly
considered this matter carefully in the light of the information available
and I am of the opinion that in the interests of nomenclatorial stability
the best course would be for the Commission, without prejudice to the general
question of the status to be accorded to names, in Brisson’s Regnum animale,
to use its Plenary Powers in the present instance for the purpose of validating
the generic name Odobenus Brisson, 1762, with Phoca rosmarus Linnaeus,
1758, as type species, thus preserving this well-known name for the Walrus.
If this recommendation were to be approved, the name Rosmarus Brimnich,
1771, would sink as a junior objective synonym of Odobenus Brisson, 1762.

8. In the discharge the duty imposed upon me in the present matter,
I now submit the following recommendations for the consideration of the
International Commission, namely that it should :—

(1) use its Plenary Powers, without prejudice to the general question of
the status to be accorded to generic names in Brisson’s Regnum
animale of 1762, for the purpose of validating, in so far as may be
necessary, the generic name Odobenus Brisson, 1762, with Phoca
rosmarus Linnaeus, 1758, as type species ;

(2) place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology :—Odobenus Brisson, 1762 (gender: masculine),
as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1) above (type species,
by designation under the same Powers: Phoca rosmarus Linnaeus,
1758) ;

(3) place the specific name rosmarus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the
combination Phoca rosmarus, on the Official List of Specific Names in

Zoology ;

(4) place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—Rosmarus Briimnich, 1771
(a junior objective synonym of Odobenus Brisson, 1762, as validated
under the Plenary Powers under (1) above).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 199

DESIGNATION OF A TYPE GENUS FOR THE NOMINAL ORDER

“AMMONOIDEA”’ ZITTEL, 1884, AND PROPOSED ADDITION OF THAT

NAME TO THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF NAMES IN THE ORDER/CLASS
GROUP IN ZOOLOGY ”’

By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S.
(Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 875)

At the time when I submitted my proposal that the International Com-
mission should use its Plenary Powers to suppress the old generic name
Ammonites Bruguiére, 1789, I expressed the view that, if ever the Commission
were to be given powers in relation to the names of taxa belonging to categories
above the family-group-name level, it would be necessary to make provision
for the retention of the long-established and universally accepted Ordinal
Name ammonorpea (Arkell, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 202). That such
action should be taken promptly appears important in view of the risk that,
following the suppression of the old generic name Ammonites, mistaken attempts
might be made to alter the Ordinal Name, notwithstanding the fact that it is
a household word to all students of ammonites and to palaeontologists generally.

2. The time now appears to be ripe for the Commission to take action in
this matter, for (1) it has now suppressed the name Ammonites Bruguiére
by the Ruling given in its Opinion 305 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool.
Nomencl. 8 : 297—312) and (2) the International Congress of Zoology has
laid down rules for the regulation of Ordinal Names and has established an
Official List for recording the names of Orders and Classes (1953, Copenhagen
Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 39).

3. Authorship and date of publication of the Ordinal Name “ aMMoNOIDEA ”’ :
The first author to establish a taxon of ordinal rank to comprehend the con-
cept represented by the genus Ammonites Bruguiére as that genus was originally
conceived appears to have been Zittel who in 1884 introduced without comment
the name ammMonorpEA as the name for a Sub-Order (“* Unterordnung ”’) in
the Order TETRABRANCHIATA (Zittel, 1884, Handbuch der Paldontologie, Abt. 1
Bd. 2 : 392).

4. Designation of a type genus for the Nominal Order “ ammonorpEa ”’
Zittel, 1884: Ordinal names, like generic names, possess no determinate
content until they are defined in some approved manner and the International
Congress was clearly well-advised to apply to the names of Orders the type
method which has already over a long period of years proved its adequacy

eae ee ee ee

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11. Part 6. May 1955,

200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

as a method for determining the content of nominal genera (ibid. : 38, Decision
61). The first step therefore which requires to be taken is to designate a suit-
able genus to be the type genus of the Order AmmonoIpEA. Other things
being equal, the fact that this Ordinal name is a virtual tautonym of Bruguiére’s
generic name Ammonites makes it desirable that the genus to be selected as the
type genus of the Order should be the genus to which, if it had not been suppressed
by the Commission under its Plenary Powers, the name Ammonites Bruguiére
would have applied. The question of the concept which would have been
represented by this genus if the name Ammonites Bruguiére had been allowed
to remain an available name is not entirely free from doubt but, as I explained
in my application to the Commission for the suppression of that generic name
(Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 200—201), the acceptance of the generic name
Ammonites would at the family-name level, have led to the substitution of
the name AMMONITIDAE for the family name ARIETITIDAE. From this point
of view, it would therefore be appropriate that the generic name Arietites
Waagen, 1869 (Geogn.-pal. Beitr. 2 (Heft 2) : 247) should become the type
genus of the Order amMmonorpEA. Judged from a more general standpoint
also, this important Sinemurian genus appears very suitable to be the type
genus of the Order. I accordingly hereby designate the genus Arietites Waagen,
1869, to be the type genus of the Order AMMONOIDEA.

5. For the reasons which I have explained, the Ordinal name AMMONOIDEA
should be formally protected as soon as possible, and in view of the fact that this
name is in universal use among palaeontologists, there is no reason why action
should not be taken immediately. I accordingly ask the International Com-
mission to place the under-mentioned name on the Official List of Names in the
Order-Class-Group in Zoology :—AMMONOIDEA Zittel, 1884 (type genus, by
designation in the present application : Arietites Waagen, 1869).

h : gene ic d = e ;

Rie ie 53am oil oe

NE: Lesahy t: un
ee

ay Rss A

TET pier + ok

re :
9 +
eee
*

a} *

Proposed use acaba Pisa Bowe
Manes, conn

Proposed « addition to wes Coa
generic names @), ies a ice as
— RT ), Mere “is i ea opterygii) ee doers 925
Hemming, i. ee D he Internatio ‘om-
mission sacra FBT oa nal: Pea cee

i, DS. Bc
wm ar ry, ein ate ee aa mee a Fete ree 183

name Ecce iby, 1835, as published in the combination =
Sciurus ane es the ye ne ny One se gee se
Mammalia). By TEeL gs Morrison-Scott, DS.C., as Aes Fp BE
(British pene (Natural apsstersy London) .. «ws 8B

CONTENTS

(continued from inside back wrapper)

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the specific name
silvestris Schreber, [1777], as published in the combination
Felis (Catus) silvestris, for the European Wild Cat. By T.C.S.
Morrison-Scott, D.S.C., M.A., D.Sc. ae Museum ae
History), London) :

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name
Phacochoerus as from Cuvier (F.), 1826, as the generic name
for the Wart Hog. By T.C.S. Morrison- Scott, D.S.C., M.A.,
D.Sc. (British Museum (Natural History), London) ;

Second Report on the status of the generic names Odobenus Brisson,
1762, and Rosmarus Briinnich, 1771 (Class Mammalia). (A
Report prepared at the request of the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948). By Francis Hemming,
C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature ss ae oe 3

Designation of a type genus for the nominal Order Ammonoidea
Zittel, 1884, and proposed addition of that name to the Official
List of Names of the Order/Class Group in Zoology. By W. J.
Arkell, M.A., D.Se., F.R.S. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge
University, Cambridge) : is oe a a or

Comment on an Application

Support for the counter-proposal that the generic name Notropis
Rafinesque, 1818 (Class Osteichthyes) should be accepted as
being of the feminine gender. By Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San
Diego, California, U.S.A.) : 4 sa oe Pe

NOTICE

Page

189

191

196

199

188

The publication of volume 10 of the work Opinions and Declarations

rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has
recently been started. So far eight Parts (comprising Opinions 334 to 341) have
been published and other Parts are in the press.

Arrangements have also been made for the commencement of the publica-

Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper Limitep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C2

tion of Section C of volume 1 of the foregoing work. This section will be
devoted entirely to a series of Directions adopted by the International Com-
mission supplementary to the Rulings given in certain of the Opinions (Opinions
1—133) published in the period up to the end of 1936. Four Parts have already
been published and others are in the press.

ee ee A eee ae

>>”

VOLUME 11. Part 7 7th July 1955
pp. 201—232

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

CONTENTS :
Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Page

Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications ee
in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature si 201

Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its Pkenary Powers in certain
Cases .. ee ze ss o 6 fy its oma Ui |

(continued on back wrapper)

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
and
Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office,
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.
1955

Price Fifteen Shillings
(All rights reserved)

SR

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

A. The Officers of the Commission

Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Musewm (Natural History), Zoological
Museum, Tring, Herts., England)

President: Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(12th August 1953)

Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953)
Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948)

B. The Members of the Commission

(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent
re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)

Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmusewm van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(lst January 1947)

Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Hva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948)

Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)

Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948)
Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)

Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)

Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th June 1950)

Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw,
Poland) (15th June 1950)

Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur Musewm u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt
a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950)

Professor Dr. Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin,
Germany) (5th July 1950)

Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President)

Professor J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953)

Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
(President)

Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th
August 1953)

Professor Béla Hanké (Mezogazdasdgi Muzewm, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)

Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th
August 1953)

Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)

Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th
August 1953)

Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra,
A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954)

Dr. Alden H. Miller (Museum of Vertebrate Zooloyy, University of California, Berkeley, California,
U.S.A.) (29th October 1954)

Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Prantl (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October
1954)

Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kiihnelt (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th
November 1954)

Professor F, §. Bodenheimer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954)
Professor Ernst Mayr (Musewm of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954)

Professor Enrico Tortonese (Istituto e Museo di Zoologia della Universita di Torino, Torino,
Italy) (16th December 1954)

~s. . Pa e
. ‘ ‘

a7""2
——

SS ee a ee ee ee ee eens

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 11, Part 7 (pp. 201—232) 7th July 1955

NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY

The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the
recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56, 57—59), by the Thirteenth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
5 : 5—13, 131).

(a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published
in the “* Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’

Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will
start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of
publication in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who
may desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present
Part (Vol. 11, Part 7) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing
to the Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible and in any case, in

_ sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secretariat

of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above.
(b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain cases

Notice is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers is involved in

202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued)

applications published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature in relation to the following names :—

(1) Gnathophyllum Latreille, 1814 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda),
validation of emendation to, from Gnatophyllum ; family-group names
HIPPOLYTIDAE Bate, 1888 and EUGONATONOTIDAE Chace, 1937,
validation of (Z.N.(S.) 622) ;

(2) MayarTrpaE Spath (L.F.), 1928 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea),
validation of (Z.N.(S.) 884).

2. Comments received in sufficient time will be published in the Bulletin :
other comments, provided that they are received within the prescribed period
of six calendar months from the date of publication of the present Part will
be laid before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at
the time of commencement of voting on the application concerned.

3. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon at the Session held by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 56), corresponding Notices have been sent
to the serial publications Nature and Science.

FRANCIS HEMMING,

Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park,
Lonpoy, N.W.1, England.

7th July 1955.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 203

Appointment of Professor the Rev. L. W. Grensted as Classical
Adviser to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature has great pleasure
in announcing that Professor the Rev. L. W. Grensted, M.A., D.D. (Oriel
College, Oxford) has accepted the appointment of Consulting Classical Adviser
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, with effect from
Ist January 1955.

Professor Grensted is well known for the valuable services which he has
rendered to the International Commission in connection with matters relating
to the formation, orthography and gender of zoological names. Problems of
this kind arising in connection with applications submitted to the International
Commission are increasing and are already numerous. Professor Grensted’s
appointment at the present time is, therefore, particularly opportune and will,
the Trust is confident, be widely welcomed.

Retirement of Mrs. S. C. Watkins, Administrative Officer,
Secretariat of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature announces with
great regret that for family reasons Mrs. Sheila Craig Watkins has found it
necessary to resign her appointment as Administrative Officer in the Secretariat
of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Mrs. Watkins’
retirement became effective as from 29th April 1955.

Mrs. Watkins joined the staff of the Commission in December 1953 and
has since been in complete charge of the Office, reporting direct to the Secretary.
Mrs. Watkins at once showed a marked capacity for organisation and to this
she added great accuracy, vigour and enthusiasm. During the time that she
has been working in the Office of the Commission and the Trust the services
which she has rendered have been of very great value and to her is due a large
part of the credit for the phenomenal output achieved during that period.
The Commission and zoologists generally owe a great debt of gratitude to
Mrs. Watkins for the work which she has done. In tendering its warm thanks
to Mrs. Watkins, the Trust offers its best wishes for the future both to her and
to her husband.

204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC
NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ’”’ OF THE NAMES OF ONE HUNDRED AND
TWO GENERA OF CARIDEA (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER
DECAPODA), INCLUDING PROPOSALS FOR THE USE OF THE
PLENARY POWERS (a) TO VALIDATE THE EMENDATION TO
*““GNATHOPHYLLUM”’ OF THE GENERIC NAME “GNATO-
PHYLLUM’’ LATREILLE, 1814, AND (b) TO VALIDATE THE
FAMILY-GROUP NAMES “ HIPPOLYTIDAE’’ BATE, 1888 AND
““ EUGONATONOTIDAE ”’ CHACE, 1937

By L. B. HOLTHUIS
(Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)

(Commission’s Reference : Z.N.(S.) 622)

I submit herewith to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature a list of the names of one hundred and two genera of Caridean
Crustacea for addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Each
of these names is an available name in the sense that it is not a homonym of
any generic name previously published for a genus in the Animal Kingdom.
All of these names are currently used in carcinological literature. The validity
of only one among them has been questioned. This one case is dealt with
in paragraph 2(1) below. The species indicated here as type species of the
genera enumerated in the list have been duly determined as such under the
Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique. The gender of each
generic name is indicated in brackets immediately after the name concerned:

2. A few cases call for some special comments, which are given here in a
separate paragraph before the actual list. These cases are set out below :—

(1) Argis Kroyer, 1842: The name Argis Kroyer, 1842, is rejected by some
authors on account of Arges de Haan, 1833. According to the Régles
the difference between the two names is sufficient to let Argis Kroyer
stand as a valid name (1953, Copenhagen Decisions Zool. Nomencl. : 78,
Decision 152). The authors who reject Argis Kroyer, use in its place
the generic name Nectocrangon Brandt, 1851 (Middendorff’s Reise
Sibir. 2(1) : 114) (type species, by monotypy: Crangon lar Owen,
1839, Zool. Beechey’s Voy. Blossom: 88). Argis Kroyer and
Nectocrangon Brandt are objective synonyms since they have the
same type species. The name Nectocrangon Brandt, 1851, being an

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 7. July 1955.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 205

invalid junior objective synonym of Argis Kroyer, 1842, should be
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology at the same time that Argis Kroyer, 1842, is placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(2) Caridion Goés, 1863: In the first description of the type species of this
genus, Bate (1858, Nat. Hist. Rev. Proc. Soc. Dublin 5 : 51, 52) did
not give the species a scientific name, though he stated that he would
name it for a Mr. Gordon. The name Hippolyte gordoni is only
mentioned on p. iv. of the index of the fifth volume of Nat. Hist. Rev.
Proc. Soc. Dublin, which contains Bate’s paper. That Bate is not the
author of this name Hippolyte gordoni is the more probable since
in the following year he published a description of the same species
in Proc. Dublin Univ. zool. bot. Ass. (1:48, 49) under the name
Hippolyte gordoniana. However, there can be no certainty on this
point. As the specific name gordoni, which at present is universally
used for the species, has always been attributed to Bate, it seems best
to continue this practice and to consider Hippolyte gordoni Bate, 1858,
the oldest available name for the species discussed here.

(3) Chorismus Bate, 1888: In the original description of Chorismus, Bate
dealt only with C. tuberculatus, but he stated at the end of the text
concerning the genus: “ Tozewma serratum, A. Milne Edwards, ...
belongs, I think, to this genus”. The qualified expression so used by
Bate appears to me to imply that he only doubtfully included this
species in his genus. On this interpretation Tozewma serratum is
excluded by Rule (e) in Article 30 from consideration as a possible
type species for the genus Chorismus. I therefore consider that
C. tuberculatus should be regarded as being the type species by
monotypy. If it were to be held that by the remark quoted above
Bate included 7’. serratum in the genus Chorismus, that genus would
not be monotypical. In that case, Chorismus tuberculatus would still,
however, be the type species of this genus, it having been so selected
by Calman in 1907 (Nat. Antarct. Exped., Nat. Hist. 2 (Crust.)(1) : 3).

(4) Dorodotes Bate, 1888: In the original description of the genus in 1888
Bate stated on p. 677: “I only know of one species of this genus
and this has been taken twice, in the Sea of Banda and near Manila ’’.
However, he actually described two species in the genus: D. reflexus
from the Banda Sea and Manila, and D. levicarina from the Arafura
Sea. It seems probable that, when Bate first drew up the description
of this genus, he only referred D. reflexus to it and that it was only at
some later stage he inserted D. levicarina also. I do not think that

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

this evidence is sufficient to indicate D. reflexus as the type species
of the genus by original designation. De Man (1920, Siboga Exped.
39(a3) : 151), after having placed Dorodotes levicarina Bate in a
separate genus, remarked: “‘ The genus Dorodotes Bate is still only
represented by one species ’’, but this also cannot be regarded as an
unequivocal type selection.

(5) Gelastocaris Kemp, 1914: The specific name of the nominal species
Latreutes paronai Nobili, the type species of the genus Gelastocaris,
was originally written by Nobili as paronae. Since the species was
named after Professor C. Parona, who is a man and not a woman, the
original orthography paronae is incorrect and is subject to automatic
correction to paronat. :

(6) Gnathophyllum Latreille, 1819: Latreille’s original spelling of this
name was Gnatophyllum. The name was emended by Desmarest, 1823
(Dict. Sci. nat. 28 : 322) to Gnathophyllum. The emended name has
been accepted by practically all subsequent authors, among them,
Latreille himself, and at present it is in general use. The Commission
therefore is asked to use its Plenary Powers to validate the emended
spelling Gnathophyllum and, having done so, to place this name so
emended on the Official List and the original spelling Gnatophyllum
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

(7) Hippolyte Leach, 1814: In the original description of this genus Leach
remarked: ‘To this genus Cancer astacus gibbosus of Montagu,
already referred to in the note after Penaeus, page 401, belongs ”’.
This statement is quite unequivocal and should therefore be inter-
preted as meaning that he placed two nominal species in this genus,
namely C. gibbosus Montagu as well as Hippolyte varians. On this
view this genus is not monotypical. The second of these species was,
however, selected as type species by Leach himself in 1817 (Malac.
podophth. Brit. (16) : first page of explanation for pl. 38). From a
practical point of view therefore it makes no difference whether this
genus is regarded as being monotypical or as having its type species
determined by subsequent selection, for on either view Hippolyte
varians Leach is the type species.

(8) Notostomus Milne Edwards (A.), 1881: In a footnote referring to the
name Notostomus, Milne Edwards (A.) stated in the original description

-of the genus: “de vwros dos et ordua, le coupant d’un couteau ”’.
One would therefore be inclined to consider the spelling ‘“‘ Notostoma ”
(neuter) the correct one for the present name. However, Milne
Edwards used the name Notostomus three times with this spelling in his

1881 paper and treated it as a masculine word, and in this he has been
followed by all subsequent authors. Under the provisions adopted

by the Copenhagen Congress, relating to the emendation of names, the

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 207

spelling adopted for this name by Milne Edwards is not subject to
emendation, except by the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers,
and in view of the general acceptance of the original spelling in this
case, I do not recommend that course. I accordingly propose that this
generic name should be placed on the Official List in its original
spelling and that, in taking this decision, the Commission should
direct that this generic name is to be treated as being masculine in
gender.

(9) Oplophorus Milne Edwards (H.), 1837: Agassiz, 1846 (Nomencl. Zool.,
Index Univ. : 185) and several later authors have emended this name
to Hoplophorus but since Milne Edwards in the original publication
consistently used the name Oplophorus and said nothing about the
derivation of this name, this emendation is, in my opinion, clearly
invalid. The Commission is therefore asked to place this name on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the original spelling
Oplophorus, at the same time placing the emended spelling Hoplophorus
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

(10) EuconatonotaE Chace, 1937: This family name possesses a senior
objective synonym, viz., GOMPHONOTIDAE Chace, 1936, as the type
genera of these two families, Eugonatonotus Schmitt, 1926, and
Gomphonotus Chace, 1936, have the same type species, Gonatonotus
crassus Milne Edwards (A.), 1881. In my opinion, it is desirable
to use the junior family name EUGONATONOTIDAE as this is based
on the valid generic family name Eugonatonotus Schmitt, and to
reject the older family name GOMPHONOTIDAE which is based on the
name Gomphonotus Chace which is an invalid objective junior
synonym of Hugonatonotus. The Commission is accordingly asked to
use its Plenary Powers for this purpose and, having done so, to
place the name EUGONATONOTIDAE on the Official List and that of
GOMPHONOTIDAE on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-
Group Names in Zoology.

(11) mrrotympar Bate, 1888: This family name has been accepted by
all modern carcinologists. However, two of the genera now currently
placed in the family HrpPoLyTipaz are the type genera of Family-,
Group names, which are older than the name HIPPOLYTIDAE. The
Family-Group Names concerned are :—

LYSMATINAE Dana, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 6 : 16,
20 (type genus: Lysmata Risso, 1816) ;

THORINAE Kingsley, 1878, Bull. Essex Inst. 10 : 64 (type genus :
Thor Kingsley, 1878).

These two names have been ignored by all modern carcinologists.
The stability of carcinological nomenclature would be greatly
furthered if the name HIPPOLYTIDAE be given preference over the

208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

names LYSMATINAE and THORINAE. For this reason I ask the
International Commission to direct under its Plenary Powers that the
family-group name HIPPOLYTIDAE Bate, 1888, is not to be rejected
(a) in favour of the name LYSMATINAE Dana, 1852, by any worker who
on taxonomic grounds places the genus Lysmata Risso, 1816, in the
same family-group taxon as Hippolyte Leach, 1814, or (b) in favour
of the name THORINAE Kingsley, 1878, by any worker who on similar
grounds places the genus Thor Kingsley, 1878, in the same family-
group taxon as Hippolyte Leach, 1814. The Commission is further
asked to place the family-group name HIPPOLYTIDAE Bate, 1888,
on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with a note
in the foregoing terms.

8. The following list contains the required particulars regarding the one
hundred and two generic names which it is now recommended should be
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :—

Names recommended for addition to the ‘“‘ Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology ”’

Alope (feminine) White, 1847, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 : 123 (type species, by
monotypy: Alope palpalis White, 1847, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 : 124
[Note (not for inclusion in the Official List) : This name is a junior subjective
synonym of Hippolyie spinifrons Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, Hist. nat.
Crust. 2 : 377)).

Anchistioides (masculine) Paulson, 1875, Issljed Rakoobr. Krasn. Morja (Stud.
Crust. Red Sea): 115 (type species, by monotypy: Anchistioides com-
pressus Paulson, 1875, Issljed. Rakoobr. Krasn. Morja (Stud. Crust. Red
Sea) : 115).

Anchistus (masculine) Borradaile, 1898, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) 2 : 387 (type

species, by original designation: Harpilius miersi De Man, 1888, J. linn.
Soc. Lond. (Zool.) 22 : 274).

Arete (feminine) Stimpson, 1860, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1860 : 32 (type
species, by monotypy: Arete dorsalis Stimpson, 1860, Proc. Acad. nat. Scv.
Philad. 1860 : 32).

Argis (feminine) Kroyer, 1842, Naturhist. Tidsskr. 4(3) : 255, 267 (type species,
by monotypy : Crangon lar Owen, 1839, Zool. Beechey’s Voy. Blossom : 88).

Athanas (masculine) Leach, 1814, Brewster’s Hdinb. Encycl. 7(2) : 432 (type
species, by monotypy: Palaemon nitescens Leach, 1814, Brewster’s Edinb.
Encycl. 7(2) : 401).

Atya (feminine) Leach, 1816, Encycl. Brit., Suppl. to 4th—6th eds. 1 : 421 (type
species, by monotypy: Atys scaber Leach, 1815, T'rans. linn. Soc. Lond.
11 : 345).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 209

Atyella (feminine) Calman, 1906, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1906(1) : 201 (type
species, by original designation: Atyella brevirostris Calman, 1906, Proc.
zool. Soc. Lond. 1906(1) : 201).

Automate (feminine) De Man, 1888, Arch. Naturgesch. 58(1) : 529 (type species,
by monotypy : Automate dolichognatha De Man, 1888, Arch. Naturgesch.
53(1) : 529).

Balssia (feminine) Kemp, 1922, Rec. Indian Mus. 24 : 267 (type species, by
monotypy: Amphipalaemon gasti Balss, 1921, Mitt. zool. Sta. Neapel
22 : 523).

Barbouria (feminine) Rathbun, 1912, Bull. Mus. comp. zool. 54 : 455 (type
species, by monotypy : Barbouria poeyi Rathbun, 1912, Bull. Mus. comp.
zool. 54 : 455) [Note (not for inclusion in the Official List): This name is a

junior subjective synomym of Hippolyte cubensis Von Martens, 1872, Arch.
Naturgesch. 38(1) : 136})).

Bathypalaemonella (feminine) Balss, 1914, Zool. Anz. 44 : 597 (type species, by
monotypy: Bathypalaemonella zimmeri Balss, 1914, Zool. Anz. 44 : 598).

. Betaeus (masculine) Dana, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 6:16 (type
species, by selection by Fowler, 1912 (Ann. Rep. New Jersey State Mus.
1911 : 558): Betaeus truncatus Dana, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad.
6 : 23).

Birulia (feminine) Brashnikov, 1903, Annu. Mus. zool. Petersb. 8 : xliv (type

species, by monotypy: Birulia sachalinensis Brashnikov, 1903, Annu.
Mus. zool. Petersb. 8 : xlv).

Brachyearpus (masculine) Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : 781, 795
(type species, by original designation: Brachycarpus savignyi Bate, 1888,
Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : 795 [Note (not for inclusion in the Official
List): This name is a junior subjective synonym of Palaemon
biunguiculatus Lucas, 1849, Explor. sci. Algérie, Hist. nat., Anim. art.
(1) : 45)).

Bresilia (feminine) Calman, 1896, Trans. Roy. Irish Acad. 31 : 7 (type species,
by monotypy: Bresilia atlantica Calman, 1896, Trans. Roy. Irish Acad.
we; 7).

Bythocaris (feminine) Sars (G. O.), 1870, Forh. Vidensk. Selsk. Christiania
1869 : 149 (type species, by monotypy: Bythocaris simplicirostris Sars
(G.O.), 1870, Forh. Vidensk. Selsk. Christiania 1869 : 149).

Campylonotus (masculine) Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool, 24 : 767
(type species, by selection by Holthuis, 1955 (Zool. Verhand. Leiden 26 : 41):
Campylonotus semistriatus Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : 768).

210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Caridella (feminine) Calman, 1906, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1906(1) : 198 (type
species, by original designation: Caridella cunningtoni Calman, 1906,
Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1906(1) : 199).

Caridina (feminine) Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 362 (type
species, by indication under Rule (b) in Article 30: Caridina typus Milne |
Edwards (H.), 1837, Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 363).

Caridion (masculine) Goés, 1863, Ofvers. K. Svensk. Vetensk. Akad. F6rh.
20 : 170 (substitute name for Doryphorus Norman, 1861 (Ann. Mag. nat.
Hist. (3)8 : 276, an invalid junior homonym of Doryphorus Cuvier, 1829,
Régne Anim. (ed. 2) 2:34) (type species, by monotypy for Doryphorus
Norman, 1861: Hippolyte gordoni Bate, 1858, Nat. Hist. Rev. Proc. Soc.
Dublin 5 : iv).

Chlorocurtis (masculine) Kemp, 1925, Rec. Indian Mus. 27 : 272, 279 (type
species, by monotypy : Chloroeurtis miser Kemp, 1925, Rec. Indian Mus.
27 : 280 [Note (not for inclusion in the Official List): This name is a junior
subjective synonym of Virbius (?) jactans Nobili, 1904, Bull. Mus. Hist.
nat. Paris 10 : 230)).

Chlorotocella (feminine) Balss, 1914, Abh. Bayer. Akad. Wiss. Suppl. 2(10) : 33
(type species, by monotypy : Chlorotocella gracilis Balss, 1914, Abh. Bayer.
Akad. Wiss. Suppl. 2(10) : 33).

Chlorotocoides (masculine) Kemp, 1925, Rec. Indian Mus. 27 : 271, 276 (type
species, by monotypy: Chlorotocus spinicauda De Man, 1902, Abh.
Senckenb. naturf. Ges. 25 : 856).

Chlorotocus (masculine) Milne Edwards (A.), 1882, Arch. Miss. sci. litt. (3)9 : 14
(type species, by monotypy: Chlorotocus gracilipes Milne Edwards (A.),
1882, Arch. Miss. sci. litt. (3)9 : 14 [Note (not for inclusion in the Official
List): This name is a junior subjective synonym of Pandalus crassicornis
Costa, 1871, Annu. Mus. zool. Univ. Napoli 6 : 89)).

Chorismus (masculine) Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : 577, 616
(type species, by selection by Calman, 1907 (Nat. Antarct. Hxped., Nat.
Hist. 2 (Crust.)(1) :3): Chorismus tubereulatus Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy.
Challenger, Zool. 24 : 617).

Coralliocaris (feminine) Stimpson, 1860, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1860 : 38
(substitute name for Oedipus Dana, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad.
6 : 17, an invalid junior homonym of Oedipus Berthold, 1827, in Latreille,
Nat. Fam. Thierr.: 411) (type species, by selection by Kingsley, 1880
(Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1879 : 423): Oedipus superbus Dana, 1852,
Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 6 : 25).

Coutierea (feminine) Nobili, 1901, Boll. Mus. Zool. Anat. comp. Torino 16(415) : 4
(type species, by monotypy: Coralliocaris agassizi Coutiére, 1901, Bull.
Mus. Hist. nat., Paris 7 : 115).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 211

Cryptocheles (feminine) Sars (G.O.), 1870. Forh. Vidensk. Selsk. Christiania
1869 : 150 (type species, by monotypy : Cryptocheles pygmaea Sars (G. O.),
1870, Forh. Vidensk. Selsk. Christiania 1869 : 150).

Dasyearis (feminine) Kemp, 1922, Rec. Indian Mus. 24 : 240 (type species, by
monotypy: Dasyearis symbiotes Kemp, 1922, Rec. Indian Mus. 24 : 240).

Desmocaris (feminine) Sollaud, 1911, C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris 152 : 913 (type
species, by monotypy: Palaemonetes trispinosus Aurivillius, 1898, Bih.
Svenska Vetensk. Akad. Handl. 24(4)(1) : 29).

Dichelopandalus (masculine) Caullery, 1896, Ann. Univ. Lyon 26 : 379 (type
species, by monotypy: Dichelopandalus bonnieri Caullery, 1896, Ann.
Univ. Lyon 26 : 379).

Dorodotes (masculine) Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : 627, 677
(type species, by selection by Holthuis, 1955 (Zool. Verhand. Leiden 26 : 119):
Dorodotes reflexus Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : 678).

Dugastella (feminine) Bouvier, 1912, C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris 155 : 993 (type
species, by monotypy: Dugastella marocana Bouvier, 1912, C. R. Acad.
Sci., Paris 155 : 993).

Ephyrina (feminine) Smith (S. I.), 1885, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 7 : 506 (type
species, by monotypy: Ephyrina benedicti Smith (S.I.), 1885, Proc. U.S.
nat. Mus. 7 : 506).

Eugonatonotus (masculine) Schmitt, 1926, Biol. Res. Fish. Exper. “Endeavour ”
5(6) : “‘ Corringenda et Addenda ”’ sheet, second page (substitute name for
Gonatonotus Milne Edwards (A.), 1881 (Ann. Sci. nat., Zool. (6)11(4) : 10, an
invalid junior homonym of Gonatonotus Adams & White, 1847) (type
species, by monotypy for Gonatonotus Milne Edwards (A.), 1881:
Gonatonotus crassus Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, Ann. Sci. nat., Zool. (6)11(4) :
10).

Gelastocaris (feminine) Kemp, 1914, Rec. Indian Mus. 10 : 106 (type species,
by monotypy: Latreutes paronae Nobili, 1905, Boll. Mus. Zool. Anat.
comp. Torino 20(506) : 2).

Glyphocrangon (feminine) Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, Ann. Sci. nat., Zool.
(6)11(4) :3 (type species, by original designation: Glyphocrangon
spinicauda Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, Ann. Sci. nat., Zool. (6)11(4) : 3).

Gnathophyllum (neuter) Latreille, 1819, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. (ed. 2) 830 : 72
(type species, by selection by Milne Edwards (H.), 1837 (Cuvier’s Régne
Anim. (ed. 4, Disciples’ ed.) 18 : pl. 52 fig. 2): Alpheus elegans Risso, 1816,
Hist. nat. Crust. Nice : 92).

212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Heptacarpus (masculine) Holmes, 1900, Occ. Pap. Calif. Acad. Sci. 7 : 195 (type
species, by original designation: Hippolyte palpator Owen, 1839, Zool.
Beechey’s Voy. Blossom : 89).

Heterocarpoides (masculine) De Man, 1917, Zool. Meded. Leiden 3 : 284 (type
species, by monotypy: Dorodotes levicarina Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy.
Challenger, Zool. 24 : 680). ‘

Heterocarpus (masculine) Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, Ann. Sci. nat., Zool.
(6)11(4) : 8 (type species, by original designation: Heterocarpus ensifer
Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, Ann. Sct. nat. Zool. (6)11(4) : 8).

Hippolysmata (feminine) Stimpson, 1860, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1860 : 26
(type species, by monotypy: Hippolysmata vittata Stimpson, 1860, Proc.
Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1860 : 26).

Hippolyte (feminine) Leach, 1814, Brewster’s Edinb. Ency. 7(2) : 481 (type
species, by subsequent selection by Leach, 1817 (Malac. podophth. Brit.
(16) : first page of expl. to pl. 38): Hippolyte varians Leach, 1814,
Brewster’s Edinb. Ency. 7(2) : 431).

Hymenodora (feminine) Sars (G. O.), 1877, Arch. Math. Naturvidensk. 2 : 340
[240] (type species, by monotypy: Pasiphaea glacialis Buchholz, 1874,
Zweite Deutsche Nordpolarfahrt 2 : 279).

Latreutes (masculine) Stimpson, 1860, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1860 : 27
(type species, by selection by Kingsley, 1880 (Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad.
1879 : 413): Hippolyte ensiferus Milne Edwards (H)., 1837, Hist. nat.
Crust. 2 : 374 [Note (not for inclusion in the Official List): This name is a
junior subjective synonym of Palaemon fucorum Fabricius, 1798, Suppl.
Ent. Syst. : 404).

Leontocaris (feminine) Stebbing, 1905, Mar. Invest. S. Afr. 4:21, 98 (type
species, by monotypy: Leontocaris paulsoni Stebbing, 1905, Mar. Invest.
S. Afr. & : 99).

Leptochela (feminine) Stimpson, 1860, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1860 : 42
(type species, by selection by Holthuis, 1955 (Zool. Verhand. Leiden 26 : 36) :
Leptochela gracilis Stimpson, 1860, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1860 : 42).

Ligur (masculine) Sarato, 1885, Moniteur des Etrangers Nice 9(222) : 2 (type
species, by monotypy : Ligur edwardsii Sarato, 1885, Moniteur des Etrangers
Nice 9(222) : 2 [Note (not for inclusion in the Official List): This name is a
junior subjective synonym of Palemon ensiferus Risso, 1816, Hist. nat.
Crust. Nice : 106}).

Limnocaridella (feminine) Bouvier, 1913, Bull. Soc. ent. France 1913 : 180
(type species, by monotypy: Limnocearidina alberti Lenz, 1910, Wiss.
Ergebn. Deutsch. Zentral-Afr. Exped. 1907—1908 3(3) : 12).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 213

Limnocaridina (feminine) Calman, 1899, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1899 : 704 (type
species, by monotypy: Limnocaridina tanganyikae Calman, 1899, Proc.
zool. Soc. Lond. 1899 : 704).

Merguia (feminine) Kemp, 1914, Rec. Indian Mus. 10 : 121 (type species,
by monotypy : Hippolyte oligodon De Man, 1888, J. linn. Soc. Lond., Zool.
22 : 277).

Merhippolyte (feminine) Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : 577, 618
(type species by original designation : Merhippolyte agulhasensis Bate, 1888,
Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : 619).

Micratya (feminine) Bouvier, 1913, Bull. Soc. ent. France 1913 : 181 (type
species, by monotypy: Atya poeyi Guérin-Ménéville, 1856, in Sagra
(R. de la), Hist. Cuba, Hist. nat. 7 : xviii).

Mimocaris (feminine) Nobili, 1903, Boll. Mus. Zool. Anat. comp. Torino
18(447) : 5 (type species, by monotypy : Mimoearis heterocarpoides Nobili,
1903, Boll. Mus. Zool. Anat. comp. Torino 18(447) : 6).

Nauticaris (feminine) Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : 577, 602
(type species, by selection by Calman, 1906 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7)17 : 31):
Nauticaris marionis Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : 603).

Nematocarecinus (masculine) Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, Ann. Sci. nat., Zool.
(6)11(4) : 14 (type species, by monotypy: Nematocarcinus cursor Milne
Edwards (A.), 1881, Ann. Sci. nat., Zool. (6)11(4) : 14).

Nikoides (masculine) Paulson, 1875, Issljed. Rakoobr. Krasn. Morja (Stud.
Crust. Red Sea) : 98 (type species, by monotypy : Nikoides danae Paulson,
1875, Issljed. Rakoobr. Krasn. Morja (Stud. Crust. Red Sea) : 98).

Notocrangon (feminine) Coutiére, 1900, C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris, 130 : 1640
(type species, by monotypy: Crangon antarcticus Pfeffer, 1887, Jahrb.,
Hamb. wiss. Anst. & : 45).

Notostomus (masculine) Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, Ann. Sct. nat., Zool.
(6)11(4) : 7 (type species, by original designation: Notostomus gibbosus
Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, Ann. Sci. nat., Zool. (6)11(4) : 7).

Ogyrides (masculine) Stebbing, 1914, Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 15 : 31 (substitute name
for Ogyris Stimpson, 1860, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1860 : 36, an invalid
junior homonym of Ogyris Westwood, [1851], in Doubleday, Gen. diurn.
Lep. (2): pl. 75, fig. 8) (type species, by monotypy for Ogyris Stimpson,
1860: Ogyris orientalis Stimpson, 1860, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad.
1860 : 36).

214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Oplophorus (masculine) Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 423
(type species, by indication under Rule (b) in Article 30: Oplophorus
typus Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 424).

Palaemonella (feminine) Dana, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 6 : 17 (type
species, by selection by Kingsley, 1880 (Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad.
1879 : 425): Palaemonella tenuipes Dana, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci.
Philad. 6 : 25).

Palaemonetes (masculine) Heller, 1869, Z. wiss. zool. 19 : 157, 161 (type species,
by monotypy: Palaemon varians Leach, 1814, Brewster’s Hdinb. Ency.
7(2) : 432).

Palaemonias (masculine) Hay, 1901, Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 14:179 (type
species, by monotypy: Palaemonias ganteri Hay, 1901, Proc. biol. Soc.
Wash. 14 : 180).

Pandalina (feminine) Calman, 1899, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7)3 : 37 (type species,
by monotypy: Pandalus brevirostris Rathke, 1843, Nova Acta Acad. Leop.
Carol. 20(1) : 17).

Pantomus (masculine) Milne Edwards (A.), 1883, Rec. Fig. Crust. nouv. peu
conn. : pl. 26, fig. 1 (type species, by monotypy: Pantomus parvulus
Milne Edwards (A.), 1883, Rec. Fig. Crust. nouv. peu conn. : pl. 26 fig. 1).

Paracrangon (feminine) Dana, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 6 : 16, 20
(type species, by monotypy: Paracrangon echinatus Dana, 1852, Proc.
Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 6 : 20).

Paralatreutes (masculine) Kemp, 1925, Rec. Indian Mus. 27 : 334 (type species,
by monotypy: Paralatreutes bicornis Kemp, 1925, Rec. Indian Mus.
27 : 334).

Parapandalus (masculine) Borradaile, 1899, Willey’s Zool. Res. (4) : 411 (type
species, by selection by Alcock, 1901 (Deser. Catal. Indian Deep-Sea Crust,
Decap. Macr. Anom.: 94): Pandalus (Parapandalus) serratifrons Borra-
daile, 1899, Willey’s Zool. Res. (4): 411 [Note (not for inclusion in the
Official List): This name is a junior subjective synonym of Plesionika
spinipes Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : 646)).

Parapasiphaé (feminine) Smith (S. I.), 1884, Rep. U.S. Fish Comm. 10 : 383
(type species, by selection by Fowler, 1912 (Ann. Rep. New Jersey State
Mus. 1911 : 547): Parapasiphaé suleatifrons Smith (S. I.), 1884, Rep. U.S.
Fish Comm. 10 : 384).

Paratya (feminine) Miers, 1882, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5)9 : 194 (type species,
by monotypy: Ephyra compressa De Haan, 1844, Fauna japon., Crust.
(6/7) : pl. 46 fig. 7).

Paratypton (masculine) Balss, 1914, Zool. Anz. 45 : 83 (type species, by mono-
typy : Paratypton siebenrocki Balss, 1914, Zool. Anz. 45 : 84).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 215

_ Pasiphaea (feminine) Savigny, 1816, Mém. Anim. sans Vertebr. 1 : 50 (type
species, by monotypy:: Alpheus sivado Risso, 1816, Hist. nat. Crust.
Nice : 93).

Periclimenaeus (masculine) Borradaile, 1915, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (8)15 : 207
(type species, by selection by Borradaile, 1917 (Trans. linn. Soc. Lond.,
Zool. (2)17 : 378): Periclimenaeus robustus Borradaile, 1915, Ann. Mag.
nat. Hist. (8)15 : 213).

Periclimenes (masculine) Costa, 1844, Ann. Accad. Aspir. Nat. Napoli 2 : 290
(type species, by monotypy: Periclimenes insignis Costa, 1844, Ann.
Accad. Aspir. Nat. Napoli 2 : 291 [Note (not for inclusion in the Official List) :
This name is a junior subjective synonym of Alpheus amethystea Risso, 1826,
Hist. nat. Europ. mérid. 5 :77)).

Phycocaris (feminine) Kemp, 1916, Rec. Indian Mus. 12 : 391 (type species,
by monotypy : Phycoearis simulans Kemp, 1916, Rec. Indian Mus. 12 : 392).

Phyllognathia (feminine) Borradaile, 1915, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (8)15 : 205,
206 (type species, by monotypy : Hymenocera (?) ceratophthalma Balss,
1913, Zool. Anz. 42 : 236).

Plesionika (feminine) Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : 626, 640 (type
species, by selection by Alcock, 1901 (Deser. Catal. Indian Deep-Sea Crust.
Decap. Macr. Anom. : 93) : Plesionika uniproducta Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy.
Challenger, Zool. 24 : 641 [Note (not for inclusion in the Official List) :
This name is a junior subjective synonym of Acanthephyra ensis Milne
Edwards (A.), 1881, Ann. Sci. nat., Zool. (6)11(4) : 14)).

Pontocaris (feminine) Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : 495 (type
species, by selection by Holthuis, 1947 (Zool. Meded. 27 : 320): Pontocaris
propensalata Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : 496).

Pontonides (masculine) Borradaile, 1917, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond., Zool. (2)17 :
387 (type species, by monotypy: Pontonia maldivensis Borradaile, 1915,
Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (8)15 : 213).

Prionocrangon (feminine) Wood Mason & Alcock, 1891, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist.
(6)8 : 361 (type species, by monotypy: Prionocrangon ommatosteres
Wood Mason & Alcock, 1891, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6)8 : 362).

Psalidopus (masculine) Wood Mason & Alcock, 1892, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist.
(6)9 : 266 (type species, by selection by Holthuis, 1955 (Zool. Verhand.
Leiden 26:81): Psalidopus huxleyi Wood Mason & Alcock, 1892, Ann.
Mag. nat. Hist. (6)9 : 273).

Psathyrocaris (feminine) Wood Mason & Alcock, 1893, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist.
(6)11 : 168 (type species, by monotypy : Psathyrocaris fragilis Wood
Mason & Alcock, 1893, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6)11 : 168). ;

Pseudopalaemon (masculine) Sollaud, 1911, Bull. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris 17 : 12,

15 (type species, by monotypy: Pseudopalaemon bouvieri Sollaud, 1911,
Bull. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris 17 : 12).

216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Rhynchoeinetes (masculine) Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, Ann. Sci. nat., Zool-
(2)7 : 168 (type species, by indication under Rule (b) in Article 30:
Rhynchocinetes typus Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, Ann. Sct. nat., Zool.
(2)7 : 168).

Sabinea (feminine) Ross (J. C.), 1835, J. Ross’s App. Narrat. 2nd Voy. N.W.
Passage : \xxxii (type species, by monotypy: Crangon septemcarinatus
Sabine, 1824, Suppl. App. Parry’s Voy. N.W. Passage : ccxxxvi).

Saron (masculine) Thallwitz, 1891, Zool. Anz. 14 : 99 (type species, by mono-
typy: Hippolyte gibberosus Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, Hist. nat. Crust.
2 : 378 [Note (not for inclusion in the Official List): This name is a junior
subjective synonym of Palaemon marmoratus Olivier, 1811, Ency. méth.
Hist. nat. 8 : 663)).

Sclerocrangon (feminine) Sars (G. O.), 1883 (sep. 1882), Forh. Vidensk. Selsk.
Christiania 1882(18) : 7, 45 (type species, by monotypy: Cancer boreas
Phipps, 1774, Voy. North Pole : 190).

Stegopontonia (feminine) Nobili, 1906, Bull. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris, 12 : 258
(type species, by monotypy: Stegopontonia commensalis Nobili, 1906,
Bull. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris 12 : 258).

Stylodactylus (masculine) Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, Ann. Sci. nat., Zool.
(6)11(4) : 11 (type species, by monotypy: Stylodactylus serratus Milne
Edwards (A.), 1881, Ann. Sci. nat., Zool. (6)11(4) : 11).

Synalpheus (masculine) Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : 572 (type
species, by monotypy : Synalpheus faleatus Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy. Challenger,
Zool. 24 : 574 [Note (not for inclusion in the Official List): This name is a
junior subjective synonym of Alpheus comatularum Haswell, 1882, Proc.
linn. Soc. New S. Wales 6 : 762)).

Synearis (feminine) Holmes, 1900, Occ. Pap. Calif. Acad. Sci. 7 : 211 (type
species, by original designation: Mliersia pacifica Holmes, 1895, Proc.
Calif. Acad. Sci. (2)& : 577).

Systellaspis (feminine) Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : 757 (type
species, by original designation: Systellaspis lanceocaudata Bate, 1888,
Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : 758).

Thalassocaris (feminine) Stimpson, 1860, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1860 : 42
(substitute name for Regulus Dana, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 6 : 18,
a junior homonym of Regulus Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1800, Lecons Anat.
comp. 1 : Tab. 2) (type species, by selection by Kingsley, 1880, Proc. Acad.
nat. Sci. Philad. 1879 : 426): Regulus lucidus Dana, 1852, Proc. Acad.
nat. Sci. Philad. 6 : 27).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 217

Thaumastocaris (feminine) Kemp, 1922, Rec. Indian Mus. 24 : 244 (type
species, by monotypy: Thaumastocaris streptopus Kemp, 1922, Rec.
Indian Mus. 24 : 244).

Thor (masculine) Kingsley, 1878, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1878 : 94 (type
species, by monotypy: Thor floridanus Kingsley, 1878, Proc. Acad. nat.
Sci. Philad. 1878 : 95).

Trachyearis (feminine) Calman, 1906, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7)17 : 31, 33 (type
species, by monotypy: Platybema rugosus Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy.
Challenger, Zool. 24 : 579 [Note (not for inclusion in the Official List) :
This name is a junior subjective synonym of Hippolyte restrictus Milne
Edwards (A.), 1878, Bull. Soc. philom. Paris (7)2 : 231)).

Troglocaris (feminine) Dormitzer, 1853, Lotos 3 : 85 (type species, by mono-
typy: Troglocaris schmidti Dormitzer, 1853, Lotos 3 : 85 [Note (not for
inclusion in the Official List): This name is a junior subjective synonym of
Palaemon anophthalmus Kollar, 1848, S. B. Akad. Wiss. Wien 1 : 137).

Typhlocaris (feminine) Calman, 1909, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond., Zool. (2)11 : 93,
94 (type species, by monotypy: Typhlocaris galilea Calman, 1909, Trans.
linn. Soc. Lond., Zool. (2)11 : 93).

Typton (masculine) Costa, 1844, Ann. Accad. Aspir. Nat. Napoli 2 : 288 (type
species, by monotypy: Typton spongicola Costa, 1844, Ann. Accad. Aspir.
Nat. Napoli 2 : 289).

Xiphocaris (feminine) Von Martens, 1872, Arch. Naturgesch. 38(1) : 139 (type
species, by monotypy: Hippolyte elongatus Guérin-Ménéville, 1856, in
Sagra (R. de la), Historia Cuba, Hist. nat. 7 : xx).

4, At the time when I submitted the present application to the Com-
mission, I included in it proposals for the addition to the Official List of
the names of four other genera, each of which has the termination “ -opsis ”’.
These names were: (1) Alpheopsis Coutiére, 1897 ; (2) Caridinopsis Bouvier,
1912; (3) Pandalopsis Bate, 1888 ; (4) Pontoniopsis Borradaile, 1915. These
names, like other generic names with the same termination in the Order
Decapoda, are invariably treated as being masculine in gender and I
accordingly recommended that this gender should be attributed to them
when placed on the Official List. Recently, Mr. Francis Hemming, as Secretary,
has drawn my attention to the decision by the Fourteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, that generic names having the fore-
going termination are to be treated as being feminine in gender (1953, Copen-
hagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 51, Decision 84(7)(b)(iii)). Mr. Hemming has
informed me also that the problem of the gender to be attributed to generic
names in the Decapoda having this termination has arisen in regard to certain
such names which were placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
in the period prior to the Lisbon Congress and to which therefore a gender must
now be assigned by the Commission. Mr. Hemming has further informed me

218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

that in view of the clash in this case between linguistic considerations and the
general practice of carcinologists, it is his intention to take the directions of the
Commission separately in regard to the gender to be assigned to the generic
names referred to above. It is evident that, whatever decision is taken by the
Commission on the foregoing names will need to apply also to the four names
of this group which I had originally included in the present application. At
Mr. Hemming’s suggestion, I have therefore withdrawn from the present
application my proposals in regard to the four names cited above. My
proposals in regard to these names will be laid before the Commission in a
separate application, to which, Mr. Hemming informs me, the Registered
Number Z.N.(S.) 919 has been allotted.

5. It is recommended that the specific names of the type species of the
genera specified in paragraph 3 above should be placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology, in as far as these names are valid and at the same
time are the oldest available names for the species concerned. The following
list gives in the first column the specific names which fulfil the conditions
mentioned above. In the second column is given the original combination in
which these names have been used. In this column the spelling both of the
specific and of the generic names is emended in accordance with the Régles as
amended by the International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, and
conform with the suggestions made in paragraph 2 of the present proposal. In
column (3) is given the name of the genus of which the species cited in column
(1) is the type species.

Specific Name

(1)

agassizi Coutiére, 1901
agulhasensis Bate, 1888
alberti Lenz, 1910
antarcticus Pfeffer, 1887
atlantica Calman, 1896
benedicti Smith (S. I.),

1885
bicornis Kemp, 1925
bonnieri Caullery, 1896

boreas Phipps, 1774

Original Combination
in which name cited in
Col. (1) was published

(2)
Coralliocaris agassizi
Merhippolyte

agulhasensis
Limnocaridina alberti

Crangon antarcticus
Bresilia atlantica
Ephyrina benedicti
Paralatreutes bicornis
Dichelopandalus

bonniert
Cancer boreas

Genus of which species
cited in Col. (1) is the
type species
(3)
Coutierea Nobili, 1901
Merhippolyte Bate, 1888

Limnocaridella
1913

Notocrangon Coutiére,
1900

Bresilia Calman, 1896

Bouvier,

Ephyrina Smith (8S. 1.),
1885

Paralatreutes Kemp, 1925

Dichelopandalus Caullery,
1896

Sclerocrangon Sars (G.0O.),
1883

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Specific Name

(1)
bouvieri Sollaud, 1911

brevirostris Rathke, 1843
brevirostris Calman, 1906

ceratophthalma Balss,
1913
commensalis Nobili, 1906

compressa De Haan, 1841
compressus Paulson, 1875

crassus Milne Edwards
(A.), 1881

cunningtoni Calman, 1906

cursor Milne Edwards
(A.), 1881

danae Paulson, 1875

dolichognatha De Man,
1888

dorsalis Stimpson, 1860

echinatus Dana, 1852
elegans Risso, 1816

_ elongatus Guérin-
Ménéville, 1856
ensifer Milne Edwards
(A.), 1881

floridanus Kingsley, 1878
fragilis Wood Mason &
Alcock, 1893

galilea Calman, 1909

gantert Hay, 1901

gasti Balss, 1921

gibbosus Milne Edwards
(A.), 1881

Original Combination
in which name cited in
Col. (1) was published

(2)
Pseudopalaemon
bouviert

Pandalus brevirostris
Atyella brevirostris

Hymenocera (?)
ceratophthalma
Stegopontonia
commensalis
Ephyra compressa
Anchistioides
compressus
Gonatonotus crassus

Caridella
cunningtont
Nematocarcinus cursor

Nikoides danae

Automate
dolichognatha

Arete dorsalis

Paracrangon echinatus
Alpheus elegans

Hippolyte elongatus
Heterocarpus ensifer

Thor floridanus
Psathyrocaris fragilis

Typhlocaris galilea
Palaemonias ganteri
Amphipalaemon gasti
Notostomus gibbosus

219

Genus of which species
cited in Col. (1) is the
type species

(3)
Pseudopalaemon
Sollaud, 1911
Pandalina Calman, 1899
Atyella Calman, 1906

Phyllognathia Borradaile,
1915
Stegopontonia Nobili, 1906

Paratya Miers, 1882

Anchistioides Paulson,
1875

ELugonatonotus Schmitt,
1926

Caridella Calman, 1906

Nematocarcinus Milne
Edwards (A.), 1881

Nikoides Paulson, 1875
Automate De Man, 1888

Arete Stimpson, 1860

Paracrangon Dana, 1852

Gnathophyllum Latreille,
1819

Xiphocaris Von Martens,
1872

Heterocarpus Milne
Edwards (A.), 1881

Thor Kingsley, 1878
Psathyrocaris Wood
Mason & Alcock, 1893

Typhlocaris Calman, 1909
Palaemonias Hay, 1901
Balssia Kemp, 1922
Notostomus Milne
Edwards (A.), 1881

220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Original Combination
in which name cited in
Col. (1) was published

Specific Name

(1) (2)

glacialis Buchholz, 1874 Pasiphaé glacialis
gordoni Bate, 1858 Hippolyte gordoni
gracilis Balss, 1914 Chlorotocella gracilis
gracilis Stimpson, 1860 Leptochela gracilis
heterocarpoides Nobili, Mimocaris
1903 heterocarpoides
hualeyi Wood Mason & Psalidopus hualeyi
Alcock, 1892
lanceocaudata Bate, 1888 Systellaspis
lanceocaudata
lar Owen, 1839 Crangon lar

levicarina Bate, 1888 Dorodotes levicarina

lucidus Dana, 1852 Regulus lucidus

maldivensis Borradaile, Pontonia maldivensis -
1915

marionis Bate, 1888

marocana Bouvier, 1912

mierst De Man, 1888

Nauticaris marionis
Dugastella marocana
Harpilius miersi

nitescens Leach, 1814 Palaemon nitescens

oligodon De Man, 1888 Hippolyte oligodon
ommatosteres Wood Prionocrangon
Mason & Alcock, 1891 ommatosteres

orientalis Stimpson, 1860 Ogyris orientalis

Miersia pacifica
Hippolyte palpator

pacifica Holmes, 1895

palpator Owen, 1839

paronai (emend. of Latreutes paronai
paronae) Nobili, 1905

parvulus Milne Edwards
(A.), 1883

Pantomus parvulus

Genus of which species
cited in Col. (1) is the
type species

(3)

Hymenodora Sars (G. 0.),
1877

Caridion Goés, 1863

Chlorotocella Balss, 1914

Leptochela Stimpson,
1860

Mimocaris Nobili, 1903

Psalidopus Wood Mason
& Alcock, 1892

Systellaspis Bate, 1888

Argis Kréyer, 1842

Heterocarpoides De Man,
1917

Thalassocaris Stimpson,
1860

Pontonides Borradaile,
1917

Nauticaris Bate, 1888

Dugastella Bouvier, 1912

Anchistus Borradaile,
1898

Athanas Leach, 1814

Merguia Kemp, 1914

Prionocrangon Wood
Mason & Alcock, 1891

Ogyrides Stebbing, 1914

Syncaris Holmes, 1900

Heptacarpus Holmes,
1900

Gelastocaris Kemp, 1914

Pantomus Milne
Edwards (A.), 1883

a ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Specific Name

(1)
paulsoni Stebbing, 1905

poeyit Guérin-Ménéville,
1856

propensalata Bate, 1888

pygmaea Sars (G. O.),1870

reflexus Bate, 1888
robustus Borradaile, 1915

sachalinensis Brashnikov,
1903

scaber Leach, 1815

semistriatus Bate, 1888

septemcarinatus Sabine,
1824

serratus Milne Edwards
(A.), 1881

siebenrocki Balss, 1914

simplicirostris Sars
(G. O.), 1870

simulans Kemp, 1916

sivado Risso, 1816

spinicauda Milne
Edwards (A.), 1881

spinicaudus De Man,
1902

spongicola Costa, 1844

streptopus Kemp, 1922.

ifrons Smith (S. I.),

1884

superbus Dana, 1852

symbiotes Kemp, 1922
tanganyikae Calman, 1899

tenuipes Dana, 1852

Original Combination
in which name cited in
Col. (1) was published

(2)

Leontocaris paulsoni
Atya poeyi

Pontocaris propensalata
Cryptocheles pygmaea

Dorodotes reflexus
Periclimenaeus robustus

Birulia sachalinensis

Atys scaber

Campylonotus
semistriatus

Crangon septemcarinatus

Stylodactylus serratus

Paratypton siebenrocki
Bythocaris
simplicirostris
Phycocaris simulans
Alpheus sivado
Glyphocrangon
spinicauda
Chlorotocus spinicaudus

Typton spongicola
Thaumastocaris
streptopus
Parapasiphaé
sulcatifrons
Oedipus superbus

Dasycaris symbiotes

Limnocaridina
tanganyikae

Palaemonella tenuipes

221

Genus of which species
cited in Col. (1) is the
type species

(3)
Leontocaris Stebbing,
1905
Micratya Bouvier, 1913

Pontocaris Bate, 1888
Cryptocheles Sars (G. 0.),
1870

Dorodotes Bate, 1888
Periclimenaeus
Borradaile, 1915

Birulia Brashnikov, 1903

Atya Leach, 1816
Campylonotus Bate, 1888

Sabinea Ross (J. C.), 1835

Stylodactylus Milne
Edwards (A.), 1881

Paratypton Balss, 1914

Bythocaris Sars (G. O.),
1870

Phycocaris Kemp, 1916

Pasiphaea Savigny, 1816

Glyphocrangon Milne
Edwards (A.), 1881

Chlorotocoides Kemp,
1925

Typton Costa, 1844

Thaumastocaris Kemp,
1922

Parapasiphaé Smith
(S. I.), 1884

Coralliocaris Stimpson,
1860

Dasycaris Kemp, 1922

LTimnocaridina Calman,
1899
Palaemonella Dana, 1852

222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Specific Name

(1)
trispinosus Aurivillius,
1898
truncatus Dana, 1852
tuberculatus Bate, 1888
typus Milne Edwards
(H.), 1837
typus Milne Edwards
(H.), 1837
typus Milne Edwards
(H.), 1837

varians Leach, 1814
varians Leach, 1814

vittata Stimpson, 1860

zimmeri Balss, 1914

Original Combination
in which name cited in
Col. (1) was published

(2)
Palaemonetes
trispinosus
Betaeus truncatus
Chorismus tuberculatus
Caridina typus

Oplophorus typus
Rhynchocinetes typus
Hippolyte varians
Palaemon varians
Hippolysmata vitiata

Bathypalaemonella
zimmeri

Genus of which species
cited in Col. (1) is the
type species

(3)
Desmocaris Sollaud, 1911

Betaeus Dana, 1852

Chorismus Bate, 1888

Caridina Milne Edwards
(H.), 1837

Oplophorus Milne
Edwards (H.), 1837

Rhynchocinetes Milne
Edwards (H.), 1837

Hippolyte Leach, 1814

Palaemonetes Heller,
1869

Hippolysmata Stimpson,
1860

Bathypalaemonella
Balss, 1914

6. In the case of fourteen of the genera enumerated in paragraph 3 of the

present application, the name of the nominal species, which is the type species
of the genus concerned is not accepted by specialists as the oldest available
name for the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species in question.
These cases are :—

Name of nominal

species which is the

type species of the

genus specified in

the first column
(1) (2) (3)

Alope White, 1847 Alope palpalis White, Hippolyte spinifrons

1847 Milne Edwards (H.),
1837

Oldest available name
for the species specified
in the second column

Name of the genus

Barbouria Rathbun, 1912 Barbouria poeyi Rathbun, Hippolyte cubensis Von

1912

Brachycarpus Bate, 1888 Brachycarpus savignyi

Bate, 1888

Martens, 1872
Palaemon biunguiculatus
Lucas, 1849

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 223

Name of the genus
(1)
Chlorocurtis Kemp, 1925

Chlorotocus Milne
Edwards (A.), 1882

Latreutes Stimpson, 1860

Ligur Sarato, 1885

Parapandalus Borradaile,
1899

Periclimenes Costa, 1844

Plesionika Bate, 1888

Saron Thallwitz, 1891

Synalpheus Bate, 1888

Trachycaris Calman, 1906

Troglocaris Dormitzer,
1853

Name of nominal
species which is the Oldest available name
type species of the for the species specified

genus specified in in the second column
the first column
(2) (3)
Chlorocurtis miser Kemp, Virbius (?) jactans
1925 Nobili, 1904
Chlorotocus gracilipes Pandalus crassicornis

Milne Edwards (A.), Costa, 1871
1882

Hippolyte ensiferus Milne Palaemon fucorum
Edwards (H.), 1837 Fabricius, 1798
Ligur edwardsti Sarato, Palaemon ensiferus Risso,

1885 1816
Pandalus (Parapandalus) Plesionika spinipes Bate,
serratifrons 1888
Borradaile, 1899
Periclimenes insignis Alpheus amethysteus
Costa, 1844 Risso, 1826
Plesionika uniproducta Acanthephyra ensis Milne
Bate, 1888 Edwards (A.), 1881
Hippolyte gibberosus Palaemon marmoratus

Milne Edwards (H.), Olivier, 1811
1837
Synalpheus falcatus Bate, Alpheus comatularum

1888 Haswell, 1882
Platybema rugosus Bate, Hippolyte restricta Milne

1888 Edwards (A.), 1878
Troglocaris schmidti Palaemon anophthalmus

Dormitzer, 1853 Kollar, 1848

7. The concrete proposals which I now submit for consideration are that

the Commission should :—

(1) use its Plenary Powers :—

(a) to validate the emendation “ Gnathophyllum ” of the generic
name originally published as Gnatophyllum by Latreille in

1849 ;

(b) to direct the family-group name HIPPOLYTIDAE Bate, 1888, be
protected from its senior subjective synonyms LYSMATINAE

224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Dana, 1852, and THORINAE Kingsley, 1878, in the manner
specified in paragraph 2(11) of the present application ;

(c) to suppress the family-group name GOMPHONOTIDAE Chace, 1936,
for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the
Law of Homonymy ;

(2) rule that the specific name paronae Nobili, 1905, as published in the
combination Latreutes paronae, being a name based upon the modern
patronymic ‘“ Parona”’ is, under the Régles, subject to automatic
correction to paronat ;

(3) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the one hundred
and two generic names enumerated in paragraph 3 of the present
application with the particulars there specified ;

(4) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :—

(a) the eighty-eight specific names specified in paragraph 4 of the
present application ;

(b) the specific names of the fourteen nominal species listed in Column
(3) in paragraph 5 of the present application ;

(5) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—

(a) Atys Leach, 1815, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 11 : 345 (a junior
homonym of Atys de Montfort, 1810 Conch. 2 : 342) ;

(b) Balssiola Strand, 1922, Arch. Naturgesch. 88 (A4) : 142 (substi-
tute name for Calmania Bouvier, 1909) (a junior objective
synonym of Micratya Bouvier, 1913, Bull. Soc. ent. France
1913 : 181);

(c) Calmania Bouvier, 1909, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 148 : 1730 (a
junior homonym of Calmania Laurie, 1906, in Herdman, Rep.
Ceylon Pearl Fish. 5 : 406) ;

(d) Doryphorus Norman, 1861, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (3)8 : 27 (a
junior homonym of Doryphorus Cuvier, 1829) ;

(e) Drimo Risso, 1826, Hist. nat. Europ. mérid. 5 : 70 (type species,
by monotypy: Alpheus elegans Risso, 1816, Hist. nat. Crust.
Nice: 92) (a junior objective synomyn of Gnathophyllum
Latreille, 1819) ;

(f) Gnatophyllum Latreille, 1819, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. (ed. 2) 30 : 72
(an Invalid Original Spelling of Gnathophyllum Latreille, 1819) ;

(g) Gomphonotus Chace, 1936, J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 26 : 25 (substitute
name for Gonatonotus A. Milne Edwards (A.), 1881) (a junior
objective synonym of Hugonatonotus Schmitt, 1926) ;

a a i ee ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 225

(h) Gonatonotus Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, Ann. Sci. nat., Zool.
(6)4(4) : 10 (a junior homonym of Gonatonotus Adams & White,
1847) ;

(i) Hoplophorus Agassiz (J. L. R.), 1846, Nomencl. zool., Index Univ.
: 185, 262 (an Invalid Emendation of Oplophorus Milne Edwards
(H.), 1837) ;

(j) Nectocrangon Brandt, 1851, Middendorff’s Reise Sibir. 2(1) : 114
(type species, by monotypy: Crangon lar Owen, 1839, Zool.
Beechey’s Voy. Blossom : 88) (a junior objective synonym of
Argis Kroyer, 1842) ;

(k) Oedipus Dana, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 6 : 17 (a junior
homonym of Oedipus Berthold, 1827, and replaced by Corallio-
caris Stimpson, 1860) ;

(1) Ogyris Stimpson, 1860, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1860 : 36 (a
junior homonym of Ogyris Westwood, 1851, and replaced by
Ogyrides Stebbing, 1914) ;

(m) Pasiphae Kroyer, 1845, Naturhist. Tidsskr. (n.s.) 1: 453 (an
Invalid Emendation of Pasiphaea Savigny, 1816) ;

(n) Pasiphaeia Faxon, 1895, Mem. Mus. comp. Zool. 18 : 173 (an
Invalid Emendation of Pasiphaea Savigny, 1816) ;

(0) Regulus Dana, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 6 : 18, 27 (a
junior homonym of Regulus Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1800, and
replaced by Thalassocaris Stimpson, 1860) ;

(p) Tridacnocaris Nobili, 1899, Ann. Mus. civ. Stor. nat. Genova
40 : 235 (substitute name for Anchistus Borradaile, 1898) (a
junior objective synonym of Anchistus Borradaile, 1898) ;

(q) Xiphocaridina Bouvier, 1909, C. R. Acad. Sct., Paris 148 : 1729
(type species, by selection by Holthuis, 1955 (Zool. Verhand.
Leiden 26:21): Ephyra compressa De Haan, 1844, Fauna
japon., Crust. (6/7) : pl. 46, fig. 7) (a junior objective synonym
of Paratya Miers, 1882).

(6) place the under-mentioned names on the Official List of Family-Group
Names in Zoology :—

(a) ATYIDAE (correction by Dana (1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad.
6 : 13, 16) of aryapEA) De Haan, 1849, Fauna japon., Crust.
(6): 168, 184 (type genus : Atya Leach, 1816) ;

(b) BRESILIIDAE Calman, 1896, Trans. Roy. Irish Acad. 31 :7 (type
genus: Bresilia Calman, 1896) ;

(c) CAMPYLONOTIDAE Sollaud, 1913, Bull. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris 19 :
184 (type genus : Campylonotus Bate, 1888) ;

226

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(d) EUGONATONOTIDAE Chace, 1937, Proc. New Engl., zool. Cl. 16 : 15
(type genus: Hugonatonotus Schmitt) 1926, as proposed to be
validated under the Plenary Powers ;

(e) GLYPHOCRANGONIDAE Smith, 1884, Rep. U.S. Fish Comm. 10 : 364
(type genus : Glyphocrangon Milne Edwards (A.), 1881) ;

(f) GNATHOPHYLLINAE Dana, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad.
6 : 16 (type genus : Gnathophyllum Latreille, 1819) (first elevated
to family rank as GNATHOPHYLLIDAE by Ortmann, 1890, Zool.
Jahrb. Syst. 5 : 537)

(g) HIPPOLYTIDAE Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : xii,
xli, 480, 503, 574, 576 (type genus: Hippolyte Leach, 1814)
(a family-group name to be given preference under the Plenary
Powers under (1)(b) above over the Family-Group names
LYSMATINAE Dana, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 6 : 16,
20 (type genus : Lysmata Risso, 1816) and THoRINAE Kingsley,
1878, Bull. Essex Inst. 10 : 64 (type genus: Thor Kingsley,
1878), by any author who may consider the genera Hippolyte
Leach, Lysmata Risso, and/or Thor Kingsley as belonging to
the same family-group taxon) ;

(h) NEMATOCARCININAE Smith, 1884, Rep. U.S. Fish Comm. 10 : 368
(type genus: Nematocarcinus Milne Edwards (A.), 1881) (first
elevated to family rank as NEMATOCARCINIDAE by Smith, 1886,
Rep. U.S. Fish Comm. 13 : 608, 619, 664)

(i) OPLOPHORINAE Dana, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 6 : 18,
27 (type genus: Oplophorus Milne Edwards (H.), 1837) (first
elevated to family rank as OPLOPHORIDAE by Rathbun, 1902,
Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 24 : 904)

(j) PASIPHAEIDAE Dana, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 6 : 13,
18 (type genus : Pasiphaea Savigny, 1816) ;

(k) PSALIDOPODIDAE Wood Mason & Alcock, 1892, Ann. Mag. nat.
Hist. (6)9 : 265 (type genus: Psalidopus Wood Mason &
Alcock, 1892) ;

(1) RHYNCHOCINETIDAE Ortmann, 1890, Zool. Jahrb. Syst. 5 : 459
(type genus : RHYNCHOCINETES Milne Edwards (H.), 1837) ;

(m) STYLODACTYLIDAE Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : 481,
850 (type genus : Stylodactylus Milne Edwards (A.), 1881) ;

(n) THALASSOCARIDIDAE (correction by Holthuis, 1955 (Zool. Verhand.
Leiden. 26 : 12, 128) of THALASSOCARIDAE) Bate, 1888, Rep.
Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24:Ixxvii, 481, 682 (type genus:
Thalassocaris Stimpson, 1860) ;

(o) TYPHLOCARIDINAE Annandale & Kemp, 1913, J. asiat. Soc. Bengal
(n.s.) 9(6) : 245 (type genus: T'yphlocaris Calman, 1909) ;

2

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 227

(7) place the under-mentioned names on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :—

(a) aTyaDEA De Haan, 1849 (type genus: Atya Leach, 1816) (an
Invalid Original Spelling for ATYIDAE)

(b) artipaz Yu, 1936, Chin. J. Zool. 2:88 (an Erroneous Subse-
quent Spelling for aryipaE De Haan, 1849) ;

(c) BRESILIDAE Kemp, 1910, Sci. Invest. Br. Ireland 1908(1) :35
(an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for BRESILIDAE Calman,
1896) ;

(d) DRimorpaz Ortmann, 1896, Zool. Jahrb. Syst. 9 : 425 (type genus :
Drimo Risso, 1826) (invalid because the type genus of the
family so named has, as its type species, Alpheus elegans Risso,
1816, which is also the type species of Gnathophyllum Latreille,
1819 (a name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology under (2) above), which is the type of the family
GNATHOPHYLLIDAE Dana, 1852 (a name placed on the Official
List of Family-Group Names in Zoology under (6)(f) above) ;

(e) GoMPHONOTIDAE Chace, 1936, J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 26 : 25 (type
genus ; Gomphonotus Chace, 1936) (suppressed under the
Plenary Powers under (1)(c) above) ;

(f) GONATONOTIDAE Gurney, 1941, J. linn. Soc. Lond., Zool. 44 : 122
(type genus: Gonatonotus Milne Edwards (A.), 1881) (invalid
because the type genus of the family so named has, as its type
species, Gonatonotus crassus Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, which
is also the type species of Eugonatonotus Schmitt, 1926 (a name
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology under (2)
above), which is the type genus of the family EUGONATONOTIDAE
Chace, 1937 (a name placed on the Official List of Family-Group
Names in Zoology under (6)(d) above) ;

(g) HIPPOLYIDAE Yu, 1935, Chin. J. Zool. 1 > 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53
(an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for HIPPOoLYTIDAE Bate,
1888) ;

(h) HYPPOLITIDAE Dohrn, 1950, Pubbl. Sta. zool. Napoli 22 : 257, 259,

261, 263, 265, 267, 269, 271 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling
for HIPPOLYTIDAE Bate, 1888) ;

(i) HOPLOPHORIDAE Faxon, 1895, Mem. Mus. comp. Zool. 18 : 159
(an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for oPLOPHORIDAE Dana,
1852) ;

(j) OPLoPHaIDAE Guiler, 1952, Rec. Queen Victoria Mus. Tasmania
3(3) : 35 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for opLOPHORIDAE
Dana, 1852) ;

(k) PastpHazrDar Barnard, 1950, Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 38 : 648 (an
Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for PASIPHAEIDAE Dana, 1852) ;

228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(l) PASIPHAEIDAE Faxon, 1893, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. 24 : 208
(an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for PASIPHAEIDAE Dana,
1852) ;

(m) PASIPHAIDAE Smith, 1884, Rep. U.S. Fish Comm. 10 : 381 (an
Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for PASIPHAEIDAE Dana, 1852) ;

(n) PASIPHAIDAE Wood Mason & Alcock, 1893, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist (6)
11 : 161 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling of PASIPHAEIDAE
Dana, 1852) ;

(0) PASIPHEIDAE De Miranda y Rivera, 1933, Not. Res. Inst. Espan.
Oceanogr. (2)67:6 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling of
PASIPHAEIDAE Dana, 1852) ;

(p) RHINCOCYNETIDAE Sharp, 1893, Proc. Acad. nat. Sct. Philad.
1893 : 118 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling of RayNCHOCINE-
TIDAE Ortmann, 1890) ;

(q) RHYNCHOCYNETIDAE Borradaile, 1907, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7)
19 : 467 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling of RHYNCHOCINE-
TIDAE Ortmann, 1890) ;

(r) RYNCHOCINETIDAE Gurney, 1939, Ray Soc. 125 : 72 (an Erroneous
Subsequent Spelling of RHYNCHOCINETIDAE Ortmann, 1890);

(s) THALASSOCARIDAE Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24:
Ixxvii, 481, 682 (an Invalid Original Spelling of THALAssocaRI-
DIDAE Bate, 1888).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 229

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE AND
PROTECT THE FAMILY-GROUP NAME “MAYAITIDAE ”? SPATH
(L.F.), 1928 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA)

By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S.
(Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 884)

The purpose of the present application is to ask the International
Commission to use its Plenary Powers to preserve the family-group name
MAYAITIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1928, in order to avoid the confusion and uncertainty
that would result if, under the operation of the normal provisions of the
Régles, this name were to be replaced by the family-group name GRAYICERA-
TIDAE Spath, 1925 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). The facts are
set out below.

2. In 1923 (Quart. J. geol. Soc. London, 79 : 306) Spath founded a genus
Grayiceras, for the “‘ group of Simbirskites nepalensis Gray sp. and S. mexicanus
Burckhardt ”’.

3. In 1924 (Pal. ind. (n.s.) 9, Mem. 1 : 11) Spath stated “‘ the new genus
Grayiceras is here proposed . . . (genotype: G. blanfordi u.n. = Simbirskites
nepaulensis Blanford non Gray, in Uhlig [1910, Pal. ind. (ser. 15), 4, fase.
2: 271], pl. xlvA, fig. 1)”. Uhlig stated that this figure represented “‘ the
original specimen depicted by Blanford in plate 14, fig. 1, of the “‘ Palaeontology
of Niti ” [1865], and that it came from the Spiti Shales of an unknown locality.

4. Taking Spath’s wording literally, there are thus two genera with the
same name Grayiceras, introduced independently at different dates and based
on different type species. But contrary to Spath’s assertions, it is quite possible
that the type species of Grayiceras Spath, 1924, may be the same as one of the
two syntypes of Grayiceras Spath, 1923. For Uhlig in refiguring Blanford’s
type specimen stated that it was “ clearly’ the same species as Ammonites
nepaulensis Gray ([1830—32], Illustrations of Indian Zoology 1: pl. 100,
figs. 1, 2), and Crick (1903, Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond. 5 : 287, 289) in a special
paper devoted to Gray’s types, had affirmed that Blanford’s figure was drawn
from Gray’s type specimen, and that the type locality was Sulgranees
[=Salagrammi?] in Nepal. In that case, blanfordi Spath is a junior objective
synonym of nepaulensis Gray, which then by Spath’s action in 1924 becomes
the type species of Grayiceras Spath, 1923.

5. Uhlig (loc. cit.) also accepted Waagen’s identification of this species with
a form figured by Waagen (1875, Pal. ind. (ser. 9) 1 : 136, pl. XX XV, figs, 2, 3)

Bull. zool. Nomencel. Vol. 11, Part 7. July 1955.

230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

from the Kantcote Sandstone of Cutch, which is of Upper Oxfordian date. In
that case the age of the type species of Grayiceras is Oxfordian; but Spath
considered it to be Tithonian, i.e., many millions of years later.

6. Notwithstanding the irregularities and inadequacies attending the
introduction of the genus Grayiceras, Spath in 1925 founded a family
GRAYICERATIDAE (Ammonites and Aptychi, Mon. Hunterian Museum Univ.
Glasgow : 145).

7. From paragraphs 2 to 5 above, it is evident that Grayiceras Spath is a
nomen dubium, for the “ genotype ” of 1924 was not nomenclatorially one of the
syntypes of 1923, and the date of existence and identity of both nepaulensis
Gray and blanfordi Spath are uncertain, having been disputed by the chief
authorities and never cleared up. Without new material collected under
stratigraphical control the names Grayiceras and GRAYICERATIDAE cannot be
used and must be left aside. It is therefore impossible yet to make any
recommendations for intervention by the Commission.

8. In 1924 (Pal. ind. (n.s.) 9 : 9) Spath founded a genus Mayaites, type
species by original designation Ammonites maya Sowerby (J. de C.), 1840
(Trans. geol. Soc. Lond. (2) 5 : pl. 61, fig. 8), a species indubitably of Oxfordian
date.

9. In 1928 (Pal. ind. (n.s.) 9 : 165) Spath founded a family MayaITIDAE.

10. Also in 1928 (Pal. ind. (n.s.) 9 : 224) Spath stated: ‘‘ Grayiceras
of the Spiti Shales . . . is now also included in the family Mayaitidae ’’, adding,
“TI included Grayiceras in a separate family Grayiceratidae (1925), but its
suture-line is now known and the latter name will have to be replaced by
Paraboliceratidae *”’ [another new family name, presumably based on the
Spiti Shales (Tithonian) genus Paraboliceras Uhlig, 1910].

11. If Spath’s systematic conclusions (paragraph 10 above) were accepted,
the family name MAYAITIDAE 1928, would fall as junior synonym of
GRAYICERATIDAE 1925. This result would be highly undesirable, in view of the
fact that Grayiceras Spath and GRAYICERATIDAE are nomina dubia (see paragraph
7 above) and that Spath’s systematic conclusions are therefore liable to change
if further information becomes available. The name MAYAITIDAE is open to
no such objections and has already been accepted by revisers (e.g., Basse, 1952,
Ménm. Soc. géol. France (n.s.) 30, mém. 65 ; and—as the name for a subfamily—
by Basse in Piveteau, T'raité de Paléont. 2 : 629).

12. Accordingly I ask the International Commission, in the interests of
nomenclatorial stability and in order to prevent confusion :—

(1) to direct under its Plenary Powers that the family-group name
MAYAITIDAE Spath, 1928, is not to be rejected in favour of the name

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 231

GRAYICERATIDAE Spath, 1925, by any worker who may consider
that the respective type genera of these taxa should be referred to
the same family-group taxon ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official List
of Family Group Names in Zoology with a note in the terms specified
under the Plenary Powers under (1) above : — MayaITmpaE Spath
(L.F.), 1928 (type genus: Mayaites Spath (L.F.), 1924) ;

(3) to place the generic name Mayaites Spath, 1924 (gender: masculine
g y 8

(type species by original designation: Ammonites maya Sowerby

(J. de C.), 1840) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology

(4) to place the specific name maya Sowerby (J. de C.), 1840, as published
in the combination Ammonites maya (specific name of type species
of Mayaites Spath, 1924) on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS
TO PRESERVE THE GENERIC NAME “ HELICELLA’’ FERUSSAC,
1821, FOR USE IN ITS ACCUSTOMED SENSE

By HORACE B. BAKER
(Zoological Laboratory, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, U.S.A.)
(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 214)

(For the proposal submitted in this case, see 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9(10) :
304—308)

(Letter dated 16th February 1955)

The proposed use of the Plenary Powers to preserve the generic name Helicella
Férussac, 1821 (Class Gastropoda) for use in its accustomed sense ”’, as discussed
by A. E. Ellis and R. Winckworth in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9(10) : 304 et seq., is
backed very heartily by me. Their presentation of the case is excellent. Dr.
Forcart apparently forgot that Jacosta was prior.

232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

SUPPORT FOR DR. GISIN’S PROPOSALS FOR THE SUPPRESSION,

UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE GENERIC NAME

“ ACHORUTES ’”’ TEMPLETON, 1835, AND THE DESIGNATION OF

A TYPE SPECIES FOR THE GENUS “HYPOGASTRURA’’ BOURLET,

1839 IN HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED USAGE (CLASS INSECTA,
ORDER COLLEMBOLA)

By JOHN T. SALMON
(Victoria University College, Department of Zoology, Wellington, New Zealand)

(Commission’s reference: Z.N.(S.)303)
(Extract from a letter dated 13th January, 1955)
(For the proposal submitted in this case, see 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11(2): 38—48)

I am very pleased to hear that the question of Hypogastrura is to be settled at
last. If the rules are not to be applied, then I think the proposal set out in your
letter [i.e., the proposals as set out in Dr. Gisin’s application] is certainly the best
solution. It has my full support.

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED USES OF THE PLENARY POWERS
(1) TO VALIDATE THE SPECIFIC NAME “ RUFA ”’ LINNAEUS, 1761, AS
PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “FORMICA RUFA’”’, AND (2)
TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME “UPOGEBIA’” LEACH, 1814

By JULIAN S. HUXLEY, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (London)
(Commission’s references: Z.N.(S.)776 and Z.N.(S.)830) ©

(For the proposals submitted in these cases, see 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 5 298,
313—317, 334—340 respectively)

(Letter dated 28th January, 1955)

With reference to your notice in Nature last week, I write to say that I hope
very much that the names .... Formica rufa and Upogebia will be validated
as suggested, as any change would result in grave inconvenience to working
biologists.

or)
ee ae ee

CONTENTS

(continued from front wrapper)
New applications

Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
of the names of one hundred and two genera of Caridea (Class
Crustacea, Order Decapoda), including proposals for the use of
the Plenary Powers (a) to validate the emendation to
Gnathophyllum of the generic name Gnatophyllum Latreille,
1814, and (b) to validate the family-group names HIPPOLYTIDAE
Bate, 1888 and EUGONATONOTIDAE Chace, 1937. By L. B.
Holthuis Ci aaa van pian se apes i
The Netherlands ..

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the family-group
name MAYAITIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1928 (Class Cephalopoda,
Order Ammonoidea). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S.
(Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)

Comments on Applications

Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to preserve the
generic name Helicella Férussac, 1821, for use in its accus-
tomed sense. By Horace B. Baker ‘(Zoological Le
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, U.S.A.)

Support for Dr. Gisin’s proposal for the suppression under the
Plenary Powers of the generic name Achorutes Templeton, 1835,
and the designation of a type species for Hypogastrura Bourlet,
1839 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola). By John T. Salmon
(Victoria let ts 5 Sas deohcaao af Bass ic
New Zealand)

Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers (1) to validate
the specific name rufa Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the
combination Formica rufa, and (2) to validate the generic
name Upogebia Leach, 1814. g Julian 8. ae M.A.,
D.Se., F.R.S. (London) ..

Printed in England by MetcatFe & Cooper LimiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C2

Page

229

231

232

232 —

oo ae eee eh

anion a

Pe nr fh ton Tr on
17S RRR PE ark dn Spe Rea at Gras a
"ses apantihe dual ier memset psblpmem a pst geek

Ss AE Pree Pe Te ceo ogee

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

A. The Officers of the Commission

Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological
Museum, Tring, Herts, England)

President: Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(12th August 1953)

Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953)
Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948)

B. The Members of the Commission

(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent
re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)

Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(Ist January 1947)

Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Hva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948)

Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)

Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948)
Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)

Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)

Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th June 1950)

Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw,
Poland) (15th June 1950)

Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur Musewm u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt
a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950)

Professor Dr. Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin,
Germany) (5th July 1950)

Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 19538) (Vice-President)
Professor J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953)

Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
(President)

Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th
August 1953)

Professor Béla Hanké (Mezdgazdasdégi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)

Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th
August 1953)

Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)

Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th
August 1953)

Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra,
A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954)

Dr. Alden H. Miller (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California,
U.S.A.) (29th October 1954)

Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Prantl (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October
1954)

Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kiihnelt (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th
November 1954)

Professor F’. 8. Bodenheimer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954)

Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954)

Professor Enrico Tortonese (Istituto e Museo di Zoologia della Universita di Torino, Torino,
Italy) (16th December 1954)

g | BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 11, Part 8 (pp. 233—272) 7th July 1955

NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY

The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the
_ recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56, 57—59), by the Thirteenth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
5 :5—13, 131).

(a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published
in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’

Norice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will
_ start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
_ clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of
_ publication in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who
_ may desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present
_ Part (Vol. 11, Part 8) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing
_ to the Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible and in any case, in
_ sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secretariat
_ of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above.

(b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain cases

_ Noricr is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers is involved in
_ applications published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
_ clature in relation to the following names :—

(1) Lernaeocera Blainville, 1822 (Class Crustacea, Order Copepoda), valida-
tion of emendation to, from Lerneocera, and designation of a type
species of a harmony with accustomed usage (Z.N.(S.) 755) ;

(2) Grant to International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of
authority to prescribe for groups of generic names or for individual

e

234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued)

generic names a gender different from that grammatically appropriate
to the word concerned where such action is asked for in the interests
of nomenclatorial stability (Z.N.(S.) 938) ;

(3) Determination of a gender in harmony with accustomed usage (a) for
generic names in the Class Aves having the termination “ -rhynchus ”’,
(b) for generic names in the Order Decapoda (Class Crustacea)
having the terminations “-opsis” and “-gnathus”’, and (c) for
the following names :—(i) Gigantorhynchus Hamann, 1892 (Class
Acanthocephala), (ii) Desmognathus Baird, 1850 (Class Amphibia),
(iii) Nephrops Leach, [1814] (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) and
(iv) Syngnathus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pisces) (Z.N.(S.) 942) ;

(4) Varuna Milne Edwards (H.), 1830 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda),
validation of currently accepted gender for (Z.N.(S.) 943).

2. Attention is drawn also to the proposed adoption of Declarations dealing
with the following subjects :—

(a) Article 21: clarification of authorship to be attributed in certain
circumstances to zoological names and to actions affecting status of
such names (Z.N.(S.) 891) ;

(b) Article 25: clarification of status of names published only in the indexes
of books (Z.N.(S.) 929).

3. Comments received in sufficient time will be published in the Bulletin :
other comments, provided that they are received within the prescribed period
of six calendar months from the date of publication of the present Part will
be laid before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at
the time of commencement of voting on the application concerned.

4. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon at the Session held by

the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 56), corresponding Notices have been sent
to the serial publications Nature and Science.

FRANCIS HEMMING

Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature

28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park,
Lonpon, N.W.1, England.

7th July 1955.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 235

REQUEST FOR A “ DECLARATION ” CLARIFYING THE MEANING

OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE ‘*‘ REGLES ”’ IN RELATION TO THE

AUTHORSHIP TO BE ATTRIBUTED IN CERTAIN SPECIAL

CIRCUMSTANCES TO ZOOLOGICAL NAMES AND TO ACTIONS

TAKEN UNDER THE “ REGLES ’”? AFFECTING THE STATUS OF
SUCH NAMES

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 891)

When Dr. L. R. Cox and I were discussing the form of the application
to be submitted to the Commission for the purpose of securing a stable
foundation for the generic name Inoceramus (Class Pelecypoda), we encoun-
tered a problem relating to the authorship attributable to zoological names
on which there was no provision in the Régles. We agreed that this was an
omission which should be made good, and it was agreed between us that I
should submit a request to the Commission for a Declaration clarifying the
provisions of Article 21. The present application is accordingly submitted to
the Commission for consideration.

2. Dr. Cox’s application in regard to the name Inoceramus will, it is proposed,
be published in the same part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature! as the
present request for a Declaration, and it is therefore not necessary to do more
than outline briefly the points involved. In the above case, Sowerby (J.)
presented at a meeting of the Linnean Society of London, held on lst November
1814, a then unpublished paper in which he introduced the new generic name
Inoceramus. Very shortly afterwards—in 1814—there appeared in the Annals
of Philosophy an anonymous account of the presentation by Sowerby, at the
Linnean Society, of his paper. In this note it was stated that this new fossil
was of fibrous structure, that fragments of it had been found in abundance in
the chalk, that Sowerby had given it the name Inoceramus. The particulars
given are, in Dr. Cox’s opinion, fully sufficient to provide this generic name
with an “indication” for the purposes of Article 25. Sowerby’s own paper
was not published by the Linnean Society until the end of 1822 or the beginning
of 1823, and was therefore long anticipated by the anonymous paper in the
Ann. Phil.

1 See pp. 239—245 of the present volume.
Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 8. July 1955.

236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

3. An exactly parallel situation arises in connection with another case
now before the Commission, namely that relating to the generic names Aucella
Keyserling, 1846, and Buchia von Buch, 1845, submitted by Dr. J. A. Jeletzky
(Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa) (1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 158—
166). In this case the availability of the name Buchia as from 1845—and there-
fore its priority over the name Aucella Keyserling, 1846—rests upon its having
been published in an anonymous account of a communication made by Rouiller
to a meeting of the Société Imperiale des Naturalistes de Moscou in regard to
the fossil lamellibranch Avicula mosquensis von Buch, 1844, in which he is
reported as having said that this species differed generically from any previously
known shell and that he accordingly proposed to establish the new genus
Buchia for it.

4, In both the cases discussed above the specialists concerned have adopted
for the purposes of their respective applications to the Commission the working
hypothesis that names published in anonymous notices of meetings of the
learned societies at which unpublished papers containing those names were
presented, are properly attributable to the author of the unpublished paper
concerned and should not be treated as having been first published anonymously.
However, where, as in the present cases, names are published in such notices
with a sufficient ‘“‘ indication” for the purposes of Article 25, they naturally
rank for priority from the date of the publication of the notice in question.
Both Dr. Cox and Dr. Jeletzky are of the opinion that it is desirable that the
question of the authorship to be attributed to names published in this way
should be set at rest by the adoption of an interpretative Declaration by the
Commission.

5. It is necessary at this stage to consider the scope of the proposed
Declaration. First, it will, I think, be agreed that the Ruling should not be
limited to the case where a name is inadvertently published in an unsigned
report of the proceedings at a meeting of a learned society ; for, to take the
case of the name Inoceramus it will be agreed that, if the note in the Annals
of Philosophy had been signed by Thomson (by whom, as editor, it was probably
written), instead of being published anonymously, it would have been just as
objectionable—if not more objectionable—that that name should have been
attributed to Thomson, who had no part in the matter except that of a reporter,
instead of to Sowerby, the real author both of the name and of the description
given for the new taxon.

6. Again, the Ruling should be worded so as not to be limited to cases
where the unpublished paper containing the name in question was destined
for publication by, or was later actually published by, the society at the
meeting of which the new name was first made known. For it might well
happen (a) that a zoologist made a communication to some society about an
interesting new species while arrangements had been made for the paper
containing the new name to be published either by some other society or in some

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 237

independent serial and (b) that a notice of that meeting, containing the name
of the new species together with an adequate “indication ’’, was published
before the appearance of the paper containing what had been intended to be the
original description of that species. In my own speciality (Class Insecta,
Order Lepidoptera) I know of an unfortunate case of this kind. A new sub-
species of Zegris euwpheme (Esper, [1805]) had been discovered by Lt.-Col.
H. D. Peile, I.M.S. in Mesopotamia during the First World War and arrangements
had been made for descriptions of this subspecies (to which it was proposed to
give the name dyala), and of other novelties found by Col. Peile, to be drawn
up by Mr. N. D. Riley in a paper to be published in the Annals and Magazine
of Natural History. Before Mr. Riley’s paper was published, Col. Peile exhibited
specimens of his new Zegris before a meeting of the Entomological Society of
London and, in doing so, used Mr. Riley’s manuscript name dyala and gave
an account of the characters which Mr. Riley had noted as distinguishing this
new taxon. The Secretary of the Society, the late Mr. H. Rowland Brown,
when drawing up a semi-popular note of the meeting for communication to the
independent entomological monthlies published in Great Britain, unfortunately
included in his note not only the new name dyala but also a brief account of the
distinguishing characters of that subspecies. Mr. Rowland Brown’s note was
published in 1951 (Entomologist 54 : 151) before the publication in the same
year of the description of this insect in Mr. Riley’s paper (Riley, 1921, Ann.
Mag. nat. Hist. (9)8 : 591). In a case of this sort it would, it seems to me, be
absurd to attribute the name dyala either to Mr. Rowland Brown, who was
no more than an inadvertent post-office in this matter, or to Col. Peile, neither
of whom had any real part in the description of this new taxon. This unfor-
tunate episode illustrates the need for securing that the proposed Ruling by
the Commission should be sufficiently wide to cover cases where a new name
is accidentally published by the secretary of a learned society, in this case,
unlike that of Inoceramus discussed earlier in the present note, over his own
signature, when reporting the exhibition of a specimen labelled with an
unpublished name.

7. It must further be noted that the present problem is not limited to cases
of the authorship attributable to new names but may arise also in connection
with the publication of the record of any act affecting the status of a zoological
name, for example, the selection of a type species for a previously established
nominal genus, the selection of a lectotype for a previously established nominal
species, the designation of a neotype, or the emendation of a name. An
example of this class of case is provided by the generic name Achorutes
Templeton, 1835 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola) on which an application has
recently been submitted to the Commission by Dr. Hermann Gisin (Muséum
@ Histoire Naturelle, Geneve) (1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 38—48). In this
case the earliest published selection of a type species for this genus occurs in
an anonymous record of a meeting of the Société entomologique de France at
which, at the request of the President (Milne Edwards), Lucas made a com-
munication to the society regarding certain recently published papers on

238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Collembola in which he is recorded as having stated that the type species
of the foregoing genus was Achoreutes muscorum Templeton, 1835. In such a
case it would be just as undesirable to reject Lucas as the author of this type
selection as it would be to reject Sowerby as the author of the generic name
Inoceramus. It is recommended therefore that the proposed Declaration
should be drawn up in terms sufficiently wide to cover all cases of this kind.

8. Finally, it is suggested that, in taking action in this case, the Commission
should add to the Ruling to be given a Recommandation urging officers of
learned societies, editors and others not to include in abstracts prepared for,
or in reports of, meetings, either new names communicated at such meetings
or particulars of acts so communicated affecting the status of previously
published names. An addendum of this kind to the proposed Declaration would
be in line with action already taken by the International Congress of Zoology
in similar cases (for example, the Recommandation deprecating the publication
of names conditionally) and would help to prevent the recurrence of difficulties
of the kind discussed in the present application.

9. It is recommended therefore that the International Commission should
adopt a Declaration on the lines of the following draft :—

Draft Declaration

(1) Where in connection with the presentation of an unpublished paper
before a meeting of a learned society or the exhibition of a specimen before
such a meeting, a name is published with an “indication” in an abstract
prepared for use at, or in a report of the proceedings of, such a meeting, and
thus acquires the status of availability in zoological nomenclature, the name so
published is to be attributed to the author of the unpublished paper or, as the
case may be, to the zoologist by whom was proposed the name attached to the
specimen exhibited.

(2) Where in any abstract or report similar to those specified in (1) above
there is published the record of any act affecting the status of a previously
published name (such as the selection of a type species for a genus or of a
lectotype for a species), that act is to be attributed to the author of the unpub-
lished paper concerned or to the person responsible for the exhibition of a
labelled specimen and not to the author of the abstract or report.

(3) Recommandation: Officers of learned societies, editors and others are
urged not to include in abstracts for, or reports of, meetings either new names
communicated at such meetings or particulars of acts affecting the status of
previously published names communicated thereat.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 239

PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF THE NOMINAL SPECIES TO BE

ACCEPTED AS THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS “ INOCERA-

MUS ’’ SOWERBY (J.), 1814 (CLASS PELECYPODA) AND PROPOSED

ADDITION OF THAT NAME TO THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC
NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ”’

By L. R. COX, Sc.D., F.RB.S.
(British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 629)

The object of the present application is to seek from the International
Commission a Ruling as to the nominal species to be adopted as the type
species of the genus Inoceramus Sowerby (J.), 1814 (Class Pelecypoda) and
to request that the name of this nominal genus, with its type species so defined,
be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

2. The generic name Inoceramus was first proposed by Sowerby (J.) in a
paper entitled : “‘ On a fossil shell of a fibrous structure, the fragments of which
occur abundantly in the Chalk Strata and in the flints accompanying it”’.
This paper was presented to the Linnean Society of London on Ist November
1814, but was not actually published until some date late in 1822 and possibly
later* (Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 13 : 453—458, pl. 25). Some particulars of
the contents of this paper must have been made public at the meeting of the
Linnean Society at which it was presented, for the following notice regarding
it was published in 1814 ([Anon.], Ann. Phil. 4 : 448) :—

Proceedings of Philosophical Societies
LINNEAN SOCIETY
The Society resumed its meetings on Tuesday, the Ist of November.

A paper by Mr. Sowerby was read on a fossil shell which occurs in chalk, very
frequently in the flint nodules. Fragments of it had been observed by Cuvier and
Brongniart in the chalk near Paris, and from their fibrous texture they were led to
consider them as fragments of pinnae ; but from their thickness (near half an inch)
they concluded that the shell must have been of enormous size. Mr. Sowerby
got specimens of the fossil from various quarters of the chalk country in the south
of England. He ascertained, by comparing these specimens with each other, that
it was a bivalve shell, having a hinge of a peculiar structure, and constituting a
genus apart. To this genus he had given the name of inoceramus ; and the most
common species he calls Inoceramus Cuvierii.

* This paper was certainly published after October 1822, since on page 692 there appears
a notice of the receipt by the Linnean Society’s Library of No. 294 of Tulloch’s Philosophical
Magazine, which is dated 3lst October 1822. It is possible that this paper was not published
until 1823, since the Geological Society’s Library did not receive its copy until 19th April 1823.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 8. July 1955.

240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

3. The first point which calls for consideration is the authorship to be
attributed to the generic name Jnoceramus and the binomen Inoceramus
cuviertt as published in the foregoing notice. As already noted, the passage
quoted above, though probably written by T. Thomson, who was at that time
the editor of the Annals of Philosophy, was published anonymously. The
passage itself makes it absolutely clear however that both the new names
introduced in it were destined later to appear in Sowerby’s paper and also
that the “‘indications’’ given in that passage for the new taxa so named
were drawn from Sowerby’s paper. The question therefore arises as to the
attribution to be given to these names. In my view the proper course in
such a case would be to attribute the names in question to the author (Sowerby)
by whom they were proposed and by whom the “ indications ”’ (for the purposes
of Article 25 of the Régles) were provided rather than to treat these names
as having been published anonymously, with, or without, a doubtful attribution
to Thomson, the editor of the serial publication in which they were published.
This question however raises an issue of principle on which no Ruling has ever
been given either by the International Congress of Zoology or by the Inter-
national Commission acting on its behalf. I have discussed this matter with
the Secretary to the Commission who has informed me that a number of other
cases of this kind has arisen, including at least one which affects the authorship
to be attributed to names already placed on one or other of the Official Lists.
Mr. Hemming has accordingly decided himself to present to the Commission
a request for a Declaration that in cases of the foregoing kind the names in
question are to be attributed to the authors by whom they were proposed and
by whom either the “ indication ” or the material for that ‘‘ indication ’”’ were
provided. Arrangements have been made for Mr. Hemming’s application
(Z.N.(S.)891) to be published immediately before the present application, so
that the two associated problems may be considered by the Commission at
the same time. Beyond expressing my full support for Mr. Hemming’s
application, I need add only that in the present application I have assumed—
as some working hypothesis is necessary—that the proposals submitted in that
application will meet with the approval of the Commission. Accordingly,
in the remainder of the present application I have treated the two names
with which we are here concerned as being attributable to Sowerby.

4. The next point which requires to be considered is whether the particulars
given in the passage published by Thomson contain sufficient information
(1) to qualify as “indications ’’ for the purposes of Proviso (a) to Article 25
of the Régles and (2) to permit of the identification of the taxa so named.

5. On the first of these questions there can, I think, be no doubt that the
particulars given in the passage quoted in paragraph 2 above must be regarded
as constituting an “ indication ” for the purposes of Article 25 for the nominal
genus Inoceramus, for the author of the passage gave a number of separate
items of information regarding the nominal genus to which this name was

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 241

applied (e.g. that the species included in it was a fossil shell of fibrous texture ;
that it was a shell of very large size ; that it was a bivalve with a hinge of a
peculiar type ; that it had been obtained from the Chalk). No separate particulars
were given for the nominal species Inoceramus cuvierii, but the particulars
then given for the genus Inoceramus apply also to this species, which must
therefore be regarded also as having been vublished with an indication. The
particulars given are fully sufficient to enable anyone with a knowledge of Chalk
fossils to identify the group to which the fossil here in question belongs. I
accordingly conclude (a) that the nominal genus Inoceramus was duly provided
with an “indication”? at the time when the foregoing generic name was
published in 1814 and (b) that the “ indication ”’ so given is sufficient to permit
of a definite identification of the genus so named.

6. The position is more complicated when we turn to consider whether the
specific name cuviertti Sowerby (J.), 1814, as published in the combination
Inoceramus cuvierti, can be regarded as having been published with an “‘ indica-
tion ’’ for the purposes of Article 25. There is no doubt that the answer to this
question would be in the affirmative if Sowerby had stated that he was erecting
the new genus Jnoceramus solely for the purpose of providing a generic name
for the new species Inoceramus cuvierti, for in that event the description given
would clearly have provided an “indication” both for the generic name
Inoceramus and for the name Inoceramus cuvierii (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
4 : 149, codifying Opinion 43). But this is not what he did, for as the passage
quoted in paragraph 2 of the present application shows, he clearly considered
that this genus contained several species, of which, however, he regarded the
foregoing as “ the most common species”. At this point therefore we have
to consider whether from the nomenclatorial standpoint the genus Inoceramus,
when first established, contained (a) only the nominal species Inoceramus
cuvierti, the sole such species cited, or (b) whether, in addition, it contained also
certain other species not cited by name by Sowerby. On this question a clear
answer is provided by the decision by the Thirteenth International Congress
of Zoology, Paris, 1948, to insert in the Régles a provision that, “‘ where a
genus is established without a designated or indicated type species and only
one nominal species is cited as being referable to that genus, the nominal species
so cited is the type species of the genus by monotypy, irrespective of whether
or not the author concerned regarded the genus as monotypical ” (1950, Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 4 : 153). Under this provision the genus Inoceramus Sowerby,
1814, is therefore to be regarded as being, for nomenclatorial purposes, mono-
typical. Accordingly the Ruling given in Opinion 48 referred to above applies
in this case, and the description given by Sowerby provides the name Jnoceramus
cuviertt Sowerby, 1814, as well as the generic name Inoceramus Sowerby, with
an “indication”. The name Inoceramus cuvierti Sowerby is thus an available
name for the purpose of nomenclature.

7. The next point to be considered is whether the “ indication ” given by
Sowerby for his Inoceramus cuvierii is sufficient to permit of the identification

242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

of the species so named or whether from the taxonomic point of view the above
name must be put on one side as a nomen dubium. If we were required for this
purpose to rely solely upon the published words, it would not be possible to
establish a definite identification from these words, for there several species
which are quite common at particular horizons. But here it is necessary to
take into account another decision by the Paris (1948) Congress, namely
that in which it clarified the status of a holotype or lectotype in relation to an
inadequate original description. On this subject the Congress decided that
the provisions of Article 31 relating to holotypes and lectotypes were applicable
in this type of case in the same way as in any other case (1950, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 4 : 292—293). An example of a case where this principle has already
been applied by the Commission is provided by the case of the name Pholido-
cidaris Meek & Worthen, 1869 (Class Echinoidea). The facts of this case,
which was first submitted to the Commission by the late Dr. Mortensen and
others in 1932 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10) 10 : 345—368), were summarised by
Mr. Hemming, as Secretary to the Commission, in a note published in 1952
(Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 219—220). In this case there were two nominal
genera, of which the later, Pholidocidaris Meek & Worthen, 1869, was in general
use, while the older name Protoechinus Austin, 1860, had long been treated as
a nomen dubium, owing to the impossibility of identifying with certainty its
type species, Protoechinus anceps Austin. Bather (1918) showed however that
the holotype of anceps Austin was a species belonging to the genus then known
by the name Pholidocidaris and in consequence that that generic name was
a junior subjective synonym of Protoechinus Austin. To prevent the confusion
which this change of name would produce the Commission was asked to
suppress the name Protoechinus under its Plenary Powers, thereby retaining
Pholidocidaris as the oldest available name for this genus. Mr. Hemming
informs me that the application submitted in this case has now been approved
by the Commission and has been embodied in Opinion 373, now in the press.

8. It is necessary therefore at this point to enquire if any syntypes of
Sowerby’s Inoceramus cuvierti of 1822 and therefore of 1814 (the paper of
the earlier year being no more than an abstract of that of 1822) are still
extant. The British Museum Collection contains one specimen which is
undoubtedly one of the two figured syntypes and another labelled with a
query as the other, but which differs greatly from the figure. Of these specimens
Woods (1912, Cret. Lamellibr. England 2 : 315, text-fig. 73) referred to the
first as “the type”. It could be argued that this action could be regarded
as constituting the selection of that specimen to be the lectotype of Inoceramus
cuvierii. In view, however, of the possibility that the opposite view might be
held, and, as no later author has dealt with this subject, I take this opportunity
hereby formally to select this specimen to be the lectotype of this species.
It is the specimen represented in J. Sowerby’s (1822) pl. 25, figs. 2 and 3, which
was re-figured by J. de C. Sowerby in 1923 (Min. Conch. 5 : pl. 441, fig. 1).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 243

9. The labels attached to, or associated with, the lectotype now selected
are the following :—

(1) Labels attached to the specimen :
(a) a yellow ticket with the Registration Number 43264 ;
(b) a small green ticket indicating “ figured specimen ” ;

(c) a label in very old handwriting, possibly that of J. de C. Sowerby,
with the words “‘ Inoceramus Linn. Soc. 1 Novr. 1814 M.C.441 ” ;

(d) a small label with the words ‘‘ Inoceramus Cuvieri M.C.441 f.1 ” ;

(2) Labels associated with the specimen :

(a) a standard label of recent origin, with information regarding the
provenance and history of the specimen ;

(b) a label “‘ Lectotype, Cox, 1955’.

10. By the lectotype selection made in this case the name Inoceramus
cuvierit Sowerby (J.), 1814, is firmly linked to the species figured (pl. 25,
figs. 1—3) under this name by Sowerby in 1822. Since Inoceramus cuvierii
Sowerby, 1814, is the sole nominal species cited by Sowerby at the time when
he published the generic name Inoceramus, this species is, as we have seen,
the type species by monotypy of the genus so named. The indication of this
species as the type species under Rule (c) in Article 30 replaces the selection
under Rule (g) in that Article of Inoceramus Lamarckii Parkinson, 1819 (T'rans.
geol. Soc. Lond. 5(1) : 55) as the type species made by myself in 1928 (Quart. J.
geol. Soc. Lond. 84 : 233—245) long before the decisions by the Paris Congress
discussed in paragraphs 6 and 7 above made it clear that Inoceramus cuviertt
Sowerby, 1814, was a name duly provided with an “ indication ”’ as required
by Article 25 and not a nomen nudum, as I then considered it to be. This
adjustment of the species to be accepted as the type species of the genus
Inoceramus will involve no change in the concept represented by this genus,
for I. cuvierti Sowerby, 1814 (=I. cuvierti Sowerby, 1822) and I. lamarckii
Parkinson, 1819, are currently treated as being congeneric with one another.

11. I recommend that the Commission, when dealing with the present case,
should take the opportunity to place on the Official Index of Rejected and

_ Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the specific names comprised in the three

binomina which are junior homonyms of Inoceramus cuvierti Sowerby, 1814.
These are :—(1) Inoceramus cuvierit Smith (W.), 1816 (Strata organ. Foss. :
10, “ Lower Chalk ”’ pl., fig. 1). I have shown (Cox, 1930, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist.
(10) 6 : 291), on the basis of an examination of Smith’s figured specimen,
which is preserved in the British Museum, that this binomen applies to an
entirely different species, now placed in a different genus. The species concerned

244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

is Inoceramus involutus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1828 (Min. Conch. 6 : 160), which
is the type species by original designation of the genus Volviceramus Stoliczka,
1871 (Cret. Faun. 8. India, Pelecypoda : 394). (2) Inoceramus cuviert, Mantell,
1822 [May] (Foss. S. Downs : 213, pl. 27, fig. 4 ; pl. 28, figs. 1, 4), which Woods
(1911, Cret. Lamellibr. England 2 : 314) identified as the typical form of
Inoceramus lamarckii Parkinson. (3) Inoceramus cuvierit Sowerby (J.), [1822,
post-Oct.] (Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 13 : 457, pl. 25, figs. 1—3), which, as already
explained, is a junior objective synonym of, as well as a junior primary hononym
of, Inoceramus cuvierti Sowerby (J.), 1814.

12. The nominal genus Inoceramus Sowerby was made the type genus of
a subfamily INOCERAMINAE by Zittel in 1881 (Handb. Palaeont., Pal. 2 : 36).
Zittel has not been followed by later authors, with the exception of Heinz
(1932, Mitt. min.-geol. Staatsint. Hamburg 13:5). By other authors the
genus Inoceramus has been treated as belonging to the same family-group
taxon as the genus Jsognomon [Humphrey (ex Solander)], 1786 (Cat. Portland
Mus. : 41). There is not agreement however as to the use of this name for
this genus or as to what name should be used for the family-group so recognised.
This is a matter which ought to be settled with as little further delay as possible,
and it is my intention to submit an application on this subject to the Inter-
national Commission. So far as the present case is concerned, I recommend
that, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the International Congress
of Zoology, the Commission should place the family-group name INOCERAMINAE
Zittel, 1881, on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, with a
note that it has been so added for use by specialists who consider that the
genus Inoceramus Sowerby, 1814, should be placed in a family-group taxon
not possessing an older name.

13. In the light of the considerations advanced in the present application,
the International Commission is asked :—

(1) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology :—
(a) Inoceramus Sowerby (J.), 1814 (gender : masculine) (type species,
by monotypy: Inoceramus cuviertt Sowerby (J.), 1814, as
defined by the present lectotype selection by Cox) ;

(b) Volviceramus Stoliczka, 1871 (gender: masculine) (type species,
by original designation : Inoceramus involutus Sowerby (J. de C.),
1828) ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of

Specific Names in Zoology :—

(a) cuvierii Sowerby (J.), 1814, as published in the combination
Inoceramus cuvierii and as defined by the lectotype selection
specified in (1)(a) above (specific name of type species of Ino-
ceramus Sowerby (J.), 1814) ;

ee

Pes te ee eee ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 245

(b) involutus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1828, as published in the combination
Inoceramus involutus (specific name of type species of Volvi-
ceramus Stoliczka, 1871) ;

(c) lamarckit Parkinson, 1819, as published in the combination
Inoceramus lamarckiz ;

(3) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :—

(a) the under-mentioned junior primary homonyms of cwvierit Sowerby
(J.), 1814, as published in the combination Inoceramus cuviertt :—

(i) cuviert Smith (W.), 1816, as published in the combination
Inoceramus cuvieri ;

(ii) cuviert Mantell, 1822 [May], as published in the combination
Inoceramus cuvieri ;

(b) cuvierti Sowerby (J.), [1822 post Oct.], as published in the
combination Inoceramus cuvierit (a junior primary homonym of,
and a junior objective synonym of, cuvierit Sowerby (J.), 1814,
as published in the combination Inoceramus cuvierit.

(4) to place the under-mentioned name on the Official List of Family-
Group Names in Zoology : INOCERAMINAE Zittel, 1881 (type genus:
Inoceramus Sowerby (J.), 1814) (with a note that this name has been
so added for use by specialists who place the genus Inoceramus
Sowerby in a family-group taxon not possessing an older name).

246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

REQUEST FOR A “ DECLARATION ” CLARIFYING THE STATUS

UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF NAMES FOR TAXA PUBLISHED IN THE

INDEXES OF WORKS IN THE TEXT OF WHICH THOSE TAXA
WERE DESCRIBED ONLY UNDER VERNACULAR NAMES

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 929)

The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission
to render a Declaration clarifying the status, under Article 25 of the Régles,
of names for taxa published in the indexes to works in the text of which those
taxa were described only under vernacular names. The origin and scope of
the present proposal are explained in the following paragraphs.

2. The present problem came to notice at the time when in 1954 the Com-
mission was voting (on Voting Paper V.P.(54)36) on the proposals relating
to the date as from which the generic name Antirhynchonella was available
under the Régles, submitted by Dr. Thomas W. Amsden (The Johns Hopkins
University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (Amsden, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencel.
6 : 242—244). It will be recalled that the feature of this application was that
the name Antirhynchonella had first appeared in print in 1871 in the index to
volume 2 of Quenstedt’s Die Brachiopoden. The sole “indication” given
for this name in the index was a reference to a page in the volume in which
Quenstedt had described a group to which he had applied the vernacular
(German) term “Antirhynchonellen ” but to which he had not applied a name
in due Latinised form. Dr. Amsden asked that the Commission should give
a Ruling that the name Antirhynchonella as published in the index to Quenstedt’s
work was a nomen nudum and therefore that this generic name ranked for the
purposes of priority as from the first occasion subsequent to Quenstedt’s
book on which it was duly published with an “indication”. This proposal
was approved unanimously by the whole Commission and the decision so taken
has since been embodied in Opinion 377 (now in the press).

3. At the time when the voting was proceeding on the above case,
it was suggested to me that it was desirable that the Commission should take the
opportunity to clarify the status under Article 25 of names published only in
the indexes to works in the body of which the taxa concerned had been described
only under vernacular names. It was decided that this general question should

Bull, zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 8. July 1955.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 247

form the subject of a special study with the view to the submission to the
Commission of a request for an interpretative Declaration. The present
application represents the upshot of the discussions which have since taken
place on this subject.

4, The manner in which duly formed binominal names have first appeared
in the indexes to wholly or partly non-binominal works varies greatly and it is
not possible to lay down any simple rule on this subject.

5. At one end of the scale stand names such as Antirhynchonella as published
in the index to Quenstedt’s book which the Commission has ruled to be a
nomen nudum. In this case no other conclusion could, in my view, have been
reached, for there is nothing in the index to indicate that the name Anti-
rhynchonella was there consciously introduced as a new generic name and the
fact that in this work Quenstedt gave a list of the genera and subgenera which
he recognised but did not include in that list the name Antirhynchonella creates
a strong presumption that the name Antirhynchonella as contrasted with
the vernacular expression “‘Antirhynchonellen ”’ found its way into the index
by some inadvertence. Indeed, there is nothing to show that the index
to the Die Brachiopoden was the work of Quenstedt himself, and it may well be
that the appearance in this index of the word “Antirhynchonella ”’ in Latinised
form was the result only of a mistake in copying by some indexer.

6. At the other end of the scale stand the names given to species in the
indexes of the three volumes of Drury’s Illustrations of Natural History
published in the period 1770—1782. The main text of this richly illustrated
work is non-binominal, the species being referred to under vernacular names.
In the index to each volume each of the species described and figured in the
text is given a properly formed Latin binominal name. The names so given
in the indexes have been universally accepted by entomologists and rightly
so, because the way in which they were published provided clear evidence of
a deliberate intention to publish names duly formed in accordance with the
Linnean system for the taxa described under vernacular names in the body of
the work. (In this particular case a complication arises from the fact, not
always recognised, that the index to Vol. 1 was published considerably later than
the main text to which it refers and therefore that the names for the species
described and figured by Drury in Vol. 1 of his Illustrations rank for purposes of
priority as from a date later by several years than that which appears on the
title-page of that volume of the work. In order to get this matter finally cleared
up, it is my intention shortly to submit to the Commission a proposal that the
title of Drury’s Illustrations should be entered on the Official List of Works
Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature, with a note as to the dates
as from which the names published in that work rank for purposes of priority.)
Another example of a non-binominal work to which was annexed an index or
supplement containing names formed in accordance with the Linnean system
for taxa described, but not so named, in the main text of the work is provided

248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

by George Edwards’ (1771) edition of Catesby’s Natural History of Carolina.
In this case the Commission has already ruled in Opinion 259 (1954, Ops.
Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencel. 5 : 253—264) that, while names in the main
text of this work are to be rejected, any new names published in the Linnean
“Concordance ”’ at the end of the Edwards edition are to be regarded as
satisfying the requirements of Article 25 of the Régles.

7. As the result of my examination of this matter, I have come to the
conclusion that a distinction must be drawn between cases where the index
contains some evidence of the intention of the author to publish a new name in
this rather irregular fashion and cases where no such evidence is provided.
Moreover, this problem arises in a rather different way in connection with the
indexes both of works by non-binominal authors (such as Drury in the case
cited in paragraph 6 above) and of works by binominal authors (e.g. Milne
Edwards (H.), in the index to volume 2 of whose Histoire Naturelle des
Crustacés the binomen Pontonia inflata was given (as Dr. Holthuis has
pointed out) to the species which in the main body of the work was referred
to only under the French name “ Pontonie enflée’’). In the case of works
by non-binominal authors, there should, I consider, be some indication
of intention to publish a name formed in accordance with the Linnean
system, while in the case of binominal authors, all that is necessary is that
there should be evidence of an intention to publish a new name. I am of
the opinion also that in the case of non-binominal authors the recognition of
names published in indexes should be limited to names given to genera and
species, for difficulties and confusion would certainly arise if such recognition
were to be given to nouns or adjectives cited in the plural as being given to
taxa of suprageneric categories.

8. My conclusions in this matter are set out in the following draft of a
Declaration which I recommend the Commission to render on this subject :—

Draft Declaration

(1) A Latin name published as the name for a taxon of any rank in the
index to a work by a binominal author who in the body of work had described
that taxon concerned without giving it such a name is to be accepted in cases
where the entry in the index contains evidence of an intention to publish
the name concerned as a new name, additional to that provided by the reference
given to a page in the main body of the work, e.g. by the addition of a footnote
to the name or otherwise. ‘

(2) A Latin name published as the name for a genus or species in the index
of a work by a non-binominal author is to be accepted only where evidence
is provided in the index of an intention to form the name in accordance with the
Linnean system of binominal nomenclature.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 249

(3) In all other cases a name published only in the index of a book is to
be rejected, save where, prior to 4th August 1953*, a name so published has
already come into common use, in which case that name is not to be rejected
without the prior authority of the Commission.

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS
TO PRESERVE THE GENERIC NAME “ HELICELLA”’’ FERUSSAC,
1821, FOR USE IN ITS ACCUSTOMED SENSE

By C. R. BOETTGER
(Zoologisches Institut der Technischen Hochschule Braunschweig,
Braunschweig, Germany)
(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 214)

(For the proposal submitted in this case, see 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9(10) :
304—308)

(Letter dated 14th March 1955)

Thank you very much, indeed, for the reprint of your paper on the proposed
use of the Plenary Powers to preserve the generic name Helicella Férussac. I read
it with great interest, agree with your proposal, and I hope that we shall soon have
a useful nomenclature.

* The closing date of the Copenhagen Congress.

250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED ENTRY ON THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF WORKS

APPROVED AS AVAILABLE FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN-

CLATURE ”’ OF THE TITLE OF DRU DRURY’S “ ILLUSTRATIONS

OF NATURAL HISTORY ’? AND DETERMINATION OF THE DATES

TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE NAMES PUBLISHED IN THE
SEVERAL VOLUMES OF THAT WORK

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 930)

In a paper numbered Z.N.(S.) 929 I have submitted a recommendation that
the International Commission should adopt a Declaration defining the conditions
in which a name published in the index of a book is to be accepted as possessing
the status of availability. The foregoing problem first came to notice in con-
nection with the application regarding the generic name Antirhynchonella
(Class Brachiopoda) submitted by Dr. Thomas W. Amsden (7'he Johns Hopkins
University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.), a name which was first published in
the index to a work by Quenstedt in the body of which the group concerned was
referred to only under the vernacular (German) term ‘“ Antirhynchonellen ”
(Amsden, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 242—244)?.

2. In the application referred to above I mentioned the very important
case represented by Dru Drury’s Illustrations of Natural History and expressed
the view that it was desirable that, as soon as the Commission had taken
a decision on the question of adopting the Declaration there recommended, it
should give a Ruling that the names published in the index to Drury’s book
were available under Article 25. The facts of this case are set out below.

3. Drury’s Illustrations of Natural History, the first volume of which was
published in 1770, consists of three volumes illustrated by a large number of
well executed coloured plates of exotic insects. In the text these species are
referred to only under vernacular names. In the preface to the second volume
published in 1773 Drury mentioned that his first volume had been criticised
because he had not given scientific names for the species which he had described
and figured in that volume. He added that he proposed now to remedy this
defect by giving for those species “ generic and trivial ’’ names as in the system
originated by Linnaeus. He carried out this intention by supplying these
names in a special index. He did this not only for the volume immediately
concerned (vol. 2) and for the concluding volume (vol. 3) but also for volume 1.

1 See pp. 246—249 of the present volume.

2 The Commission’s decision in this case has since been embodied in Opinion 374 (now in
the press).
Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 8. July 1955.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 251

The index for this latter volume was published at the same time as volume 2,
ie. in 1773. Thus, although the text and plates belonging to volume 1 were
published in 1770, the index in which the scientific names for the insects
described and figured in that year were given did not appear until three years
later. The third volume was published in 1782.

4. The names published by Drury in the manner described above have
been universally—and rightly—accepted by entomologists, but in the special
circumstances it is desirable that the seal of official approval should be given
to this practice by adding the title of Drury’s book to the Official List. It is
desirable that at the same time a note should be inserted as to the date as from
which the names published in the index to volume 1 rank for purposes of
priority, for Drury’s note in the preface to volume 2 has at times been over-
looked and in consequence names so published have sometimes been attributed
to the year 1770, i.e. to the date on which the text and plates of that volume
were published, instead of to the date, three years later, when those names
were actually published.

5. The International Commission is accordingly asked to place the title
of the under-mentioned work on the Official List of Works Approved as Available
for Zoological Nomenclature with the note shown below as to the date as from
which names published in this work rank for purposes of priority :—Drury (D.),
1770—1782, Illustrations of Natural History : volume 1, [1773] (the date of
publication of the index in which the scientific names for species described
in this volume were first published) ; volume 2, 1773 ; vol. 3, 1782.

252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS,

FOR THE GENERIC NAME ‘“ LERNAEOCERA”’’? (EMEND OF

““LERNEOCERA ’”’) BLAINVILLE, 1822 (CLASS CRUSTACEA,

ORDER COPEPODA) OF A TYPE SPECIES IN HARMONY WITH
CURRENT NOMENCLATORIAL USAGE

By PAUL L. ILLG
(Department of Zoology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.)

(Commission’s Reference : Z.N.(S.) 755)

The object of the present application is to secure authority from the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for the continued use of the
well-known generic name Lernaeocera Blainville, 1822 (emend of Lerneocera by
Nordmann, 1832), in the sense established by Wilson (C.B.), 1917, with the
type species Lernaea branchialis Linnaeus, 1767.

2. The genus Lernaea was included by Linnaeus in Systema Naturae, 10th
edition, 1758 (1 : 655) and comprised three species, L. cyprinacea, L. asellina,
and L. salmonea, listed by him in the order here presented. In the 12th edition
of 1767 Linnaeus repeated this treatment, but in addition included a new
species, L. branchialis (1 : 1092), which was placed first in the listing. Blainville
(1822, J. Physique 95) reallocated most of the many species which had accumu-
lated by that date in Lernaea to new genera proposed by him. For a group of
species, including L. branchialis L. and L. cyprinacea L., Blainville (: 375)
erected the genus Lerneocera [sic.]. In the original proposition of the genus,
Blainville, although clearly indicating that his object was the subdivision
of the Linnaean genus Lernaea, spelled the name under consideration as Lerneo-
cera. Nordmann (1832, Mikrogr. Beitr. Naturg. wirbel. Thiere, pt. 2 : 54) used
the emendation conforming to Linnaeus’s spelling, and this has been practically
universally employed since.

3. Kroyer (1835, Naturh. Tidsskr. 1 : 191) partially reversing Blainville’s
treatment, synonymized with Lernaea part of the genus Lernaeocera of Blain-
ville. He assigned L. branchialis L., L. cyclopterina Fabricius and L. surrirensis
[sic] Blainville to Lernaea and (: 192) placed L. cyprinacea L. and L. esocina
Burmeister in Lernaeocera. This scheme, with the additional weight of the
precedence of L. branchialis in the list of species of Lernaea in the 12th edition
of the Systema Naturae, was adopted as general usage by succeeding 19th
century authors and the majority of references to Lernaea branchialis L. are
under the Linnaean generic name.

4. Cunnington (1914, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1914 : 820) was the first author
to designate a type species for the genus Lernaeocera Blainville. He was aware

Bull. zool. Nomenel. Vol. 11, Part 8. July 1955.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 253

of the ambiguities existing in the historical usage and of the proprieties involved
with reference to the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. In
order to secure the continued association of the genus Lernaeocera with the
series of freshwater parasitic copepods long known under that generic name,
Cunnington designated L. cyprinacea L. as the type species of the genus.

5. Lernaeocera in its current usage for distinctive marine parasites was
*‘ restored ”’ by C. B. Wilson (1917, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., 58) by his designation
(: 37) for the type species of Lernaea Linnaeus of L. cyprinacea L., 1758, and
(: 84) for the type of Lernaeocera Blainville of L. branchialis Linnaeus, 1767.
No author prior to Wilson had expressly selected a type species for Lernaea
' Linnaeus, so the result of Wilson’s action is to establish Lernaeocera as an
objective synonym of Lernaea, and the genus of which L. branchialis is the
type species is without an available generic name. It is hereby therefore
proposed to resort to the Plenary Powers of the Commission for validation of
the name Lernaeocera.

6. The abandonment of the generic name Lernaeocera (as would be entirely
proper and regular under application of the normal provisions of the Rules of
Nomenclature) would be a most unfortunate compounding of a state of confusion
and vexation already existing with regard to this animal. Lernaea branchialis
Linnaeus has been widely cited in textbooks and other works of general
application as a classical example of a parasitic copepod exhibiting profound

modifications of structure, physiological processes, and life history. An
extensive literature has been built up with reference to these features. Between
the date of Kroyer’s revision and the time of Wilson’s treatment, nearly a
century, usage was almost universal in referring the species to Lernaea Linnaeus,
which was a thoroughly logical development of the arrangement of Linnaeus’s
12th edition. The adoption of the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae as the
basis of the International Rules provided the technicality which led Wilson
to switching the long established usage. Workers publishing since Wilson’s
action have been most remarkably unanimous in their deference to this strict
adherence to the Rules of Nomenclature. However, it has not yet been pointed
out in any publication available to me that the logical conclusion of the process
which Wilson initiated would be the submergence of the name Lernaeocera.

7. Wilson, 1917 (: 81) in his revision of the LERNAEIDAE, used Lernaeocera,
in the sense of his new designation, as the type genus of a subfamily LERNAEO-
CERINAE. Gurney (1932, British Freshwater Copepoda, 3 : 336) elevated the
group to full familial status.

8. As has been explained earlier in the present application, the spelling
Lerneocera used by Blainville in 1822 when establishing the genus so named

254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

was emended to Lernaeocera by Nordmann in 1832 and that spelling has been
used by almost all subsequent authors. The authoritative works of Wilson,
1917, and of Gurney, 1932, indicate in their synonymies such usage. It would
clearly lead to undesirable instability and interference with current nomen-
clatorial practice if it were necessary now to revert to the original but incorrect .
spelling used by Blainville. The Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology
at Copenhagen in 1953 provided a means for preventing disturbances in nomen-
clature of this kind (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl.: 45—46),
but this procedure is not appropriate in a case like the present where
an immediate decision is required. Without such a decision it will not be
possible for the Commission to deal with the main part of the present
application, namely the designation of an appropriate type species for Blain-
ville’s genus under the Plenary Powers, for, in taking a decision in this sense
the Commission would be bound to place the generic name in question on the
Official List and this would not be possible until a decision had been reached
on the question of the spelling to be approved for that genus. I therefore ask
the Commission, while using its Plenary Powers for the purpose of designating
a type species for this genus, to use those Powers also for the purpose of approving
the spelling Lernaeocera, for this is the only way by which that spelling can be
standardized and confusion avoided.

9. To prevent further complication in the literature, which reversal in
usage in application of these names has already brought about, the following
proposal is submitted for consideration by the Commission, namely :—

(1) that is should use its Plenary Powers :—

(a) to approve the emendation to Lernaeocera of the generic name
Lerneocera Blainville, 1822 ;

(b) to set aside all type selections for the foregoing genus made prior
to the decision now asked for and to designate Lernaea branchialis
Linnaeus, 1767, to be its type species ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology :—

(a) Lernaea Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: feminine) (type species, by
selection by Wilson (1917) : Lernaea cyprinacea Linnaeus, 1758) ;

(b) Lernaeocera (emendation under the Plenary Powers, under (1)(a)
above, of Lerneocera) Blainville, 1822 (gender : feminine) (type
species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under
(1)(b) above : Lernaea branchialis Linnaeus, 1767) ;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 255

(3) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology :—

(a) cyprinacea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination
Lernaea cyprinacea (specific name of type species of Lernaea
Linnaeus, 1758) ;

(b) branchialis Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination
Lernaea branchialis (specific name of type species, by designation,
under the Plenary Powers, under (1)(b) above, of Lernaeocera
(emend. of Lerneocera) Blainville, 1822).

SUPPORT FOR DR. I. H. H. YARROW’S PROPOSAL FOR THE

REPHRASING OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTER-

NATIONAL COMMISSION REGARDING THE NAME OF THE
TYPE SPECIES OF “ FORMICA’? LINNAEUS, 1758

By H. BISCHOFF
(Kustos am Zoologischen Museum der Humboldt-Universitat, Berlin)
(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 776)
(For Dr. Yarrow’s proposals, see 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9(10) : 313—317)
(Communication received 17th February 1955)

I strongly support Dr. I. H. H. Yarrow’s application for the suppression of
Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1758 ; the retention of Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1761 with
the type, a female ; and the retention of Formica Linnaeus, 1758, with the type
species Formica rufa Linnaeus, 1761.

256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED ADOPTION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF A
** DECLARATION ”? CONFERRING UPON THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE POWER TO
PRESCRIBE FOR GROUPS OF GENERIC NAMES OR FOR INDI-
VIDUAL GENERIC NAMES, A GENDER DIFFERENT FROM THAT
GRAMMATICALLY APPROPRIATE TO THE WORD CONCERNED,
IN CASES WHERE SUCH ACTION IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO AVOID
CHANGES IN ACCEPTED NOMENCLATORIAL PRACTICE ; AND
MATTERS INCIDENTAL THERETO

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 938)

The purpose of the present application is to review certain aspects of the
rules laid down by the Copenhagen (1953) Congress for determining the gender
to be attributed to generic names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl.
: 49—51, Decision 84) in the light of the experience gained in operating those
rules in connection with generic names placed on the Official List. The present
appears to be an opportune moment for such a review, for during the last
twelve months the question of the gender to be assigned to the six hundred
and twenty-five (625) generic names placed on the Official List prior to the
Paris (1948) Congress has been examined in detail in conjunction with the
Commission’s Classical Advisers, and for 479 of these names proposals have been
considered by the Commission. In 460 of these cases the Copenhagen Rules
have worked satisfactorily and the Commission has been able to take decisions
which are in harmony both with those Rules and with the practice of specialists
in the groups concerned. In 17 cases, however, difficulties have arisen and as
yet no decision has been taken by the Commission.

2. Of these seventeen names, thirteen are cases where the gender currently
adopted by specialists is not the gender prescribed by the Copenhagen Rules ;
the other four are cases where some special point, unconnected with the
Copenhagen Rules, calls for special consideration. Of these latter four cases,
two are still under investigation and the difficulties as regards the third have
been satisfactorily removed. In consequence, action is still called for in one
case only at the present time.

8. It should be explained that the practice followed in determining the
gender to be attributed to generic names has been two-fold in character. As
a start, the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature invited Mr. F. J.
Lelievre, at that time Classical Lecturer at Bedford College, London University,
to furnish a report on the gender to be attributed to each of the 625 names

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 8. July 1955.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 2

placed on the Official List prior to the Paris Congress of 1948. Mr. Lelievre’s
Report has formed the basis of the recommendations submitted to the Com-
mission, subject to supplementary investigations undertaken for the purpose
of ascertaining whether the gender indicated in Mr. Lelievre’s Report was in
each case the gender currently adopted by specialists in the group concerned.
These investigations took two forms :—(1) Modern catalogues, checklists and
monographs were consulted by this Office ; (2) copies of the relevant portions
of Mr. Lelievre’s Report were sent to specialists for comment.

4, In the extensive correspondence which this Office has had with specialists
on the question of the gender of generic names, a strong general sentiment has
been found to exist in favour of the grant of approval for the gender currently
in use, in cases where that gender is at variance with the Rules laid down at
Copenhagen. Indeed, only two of the correspondents of the Commission have
taken the opposite view. Those Members of the Commission who have commented
on this subject in returning Voting Papers to this Office have, without exception,
taken the view that in cases where current practice and the Copenhagen Rules
come into collision with one another, it is current practice which should prevail.

5. Some of the correspondents of the Commission have suggested that not
all the Copenhagen Rules, relating to the gender to be attributed to names
consisting of compound words of Greek origin, were well conceived. This is
an issue which will need to be examined in conjunction with the Commission’s
Classical Advisers before the London Congress of 1958 in order to enable that
Congress to decide whether any change in those Rules is desirable. This
question is not however relevant to the issue which now calls for consideration,
since at least until the next Congress this matter is governed by the Copen-
hagen Rules. Moreover, a change in those Rules, even if judged desirable,
would not suffice to secure a valid basis for current usage in all cases. For
example, words having the termination “ -opsis ”, which under the Copenhagen
Rules are to be regarded as being feminine in gender, are treated as such in the
Insecta (e.g. T'ylopsis Fieber and Prophalangopsis Walker in the Order Ortho-
ptera), but are invariably treated in the Decapod Crustacea as being masculine
in gender (e.g. Atergatopsis Milne Edwards (A.) ; Chlorodopsis Milne Edwards
(A.) ; Hucratopsis Smith (S.1.)).

6. Many cases arise where the Copenhagen Rules prescribe one gender, but
in some Class of the Animal Kingdom specialists invariably assign a different
gender to names having a particular termination. A typical example of this
is provided by generic names having the termination “ -rhynchus ” which
under the Copenhagen Rules are to be treated as being neuter in gender but
which, as has been pointed out by Professor Alden H. Miller (University of
California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) and by Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum
of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U S.A.),
have always been treated in the Class Aves as being masculine in gender.

258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Professor Mayr has drawn attention also to similar cases in the birds, namely
names having the terminations “-gnathus” and “-rhamphus” which are
always treated as being masculine in gender but which are, under the Copen-
hagen Rules, in the case of “‘ -gnathus ”’ words, feminine, and, in the case of
*“* rthamphus ” words, neuter. Dr. Isobel Gordon (British Museum (Natural
History), London) and Dr. A. Fenner Chace, Jr. (United States National Museum,
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) have pointed out that the “-gnathus”’ problem
arises also in the Decapod Crustacea where, as in the birds, such names are
always treated as masculine in gender. The same specialists have noted also
that in the Decapoda all names having the termination “-opsis’’ are treated
as being masculine in gender, though under the Copenhagen Rules the correct
gender is feminine, as mentioned in para. 5 above. Similar treatment has been
given also, to one “ -gnathus ”’ name noted in the Class Pisces and to another
in the Class Amphibia, and to one “ -rhynchus ” name noted in the Acantho-
cephala. In the three cases in the birds and the one case in the Decapods
cited above it seems clear that there exists a general practice throughout
the group ; as regards the other groups noted, this may be true also, but the
number of ascertained cases is not sufficient to make it possible to express
a definite opinion at this stage.

7. In the case of the birds and the Decapod Crustacea, the two groups
which have been most intensively studied in this Office from the point of view
discussed above, all the specialists concerned have expressed themselves as
being opposed to the currently accepted practice being disturbed by compliance
with the Copenhagen Rules. The acceptance of an incorrect gender for a
generic name is naturally distasteful to any classically-minded zoologist, but
it is no more distasteful than the acceptance of glaringly ill-formed words, as
is now necessary under the revised rules relating to the emendation of zoological
names. These latter rules were introduced to meet the general feeling of
zoologists that zoological nomenclature should be freed, so far as possible,
from provisions of a linguistic character, and it would, it seems to me, be
illogical not to extend a similar indulgence towards the use of incorrect genders
when to do otherwise would be to upset established nomenclatorial practice.

8. In existing conditions no departure from the Copenhagen gender rules
is permissible unless sanctioned by the Commission acting under its Plenary
Powers. It would however be a very slow and laborious process if it were
necessary for the Commission to deal separately under its Plenary Powers
with, say, every generic name in the birds having a “ -rhynchus ” termination
in order to secure that each such name shall be treated as being masculine
in gender instead of, as prescribed by the Copenhagen Rules, neuter in gender.
Moreover, no useful purpose would be served by such a procedure in view of
the fact that in each case the relevant arguments would be exactly the same.
Indeed, such a procedure would be ritualistic in the extreme. It would
moreover be open to the strong objection that it would involve the International
Trust for Zoological Nomenclature in a heavy and quite pointless expenditure

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 259

in the publication of applications in the Bulletin and later in the publication
of Opinions setting out the decisions taken by the Commission on those
applications. The use of the limited space in the Bulletin for such a purpose
would have the further disadvantage that it would inevitably delay the publica-
tion of applications on other subjects on which specialists are anxious to obtain
decisions from the Commission with the minimum of delay.

9. It seems clear therefore that some modification in existing procedure is
needed to deal with the class of case discussed above. It is accordingly suggested
that under its Plenary Powers the Commission should now adopt a Declaration
providing that, where, after due enquiry, it is satisfied that in any group in the
Animal Kingdom the gender attributed by specialists to a given generic name,
or type of name, is not in harmony with the rules relating to the determination
of the gender attributable to that name or to that type of name, it may render
a Direction that the gender to be accepted for that name, or those names, be
the gender commonly attributed thereto by specialists in the group concerned.
For reasons similar to those discussed above, it would be helpful if the suggested
Declaration were to contain a provision that, where it is a matter of doubt
what is the gender correctly attributable to a given generic name, the Com-
mission may, by Direction, determine the gender to be used for that name in
the light of the usage current among specialists in the group concerned.

260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED DETERMINATION, EITHER DIRECT UNDER THE NORMAL
PLENARY POWERS PROCEDURE OR INDIRECTLY THROUGH THE
MODIFIED PROCEDURE RECOMMENDED IN APPLICATION Z.N.(S.) 938,
OF THE GENDER TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO ONE TYPE OF NAME IN THE
CLASS AVES, TO TWO TYPES OF NAME IN THE CLASS CRUSTACEA
(ORDER DECAPODA) AND TO THE NAMES OF FOUR GENERA
BELONGING TO THE CLASSES ACANTHOCEPHALA, AMPHIBIA,
CRUSTACEA AND PISCES RESPECTIVELY.

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 942)

In Application Z.N.(S.) 938 I have drawn attention to the fact that in
certain groups, specialists always attribute to generic names having given
terminations, a gender different from that prescribed for names having those
terminations under the Rules adopted by the International Congress of Zoology,
Copenhagen, 1953 (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 49—51,
Decision 84). In the same application I recommended the adoption under
the Plenary Powers of a Declaration providing that the Commission may
direct that in cases of the type discussed above the gender to be attributed
(a) to names of particular types in specified groups in the Animal Kingdom or
(b) to individual names shall be the gender commonly attributed thereto by
specialists in the group concerned.

2. In three cases of the type discussed above, the preparation of the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology for publication in book form is being held up
through lack of a decision as to the gender to be attributed to the generic names
concerned. Similarly, the gender for four individual names is also, for the time,
held up. In order to avoid unnecessary delays in the preparation of the
Official List, I now ask the Commission to direct that the gender to be attributed
to the generic names in question shall be the gender commonly attributed to
them by specialists in the group concerned. As regards the procedure to be
adopted for this purpose I ask that the action proposed be taken under the
special procedure recommended in Application Z.N.(S.) 938, if that procedure
has been approved by the time that the Commission comes to take a decision
on the present case. Alternatively, if a decision on that Application has not
been taken by the date in question, I ask that the action required be taken direct
under the normal Plenary Powers procedure.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 8. July 1955.

po

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 261

8. In each of the cases dealt with in the present application the action
recommended has, as its purpose, the assignment to the generic name con-
cerned of the gender commonly attributed to it by specialists in the group
concerned. The recommendations now submitted have been prepared after
consultation with specialists in the groups concerned. Fuller particulars
have been given in Application Z.N.(S.) 938.

4. Alternative proposals are submitted as follows :—

(A) If Application Z.N.(S.) 938 has been approved by the Commission
by the date on which a decision is taken on
the present application

If the circumstances at the date in question are as set out above, the
Commission is asked to render a Direction under the modified Plenary Powers
procedure recommended in Application Z.N.(S.) 938, prescribing :—

(1) that in the case of the name of any genus in the Class Aves having
the termination “-rhynchus”’, the gender to be attributed to that
name shall be the masculine gender ;

(2) that in the case of the name of a genus belonging to the Order Decapoda
of the Class Crustacea having either of the terminations specified
below, the gender to be attributed to that name shall be the masculine
gender :—

(a) Names having the termination ‘‘-opsis ” ;
(b) Names having the termination ‘“-gnathus ” ;

(3) that the gender to be attributed to the under-mentioned generic names
shall be the masculine gender :—

(a) Gigantorhynchus Hamann, 1892 (Acanthocephala) ;
(b) Desmognathus Baird, 1850 (Amphibia) ;

(c) Nephrops [Leach], [1814] (Crustacea) ;

(d) Syngnathus Linnaeus, 1758 (Pisces).

(B) If Application Z.N.(S.) 938 has not been approved by the Commission
by the date on which a decision is taken on
the present application

If the Commission has not taken a decision on the foregoing application
by the time that it comes to deal with the present application, it is asked to

262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

direct under its Plenary Powers that the gender to be attributed to the under-
mentioned generic names shall be the masculine gender :—

(a) Aulacorhynchus Gould, 1834 Class Aves

(b) Hurynorhynchus Nilsson, 1821 2

(c) Sphenorynchus Lichtenstein, 1823 i

(d) Atergatopsis Milne Edwards (A.), 1862 Class Crustacea

(e) Chlorodopsis Milne Edwards (A.), 1873 as
(f) Hucratopsis Smith (S8.I.), 1869 “t
(g) Asthenognathus Stimpson, 1858 a
(h) Chasmagnathus de Haan, [1835] a
(i) Ptychognathus Stimpson, 1858 os
(j) Pyaxidognathus Milne Edwards (A.), 1879

(k) Gigantorhynchus Hamaan, 1892 Class Acanthocephala
(1) Desmognathus Baird, 1850 Class Amphibia
(m) Nephrops [Leach], [1814] Class Crustacea

(n) Syngnathus Linnaeus, 1758 Class Pisces

|

Tait, a a a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 263

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DETERMINE FOR THE

GENERIC NAME “VARUNA” MILNE EDWARDS (H.), 1830 (CLASS

CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA) A GENDER IN HARMONY WITH
ACCUSTOMED USAGE

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 943)

The purpose of the present application is to ask the Commission to use its
Plenary Powers for the purpose of designating for the generic name Varuna
Milne Edwards, 1830 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) a gender in harmony
with accustomed usage. This generic name was placed on the Official List
of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 85. It is necessary
therefore that an appropriate gender should be attributed to this name as
soon as possible, in order that the preparation of the Official List for publication
in book-form may not be held up on this account. The facts of this case are
set out below.

?

2. The word “ Varuna” is a non-Classical word and by reason of its “-a’

- termination, it was allotted a feminine gender by Mr. F. J. Lelievre in his report

on genders, on the analogy of Latin nouns belonging to the first declension.
The literature shows that from Milne Edwards onwards, authors have treated
the generic name Varuna as being feminine in gender.

8. Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden,
The Netherlands), while agreeing that it was desirable that the feminine gender
should be attributed to this name in view of the fact that it is always treated
as being of that gender, was the first to point out that this word should probably
be treated as being masculine in gender, it being likely that, in naming this
crab, Milne Edwards selected for its name “ the name of the god of the waters,
the Indian Neptune of Hindoo mythology ” (letter dated 16th February 1955).
Reference to Milne Edwards’s original description fully bears out Professor
Boschma’s hypothesis, for in that description Milne Edwards wrote: “ Le
nom de Varuna, par lequel nous le designons génériquement, est celui de l’un
des genies des eaux dans la mythologie indienne.” It is clear therefore that
under the Régles this generic name is masculine in gender.

4, I have consulted both Dr. A. Fenner Chace (United States National
Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) and Dr. Isobel Gordon (British Museum
(Natural History), London) on this case. Dr. Chace, while stating that it
seems to matter little which gender is assigned to it, says that this name

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 8. July 1955.

264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

“would be more readily acceptable to all carcinologists if it is treated as
feminine ”’ (letter of 22nd March 1955). Dr. Gordon replied (12th April 1955)
that, in her opinion, ‘‘ Varwna should be retained as feminine. Even Milne
Edwards used the combination Varuna litterata from the start.”

5. In the circumstances, I recommend that, either under the normal
Plenary Powers procedure or under those Powers through the modified procedure
recommended in Application Z.N.(S.) 938, the Commission should direct that
the generic name Varuna Milne Edwards (H.), 1830, be treated as being of the
feminine gender.

COMMENT ON MR. A. E. ELLIS’ PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY

POWERS TO PRESERVE THE GENERIC NAME ‘“ HELICELLA ”’

FERUSSAC, 1821 (CLASS GASTROPODA) FOR USE IN ITS
ACCUSTOMED SENSE

By LOTHAR FORCART
(Custos, Zoological Department, Naturhistorisches Museum, Basel, Switzerland)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 214)
(For Mr. Ellis’ application, see 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9(10) : 304—308))

(Extract from a letter dated 28th March 1955 from Dr. Forcart to Mr. A. E. Ellis
(Epsom College, Epsom, Surrey, England)

On pages 307 and 308, you supposed Schlesch, 1927 (Korresp. Bl. Naturf.-Ver.
Riga 59 : 116) to be the author of HELICELLINAE. Schlesch is not the author of
this subfamily, but Hesse in 1926 in ‘“‘ Beitréage zur genaueren Kenntnis der~
Subfamilie Helicellinae ’’ (Arch. Moll. 58(3) : 115, published Ist May 1926).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 265

OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO
SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAME ‘“‘ ACHORUTES’’ TEMPLETON,
1835 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLLEMBOLA)

By JIRI PACLT
(Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Czechoslovakia)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 303)
(For the case submitted, see 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11(2) : 38—48)
(Letter received Ist April 1955)

Being entirely in favour of the proposal that the Commission should use its
Plenary Powers to place the generic name Hypogastrura Bourlet, 1839, on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and to designate under the same Powers
Achorutes viaticus Tullberg, 1872, to be the type species of that genus, I think that
the strict application of the Rules must, on the other hand, be enforced in the
case of the generic name Achorutes Templeton, 1835.

When the use of the generic name Hypogastrura Bourlet, 1839, is stabilised
according to the proposal in question, all confusion in the use of the generic name
Achorutes Templeton, 1835, ceases since to exist for the latter name cannot be used
erroneously for the other genus (with A. wiaticus Tullberg as type species) any
longer. The same usage has been adopted not only by European authors, but also
by a number of non-European workers, e.g., Womersley (1939, Primitive Insects
of South Australia, Adelaide), who all reject the junior synonym Neanura
MacGillivray, 1893, in favour of Achorutes Templeton, 1835 (with A. muscorum
Templeton as type species). Besides these arguments another fact seems to support
my objection to the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the generic
name Achorutes Templeton, 1835. The etymology of the generic name Achorutes
indicates clearly that the genus comprises, in contrast to Hypogastrura, species which
are unable to spring (“+ xosevT7s, not + a ballet dancer), an excellent mnemonic
to any student of Collembola, who possesses some knowledge of classic philology.

At any rate, it would be very inconvenient to put aside the well-known generic
name Achorutes Templeton, 1835, now, when it may, more easily than whenever
before, be restricted practically to its correct usage, assuming that the case of
Hypogastrura Bourlet, 1839, is settled by the Commission’s action.

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL BY DR. R. S. BASSLER AND MISS

HELEN DUNCAN FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO

STANDARDISE THE CURRENT USAGE OF “MONTICULIPORA ”
D’ORBIGNY, 1849 (CLASS BRYOZOA)

By MADELEINE A. FRITZ
(Royal Ontario Museum of Zoology and Palaeontology, Toronto, Canada)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 550)
(For the proposal submitted see 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 90—92)
(Extract from letter dated 13th April 1955)

. . . . . . . . . .

I am heartily in accord with the above proposal and should like my approval
registered.

266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL BY DR. E. I. WHITE AND DR. H. W.

BALL FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE

THE GENERIC NAME “ RHINOPTERASPIS ’? JAEKEL, 1919 (CLASS
OSTRACODERMI)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 863)
(For the proposal submitted see 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 66—67)

(a) Support received from D. L. DINELY
(University College of the South West, Exeter)
(Letter dated 12th April 1955)

I write in support of the recommendations made by E. I. White and H. W. Ball.
The recommendations are, I am sure, perfectly reasonable and necessary. The
genus Rhinopteraspis is likely to be of considerable importance in the study of
Lower Devonian stratigraphy in Britain as work upon the British pteraspids
continues and it is desirable that matters of nomenclature such as these be settled
at the earliest date.

(b) Support received from LEONARD V. WILLS
(Birmingham)
(Letter dated 17th April 1955)

I would like to support the proposal by E. I. White and H. W. Ball to validate
the name Rhinopteraspis Jaekel, by suppressing the name Archaeoteuthis Roemer,
as I think this would be a considerable improvement for the reasons stated in their

paper.

SUPPORT FOR DR. HERMANN GISIN’S PROPOSALS FOR THE USE OF
THE PLENARY POWERS FOR THE GENERIC NAMES “ HYPO-
GASTRURA ”’ BOURLET, 1839, ‘“ ANUROPHORUS ” NICOLET, [1842]
AND “ ENTOMOBRYA ’”’ RONDANI 1861 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER
3 COLLEMBOLA)

By KENNETH A. CHRISTIANSEN
(Northampton, Massachusetts, U.S.A.)

(Commission’s references : Z.N.(S.) 303 (“‘ Hypogastrura ’’) ; Z.N.(S.) 304
(* Anurophorus ’’) and Z.N.(S.) 485 (“* Entomobrya ’’)

(For the proposals submitted see 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 38—48, 68—70_
and 75—77 respectively)

(Letter dated April 24th 1955)

I wish to support Dr. Gisin’s three proposals concerning the taxonomy of
Collembola. These proposals are Z.N.(S.) 303, 304, and 485 respectively. Below
I shall deal briefly with each proposal separately.

Support for Z.N.(S.) 303. This proposal will establish as valid the procedure
which has been followed by many taxonomists in the field during the last 10 years.
The names Hypogastrura have both been in wide usage, and neither is confusable
with other groups. The various attempts to solve this problem by creation of
new names has achieved no support other than that of the original authors (i.e.,
Paclt for Neohypogastrura and Stach for Neogastrura).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 267

Support for Z.N (S.) 304. This proposal only validates the procedure that
has been followed by all taxonomists in the field. Any attempt to settle the name of
Anurophorus along strict priority lines would be disastrous.

Support for Z.N.(S.) 485, Again in this case there can be no useful purpose
served by a strict following of the rules of priority. Beyond the reasons advanced

SUPPORT FOR DR. A. MYRA KEEN’S PROPOSED SUPPRESSION
UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE GENERIC NAME “JUMALA ”’
FRIELE, 1882 (CLASS GASTROPODA)

By ALLYN G. SMITH
(California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California, U S.A.)
(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 307)

this group of mollusca from Puget Sound, Washington.

emmently sound and should carry weight with the Commission. Personally, for
-Teasons Dr. Keen has enumerated, I should favor her Alternative Proposal ‘A ”

happen to be closely situated geographically.

I sincerely hope the Commission will give prompt and favorable attention to
Dr. Keen’s request.

SUPPORT FOR PROFESSOR F. C. HOTTES’ PROPOSAL FOR THE

ADDITION OF THE NAMES “PHORODON ” PASSERINI, 1860

(CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA) AND “ HUMULI ” SCHRANK,

1801, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ APHIS HUMULI”’,
TO THE “ OFFICIAL LISTs

By MIRIAM A. PALMER
(Colorado A and M College, Fort Collins, Colorado, U /S.A.)
(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 430)
(For the application submitted see 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 97—98)
(Letter dated 4th May 1955)

I wish to express my approval of the action proposed in application Z.N.(S.) 430
(Phorodon and humuli) by F. C. Hottes.

IT hope that the International Commission will act favorably on this application.

268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

SUPPORT FOR DR. RALPH E. CRABILL’S PROPOSAL FOR THE USE

OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE FOR THE GENUS

** SCOLOPENDRA ”’ LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS MYRIAPODA) A TYPE
SPECIES IN HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED USAGE

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 843)
(For the proposal submitted see 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 134—136)

(a) Support received from NELL B. CAUSEY
(University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, U.S.A.)

(Letter dated 14th April 1955)

As a myriapodologist, I want to urge that the International Commission use
its Plenary Powers as requested in Z.N.(S.) 843. Dr. Crabill’s historical account of
the case is correctly presented. There would indeed be systematic confusion if
the normal provisions of the Régles were applied, although I am sceptical about
its resulting in “*‘ devastating changes ’’, which seems a term better associated with
hydrogen bombs than with myriapods.

(b) Support received from CLARENCE J. GOODNIGHT
(Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, U.S.A.)

(Letter dated 15th April 1955)

I am writing concerning the proposed disposition of the well known chilopodous
generic names Scolopendra Linnaeus and Lithobius Leach.

I believe that Dr. Ralph E. Crabill’s proposed solution of this problem is valid
and will result in greater stability than will a strict adherence to the Laws of Priority.
As Dr. Crabill points out, if priority is followed in this case, the names of two well
known families will be changed and the names of two of the four chilopod orders
would also be changed. Further, there is a large amount of biological literature
involving animals in these two genera. Similarly there are names commonly
in use among general zoologists and textbook’ writers. If these names should
change, much of the literature would be unusable to the general zoologist without
a thorough search of synonymy.

Therefore in the interests of stability, I hope that the International Commission
will use its Plenary Powers to retain the names Scolopendra and Lithobius in the
manner in which they are now commonly used. I hope you will view Dr. Crabill’s
request in a favorable light.

(c) Support received from KATHERINE V. W. PALMER
(Paleontological Research Institution, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A)

(Letter dated 18th April 1955)

Ralph E. Crabill, Jr., has asked, at your request, that I study and send comments
to you in regard to his proposal, Bull. zool. Nomencl., vol 11, pt. 4, February 1955.

The proposal requests that the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature use its Plenary Powers to set aside all type designations for the genus
Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758, prior to the Ruling asked for, including the type
designation of Latreille, 1831, of Scolopendra forficata Linnaeus, 1758, for
Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758, and to designate S. morsitans Linn., 1758, type species
of Scolopendra Linn., 1758. From the pertinent and concise information given in
regard to the problem, it would certainly seem that to replace the established
usage of the type species, Scolopendra morsitans Linnaeus, 1758, for Scolopendra

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 269

Linnaeus, 1758, by the legitimate type species, S. forficata Linnaeus, 1758, would
cause confusion and a great deal of extra book work and writing to clarify the
situation from the specific to the ordinal level.

I am not in favor of overruling the law of priority in the usual case but in a
problem such as stated by Mr. Crabill, more harm would be done by a strict applica-
tion of the rule than following long established usage. One point in this case which
also is in favor of establishing by Plenary Power, S. morsitans Linnaeus, 1758, type
species of Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758, is the fact that, according to the data .
presented by Mr. Crabill, paragraphs 2 and 4, Latreille designated the same species
S. forficata Linnaeus, 1758, for two different genera—for Scolopendra Linn., in 1810,
and in 1831 for Lithobius Leach, 1814. If Latreille made an error of designation
in his own writings and did not take the opportunity in 1831 to correct the later
type designation and restore the use of the prior designation for Scolopendra Linn.,
it would seem that the use of Plenary Powers to designate for the genus Scolopendra
Linnaeus, 1758, a type species in harmony with accustomed usage would serve
science to the best advantage.

(d) Support received from MONT A. CAZIER, C. H. CURRAN, WILLIS J. GERTSCH,
and FREDERICK H. RINDGE

(The American Museum of Natural History, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(Letter dated 18th April 1955)

We have read with very great interest the separate entitled ‘‘ Proposed use of the
Plenary Powers to Designate for the Genus Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758 (Class
Myriapoda) a Type Species with Accustomed Usage ”’.

It is always a hardship when strict adherence to the rules makes it necessary
to change familiar long used names for older legal ones. I have talked to all the
members of our department and they are in complete sympathy with the aim of
this application to maintain the genus Scolopendra in its familiar usage. We echo
the words in the proposal that in this case nothing but confusion would result if
an attempt were to be made to apply the ordinary rules.

We urge the International Commission to follow the recommendations of Dr.
Ralph E, Crabill in section six of the separate.

(e) Support received from J. L. CLOUDSLEY-THOMPSON, M.A., Ph.D., F.L.S.,
F.R.E.S.

(University of London, King’s College, London)
(Letter dated 25th April 1955)

I write in strong support of Dr. R. E. Crabill’s suggestion that a type species
be designated for the genus Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758.

Every effort should be made to prevent the alarming possibilities envisaged by
him in paragraph 5 which would result in absolute confusion if applied even by
only a few workers on Chilopoda. The conventional nomenclature must be

regularised as Dr. Crabill suggests.

~~ eee

(f) Support received from JOHN D. DWYER, Ph.D.
(Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.)

(Letter dated 25th April 1955)

With reference to Dr. Crabill’s recent recommendation, I would like to express

__ my approval of his proposal that the International Commission exercise its Plenary

270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Powers as he outlined. It appears that this action will prevent a possible disruption
of well-established names ; such changes would appear not to serve the cause of
taxonomy in a positive manner.

(g) Support received from W. WAYNE BOYLE
(University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii)

(Letter dated 25th April 1955)

Dr. Ralph E. Crabill, Jr., has asked me to communicate to you my comments
regarding his recent recommendation on chilopod nomenclature to the Commission.

Although I am not a chilopod specialist (my own interests lying with the
Coleoptera and Acarina), Dr. Crabill’s problem seems clear cut in all details. Indeed,
it would appear that in just such cases the Plenary Powers of the Commission
could be used to the best interests of zoological nomenclature. It is my considered
opinion, therefore, that the Commission accept Dr. Crabill’s recommendation in all
details and duly act thereon under the Plenary Powers.

(h) Support received from GEORGE E. BALL
(University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada)

(Extract from letter dated 26th April 1955)

It is my opinion that Crabill’s request to conserve the names Lithobius and
Scolopendra as currently used is a reasonable one. I heartily endorse the course of
action that he suggests be taken and feel that Crabill is to be congratulated in this
case for not adhering to the Rule of Priority.

(i) Support received from OTTO KRAUS
(Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a. M., Germany)

(Letter dated 27th April 1955)

Hiermit unterstiitze ich die von Herrn R. E. Crabill in Bull. zool. Nomenel.
11(4) : 134—136 vorgeschlagene Lésung in der Angelegenheit Scolopendra-
Lithobius.

(j) Support received from T. J. SPILMAN
(United States Department of Agriculture, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C.,
U.S.A.)
(Extract from letter dated 29th April 1955)

This proposed exception to priority in subsequent type species selection appears
well-founded, and fulfilment of all four pleas will avoid an upheaval in chilopod
nomenclature. I, therefore, stand in agreement with the proposal and urge its
adoption.

Plenary Powers, I feel, have been used much too often in the past and for
many cases not warranting their usage. The Law of Priority should be set aside
only in cases where major changes would occur or where long and widespread
nomenclatorial usages would be affected. I would, therefore, plea for more restraint
in use of the Powers.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 271

(k) Support received from CURTIS W. SABROSKY

(United States Department of Agriculture, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C.,
U.S.A.)

(Letter dated 2nd May 1955)

Dr. R. E. Crabill, Jr., has sent me a copy of his application on Scolopendra and
asked for comments.

Although not directly interested in the group, my attention was drawn to the
change in usage of family names, a reversal which would certainly contribute to
confusion without any compensating gain. On this basis, I support the application.

I note that Dr. Crabill mentions ordinal names, but the Code does not provide
that ordinal names be linked with family names and follow the latter in and out of
synonymy. However, if the application is approved, this point will not cause
any difficulty.

(1) Support received from JOHN C. MARTIN
(Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Belleville, Ontario, Canada)

(Extract from letter dated 5th May 1955)

It has been my policy to follow the Régles Internationales with regard to zoological
nomenclature realising that with the passage of time, little or much as the individual
cases may require, the confusion which has and still exists in many quarters of this
field of biological nomenclature would be resolved. However, one must not adhere
stubbornly to an ideal, particularly if in order to bring it to pass, a chaotic state
worse than the existing condition is brought into existence, especially if there are
means of avoiding it. In the case of zoological nomenclature, the Plenary Powers
of the International Commission provide such means of preventing additional
chaos.

With regard to the problem in question (Z.N.(S.) 843) it is obvious that if the
Régles were followed two well-known generic names, Lithobius Leach, 1814, and
Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758, two family-group names and the names of two of the
four chilopod Orders would be affected. The present situation which has existed
in whole or in part for some one hundred and forty years has become widely estab-
lished in technical and general works. Any change would cause much confusion
and hence I support the four requests (vide Z.N.(S.) 843 Para. 6) made by Dr.
R. E. Crabill, Jr.

(m) Support received from ERNST PALMEN
(Zoological Institute, Helsinki University, Helsinki, Finland)

(Extract from letter dated 10th May 1955)

It is with great interest that I have read the paper by Dr. Crabill, and can but
state that his suggestion seems quite acceptable. Obviously the change of the
generic names would in this case cause extraordinarily great confusions, not only
among specialists of the Chilopoda, but also among naturalists in general. There
seems to be no reason why the Plenary Powers of the International Commission
should not be used in a case where the advantages of accepting Dr. Crabill’s proposal
are as obvious as in the present case. Therefore I would like to recommend his
Suggestion warmly. The matter has been described thoroughly in the communica-
tion by Dr. Crabill and does not, in my opinion, need further comments,

272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

SUPPORT FOR THE VALIDATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS,
OF THE GENERIC NAME “PLEUROTOMARIA ”’ SOWERBY (J.), 1821
(CLASS GASTROPODA)

By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S.
(Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 604)
(For Dr. Cox’s application, see 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 (1) : 21—27)
(Letter dated 30th March 1955)

As an author of several papers on Jurassic gastropods, I wish to support
Dr. L. R. Cox (Bull. zool. Nomenel. 11(1) : 21—27) without reservation.

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED VALIDATION, UNDER THE
PLENARY POWERS, OF THE GENERIC NAME “ CARINIFEX ”
BINNEY, 1865 (CLASS GASTROPODA)

By HORACE B. BAKER
(Zoological Laboratory, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, U.S.A.)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 224)

(For the proposal submitted in this case, see 1954,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9(11) : 321—326)

(Extract from a letter dated 3rd March 1955)

Dr. Baily’s ‘*‘ Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name
* Carinifex’ Binney, 1865 (Class Gastropoda) ”’, 1954,(Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9(11) :
321—326, is backed strongly by me. Everybody in the United States, so far as
I know, used Carinifex anyway. Although we agree with your defense of opinion
87 in principle, we also know that W. G. Binney’s check-list (1863), although in
the form of ‘‘ proof-sheets ”’, actually had a wide general distribution (i.e., it was
published). Apparently, anyone could have obtained it and many did ; at various
times since 1910, I have picked up 3 secondhand copies. However, except for
Carinifex, your proposal to invalidate it would be acceptable.

€
. 4 A sy ee G

m7 Cn yeaa S pt

ia. EES iny De

ce .

v/
Uv v4 God
RAL H\5-

ee ee a a ee

CONTENTS
(continued from front wrapper)

New Applications

Page
Request for a Declaration clarifying the meaning of Article 21 of the :
Regles in relation to the authorship to be attributed, in certain
special circumstances, to zoological names and to actions taken
under the Régles affecting the status of such names. By
Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) .. 235—238

Proposed determination of the nominal species to be accepted
as the type species of the genus Inoceramus Sowerby (J.),
1814 (Class Pelecypoda) and proposed addition of that name
to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. By L. R. Cox,
Se.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History)) se 239—245

Request for a Declaration clarifying the status under Article 25
of names for taxa published in the indexes of works in the
text of which those taxa were described only under vernacular
names. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., O.B.E. (Secretary
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 246—249

Proposed entry on the Official List of Works Approved as Available
for Zoological Nomenclature of the title of Dru Drury’s
Illustrations of Natural History and determination of the dates
to be attributed to the names published in the several volumes
of that work. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 250—251

Proposed designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a type species
for the genus Lernaeocera (emend. of Lerneocera) Blainville,
1822 (Class Crustacea, Order Copepoda), in harmony with
current usage. By Paul L. Illg (Dept. of Zoology, University
of Washington, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.) .. ref 252—255

Proposed adoption, under the Plenary Powers, of a Declaration
conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature power to prescribe for groups of generic names
or for individual generic names, a gender different from that
grammatically appropriate to the word concerned, in cases
where such action is needed in order to avoid changes in
accepted nomenclatorial practice; and matters incidental
thereto. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 256—259

eS en pe eg
ee, a :
a aeleay Benes Spey nF
a3 atte San meer nee ae (continued from inside back wrapper)
SEES gs tas Cae ae New Applications (continued)

See ee ee, iis gexctesdo be ddetintat to ene
ee ess of name in the Class Aves, to two ty sof name in the
sai a (Order Decapoda) and to ae

— elonging to t Acanuuiecpiile: Amphibia, Crustacea
Ge : rans Francis H , CML. C.B.E. (Secretary
ee eae Fatt Coin Nomenclature) 260—262

sed use of the y Powers to determine for the generic
name Varuna feng “dwards (H.), 1830 (Class Crustacea,

Et uteri gcse eres Lage pate ep with accustomed usage.
By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C BLE, (Sear to the I
ca national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) .. 263264
eure ‘ Comments on Applications
Be On the base Helligalla Méraneao, 1821: By) .R. Bote) Latha Foe. 249, 264
On the name Formica Linnaeus, 1758. By H. Bischoff ... ... + 255
4 On the name Achorutes Templeton, 1835. By JitiPaclt ... 9... 0. ss 265
: On the name Monticulipora D’Orbigny, 1849. By M. A. Fritz... soe ong
On = — Rhinopteraspis Means mua By (a) dD. Bue DEE. (0) Leonard a
eee of Bout 1830, Amropho ~ 1si2
Eniomobrya Rocdani, 1861. Harincle na colt 1 A eae
‘ —~" Gin tie titan Sacea Bias 1882. Apgar ner se tee 267
* Bic Gh arcrs germane: 1801. “By Miriam Bs
On the name Scolopendra Beara) ads) asta i Goo
: : are OES See we
bg ar oo (ye Bal r3 Spa i) a i
' 2 ae oN Cay: fl ve C copamie! - rt) -+-268—271 ”"
On the name Bish EN ny "By W. J, Arkell Spar! ane a
oegatens Bo. On the name Carinifex Binney, 1665. By B.BoBsker 0 a
; . cae ae z
4 ae a
tis in B
% 3 Sex ?

——

VOLUME 11. Part 9 1N ‘O86 30th December 1955
pp. 273-804 PURCHASED

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
3 NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by

FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

CONTENTS :
Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Page

Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature by voting on applications re
in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature a: ; oh oe

Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain
cases .. an 35 ey ee “E oe a 2 fee

(continued inside back wrapper)

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
and
Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publication Office,
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
1955

Price Fifteen Shillings

(All rights reserved)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

A. The Officers of the Commission

Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Musewm (Natural History), Zoological
Museum, Tring, Herts, England)

President: Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.
(12th August 1953)

Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953)
Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948)

B. The Members of the Commission

(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or <f most recent
re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)

Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(Ist January 1947)

Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948)

Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)

Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948)
Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)

Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)

Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th June 1950)

Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw,
Poland) (15th June 1950)

Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt
a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950)

Professor Dr. Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin,
Germany) (5th July 1950)

Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1958) (Vice-President)

Professor J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953)

Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
(President)

Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th
August 1953)

Professor Béla Hanké (Mezogazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)

Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th
August 1953)

Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)

Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th
August 1953)

Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra,
A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954)

Dr. Alden H. Miller (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California,
U.S.A.) (29th October 1954)

Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Prantl (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October
1954)

Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kiihnelt (Zoologisches Institut der Universitét, Vienna, Austria) (6th
November 1954)

Professor F. 8. Bodenheimer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954)

Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954)

Professor Enrico Tortonese (Museo di Storia Naturale “G. Doria,’ Genova, Italy) (16th
December 1954)

E BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 11, Part 9 (pp. 273—304) 30th December 1955

| NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE
| INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY

be

4 The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the
a recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 :51—56, 57—59), by the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 5 : 5—13, 131).

(a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on

Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published —

in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’

; Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will
start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
_ clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of
_ publication in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who
_ may desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present
_ Part (Vol. 11, Part 9) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing
_ to the Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible and in any case, in
sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secretariat
of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above.

(b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain cases

Noricr is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers is involved in
applications published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature in relation to the under-mentioned names :—

_ (1) Bithynia Leach, 1818 (Class Gastropoda), validation of (Z.N.(S.) 452) ;

(2) Osmerus, as from Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Actinopterygii), validation of
error in Opinion 77 (Z.N.(S.) 564) ;

274 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued)

(3) Phillipsinella Novak, 1886, validation of (Class Trilobita) (Z.N.(S.)
757) ;

(4) Gempylus Cuvier, 1829, and serpens Cuvier, 1829, as published in the
combination Gempylus serpens, validation of (Class Pisces) (Z.N.(S.)
923) ;

(5) SEGUENZICERATIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1924 (Class Cephalopoda, Order
Ammonoidea), suppression of the family-group name (Z.N.(S.) 931) ;

(6) Lepisma Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Thysanura), attribution
of a gender for, in harmony with accepted usage (Z.N.(S.) 988).

2. Comments received in sufficient time will be published in the Bulletin :
other comments, provided that they are received within the prescribed period
of six calendar months from the date of publication of the present Part will
be laid before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at
the time of commencement of voting on the application concerned.

3. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon at the Session held by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 56), corresponding Notices have been sent
to the serial publications Nature and Science.

FRANCIS HEMMING

Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature

28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park,
Lonvon, N.W.1, England.

30th December 1955.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 275

PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS
OF THE GENERIC NAME “BITHYNIA” LEACH, 1818 (CLASS
GASTROPODA)

By A. E. ELLIS
(Epsom College, Epsom, Surrey, England)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 452)

The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission
to use its Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating the generic name
Bithynia Leach, 1818 (Sub-class Prosobranchia, Order Mesogastropoda), thus
preventing the appalling confusion and disturbance which would result from
the disappearance of this long-established name as a junior synonym of
Bulimus Scopoli, 1777.

2. The generic name Bithynia Leach, 1818 (im Clarke Abel’s Narrative of a
Journey in the Interior of China : 362), has as its type, Helix tentaculata Linnaeus,
1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 774) by original designation by Leach. Apart
from Leach’s designation this species would also be the type by monotypy,
as the only other species included in the genus, Paludina sinensis Leach (op.
cit., 155) was at that time undescribed. The name appears to be taken from
Bithynia, a province of Asia Minor, though what led the author to choose this
inappropriate name is not apparent ; it is regarded as of feminine gender.

3. For over a century the generic name Bithynia Leach (though frequently
misspelt Bythinia or Bithinia) has been universally employed for this and

_ allied species and has given its name to a subfamily. Its displacement on

technical nomenclatorial grounds would be open to the gravest objections, and
the substitution of some virtually unknown name in place of Bithynia would
serve no useful purpose of any kind, causing, as it undoubtedly would, quite

_ unnecessary confusion and instability in the nomenclature of this group.

© oe

4. It is with these considerations in mind that we must examine the status

_ of the generic name Bulimus Scopoli, 1777 (Introductio ad Historiam Naturalem :

392). The species included in this genus by Scopoli were Helix putris, H.

fragilis, H. stagnalis and H. tentaculata, all of Linnaeus, 1758. Of these species,
H. putris is the type species of Succinea Draparnaud, 1801, which has been
placed on the Official List by the Ruling given in Opinion 94; H. stagnalis
was selected as the type species of Lymnaea Lamarck, 1799, by Fleming, 1818
(see Application Z.N.(S.) 451) ; H. fragilis is a synonym of H. stagnalis ; while,
as has been shown above, H. tentaculata was designated the type species of his
genus Bithynia by Leach, 1818.

_ Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 9. December 1955.

276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

5. The name Bulimus, like many other generic names first published by
Scopoli in the same work, was completely ignored for over a hundred years.
During the inter-war period, however, this generic name was brought to the
attention of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and
formed the subject of the Commission’s Opinion 116, published in 1931
(Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 7) : 6). In that Opinion the Commission ruled
that the name Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, could not be interpreted as a typographical
error for Bulinus Miller, 1781, a name which was applied to a different genus
four years subsequent to the publication of Bulimus Scopoli. The Commission
went on to say that, according to the premises submitted, it did not appear
that a type species had ever been validly selected for Scopoli’s genus. This
was no doubt the case at the time when the application on which Opinion 116
was based was submitted to the Commission, but in the meanwhile Pilsbry &
Bequaert, 1927 (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 53 : 215) had selected Helix
tentaculata Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of this genus. By this action
they destroyed the availability of the well-known generic name Bithynia
Leach, 1818, making it a junior objective synonym of the till then virtually
unknown name Bulimus Scopoli, 1777.

6. The situation resulting from this action is deplorable from every point
of view, but the evil consequences are not limited to the suppression of a well-
known name. The disappearance in synonymy of the universally-used generic
name Bithynia Leach could in the most favourable circumstances lead only to
confusion and instability in the nomenclature of the group to which this widely
distributed genus belongs. In the present instance, however, the harm caused
would be greatly aggravated and the likelihood of confusion much enhanced by
the fact that the name (Bulimus) by which Bithynia Leach would be replaced
was used throughout the 19th century, not for any of the species included in
Scopoli’s genus of 1777, but for various totally unrelated land-snails. This
came about as a consequence of the extension of the genus Bulimus by Bruguiére,
1789 (Encycl. méth. Vers 1 : xvi, 286) to embrace a heterogeneous assortment
of species, most of which were not included in Scopoli’s genus. Subsequent
authors adopted the generic name Bulimus from Bruguiére for divers species
of land snails in no way connected with any of Scopoli’s original species, having
little in common beyond a varying degree of superficial similarity in the general
shape of the shell, and now classified in a number of separate genera. British
authors throughout the 19th century used the generic name Bulimus for
Bulimus montanus Draparnaud, 1801 (Tableau des Mollusques terrestres et
fluviatiles de la France : 65) and Helix obscura Miller, 1774 (Verm. Hist. 2 : 103),
=Bulimus hordaceus Bruguiére, 1789 (loc. cit. : 334). Helix obscura Miller
was selected as the type species of the genus Bulimus by Turton, 1831 (Manual
of the Land and Fresh-water Shells of the British Islands : 6) but this selection
was invalid, as the above species is not one of the species included in Bulimus
by Scopoli. These two species are now placed in the genus Hna Turton, 1831
(loc. cit. 80), the type species of which is Hna montana (Draparnaud), selected
by Herrmannsen, 1847 (Indicis Generum Malacozoorum Primordia 1 : 421).

ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 277

7. The genus Bithynia Leach was made the type genus of a family
BITHYNIADAE [sic.] by Gray (J.E.) in 1857 (Turton’s Manual Land & Fresh-
water Shells Brit. Isles (8rd Ed.) : xiii), In the same year Troschel (F.H.)
(1857, Das Gebise der Schnecken : 101) made this genus the type genus of a
tribe which he called ByTHINIAE. In 1926 it was treated as the type genus of
a subfamily BITHYNIINAE by Kennard (A.S.) & Woodward (B.B.) (Synonymy
of the British non-Marine Mollusca : xii). Since Gray’s family name and
Troschel’s tribe name were published in the same year (1857) it is necessary to
determine which has priority over the other. The preface to Gray’s edition
of Turton is dated September 1857, while no information is available as to the
date in 1857 on which Troschel’s book appeared. Accordingly, under the
provisions inserted in the Régles by the Thirteenth International Congress of
Zoology, Paris, 1948, for determining the dates to be assigned to zoological
works (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 223—225) Troschel’s book is to be treated
as having been published on 3lst December 1857 (the latest date on which it
can have been published). It is seen therefore that Gray was the first author
to make the genus Bithynia Leach the type genus of a family-group taxon.
Modern authors follow Kennard & Woodward, treating this taxon as of sub-
family rank and placing it in the family HyDROBIIDAR.

8. Mr. Hemming, as Secretary to the Commission, informed me while the
present application was in draft that a similar application had been received
from Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) and that, in order
to facilitate the consideration of this case, he had suggested to Dr. Baily that
it would be convenient if he would convert his application into a note of support

_ for the present application, of which he sent a copy to Dr. Baily. Dr. Baily
intimated that this course was perfectly agreeable to him and in due course he
furnished a note of his views on the action proposed. In this note Dr. Baily
drew attention, inter alia, to two variant spellings of the name Bithynia Leach
which he recommended should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. I agree that this action is desirable and,

_ at Mr. Hemming’s suggestion, I have incorporated proposals to this end in the

_ present paper in order that, when the Commission comes to vote on this case,

_ it may have a single comprehensive proposal before it. The variant spellings

_ concerned are :—(1) Bithinia Gray (J.E.), 1829 London med. Repository : 239 ;

_ and (2) Bythinia MacGillivray (W.), 1843, Hist. Moll. Aberdeen: 124. Both of

; these on examination prove to be Erroneous Subsequent Spellings and not

_ Invalid Emendations. As such, these spellings possess no status in zoological
nomenclature and should, as suggested by Dr. Baily, now be placed on the
Official Index. Finally, similar action should be taken in relation to the

Erroneous Subsequent Spelling Bytinia Millet de la Turtaudiére (P.A.), 1870

_ (Faune des Invertébrés de Maine-et-Loire 2 : 56).

9. It would be difficult to imagine anything more confusing than would be

the replacement of the well-known name Bithynia Leach by a name which was
for so long associated with a number of species belonging to a different Sub-

Class. I feel therefore that this is pre-eminently a case where the use by the

eS

278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Commission of its Plenary Powers is essential. I accordingly ask the
Commission :—

(1) to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the under-mentioned generic
name for the purpose of the Law of Priority but not for those of the
Law of Homonymy :—Bulimus Scopoli, 1777 ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology :—
(a) Bithynia Leach, 1818 (gender : feminine) (type species, by original
designation : Helix tentaculata Linnaeus, 1758) ;
(b) Zna Turton, 1831 (gender: feminine) (type species, by selection
by Herrmannsen (1847): Bulimus montanus Draparnaud,
[1801)}) ;

(3) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of

Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—

(a) Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers
under (1) above ;

(b) Bulimus Bruguiére, 1789 (a junior homonym of Bulimus Scopoli,
1777) ;

(c) Bithinia Gray (J.E.), 1829 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling of
Bithynia Leach, 1818) ;

(d) Bythinia MacGillivray (W.), 1843 (an Erroneous Subsequent
Spelling of Bithynia Leach, 1818) ; .

(e) Bytinia Millet de la Turtaudiére (P.A.), 1870 (an Erroneous Subse-
quent Spelling of Bithynia Leach, 1818) ;

(4) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology :—
(a) tentaculata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix
tentaculata (specific name of type species of Bithynia Leach,
1818) ;
(b) montanus Draparnaud, [1801], as published in the combination
Bulimus montanus (specific name of type species of Hna Turton,
1831) ;

(c) obscura Miiller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination
Helix obscura ;

(5) to place the under-mentioned name on the Official List of Family-Group
Names in Zoology :—BITHYNUDAE (correction of BITHYNIADAE)
Gray (J.E.), 1857 (type genus: Bithynia Leach, 1818) ;

(6) to place the under-mentioned name on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :—BITHYNIADAE Gray
(J.E.), 1857 (type genus: Bithynia Leach, 1818) (an Invalid Original
Spelling for BrrayNmDAE).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 279

SUPPORT FOR THE VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS
OF “ BITHYNIA ’”’ LEACH, 1818 (CLASS GASTROPODA)

By JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr.
(San Diego, California, U.S.A.)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 452)
(For the application in this case, see the preceding paper)
(Note dated 5th March 1953)

Some time ago I submitted an application in regard to the generic name
Bithynia Leach, 1818, one of twelve generic names which many years ago were
brought to the attention of the Commission in a blanket application which was
dealt with in part in the Commission’s Opinion 119. The name Bithynia Leach
was, however, one of six names on which no decision was given in the foregoing
Opinion.

When visiting in England last summer (1952) I was informed by Mr. Francis
Hemming, Secretary to the Commission, that Mr. A. E. Ellis had already submitted
an application covering this matter, to which had been assigned the reference
number Z.N.(S.) 452. Mr. Hemming felt that in view of this it would be more
satisfactory if I should recast my communication in such a way as to give it the
form of a comment upon that of Mr. Ellis, rather than making it a separate applica-
tion seeking the same end. This suggestion meets completely with my approval.
Mr. Ellis has stated the case so clearly that another application would be redundant,
so I shall therefore confine this communication to commenting upon that of Mr. Ellis.

First of all it should be noted that.in Opinion 116 cited it was not stated that
Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, was not a typographical error for Bulinus Adanson, pre-
Linnaean, but merely that the Commission as then constituted was not convinced
that it was. Further bibliographic research might conceivably shed additional
light on this matter. Therefore this is not necessarily a case in which strict applica-
tion of the Rules would lead to confusion ; rather it is a case in which the Rules
cannot be applied at all because we do not as yet have access to all the necessary
facts, and perhaps may never have it. The name Bulimus must therefore remain a
term whose meaning is uncertain, or at least is of ambiguous signification, and it
should be suppressed for this reason regardless of what its type designation may be.

In the second place it should be noted that when Pilsbry and Bequaert (1927,

_ Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 58 : 215) designated the type species of this genus they

chose the least of three evils ; to have selected either of the other species originally
cited by Scopoli (1777, Introductio ad Historiam Naturalem : 392) would have
consigned to oblivion the names Succinea and Lymnaea, genera far larger
numerically than Bithynia and therefore more widespread and more frequently
referred to in the literature. To refuse to select a type species would have left
the way open for later writers to make the less desirable selection. Mr. Ellis is
quite right in saying that the situation is deplorable—but any other action, or
refusal to take action, would precipitate an even more deplorable situation. In
fact, the only way out of the impasse is to suspend the Rules as Mr. Ellis has
requested, and suppress entirely the name Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, and to validate
the name Bithynia Leach, 1818, with the species Helix tentaculata Linnaeus as
type species, putting the last two names on the appropriate Official Lists.

In addition to this action Mr. Ellis has requested the validation of the name
Ena Turton, 1831 (Man. L. & F. W. Shells Brit. Is. : 6), but I do not join in
this request merely because I have not familiarized myself with the data concerning
this name, as the genus is not an American one.

There are, however, additional actions which should be undertaken at the same
time that Bithynia is considered. Among these are the names Bythinia (W.
MacGillivray, 1843, Hist. Moll. Aberdeen : 124) and Bithinia (J. E. Gray, 1829,
London Medical Repository : 239). These are either errors for or emendations of

280 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Bithynia Leach, and should be suppressed in such a way as to prevent them being
used in the future for any other genus. Since they are sufficiently different in
spelling from Bithynia to coexist with it, action of this sort is necessary to guard
against the possibility of having names that sound the same in legal use with
different significations.

Another action needed is the suppression of Bulimus as used by A. G. Bruguiére
(1789, Ency. Méth. Vers. 1: xvi; 286). It is possible that Bruguiére thought that
the land snails which he designated by this name were congeneric with the species
listed by Scopoli in 1777, but it seems to me more likely that Bruguiére considered
that Scopoli’s reference to Adanson indicated that Bulimus Scopoli was intended
for Bulinus Adanson and that such use of it did not preclude its later use by
Bruguiére. Mr. Ellis states that the type of Bulimus as used by Bruguiére had as
type the species now known as Ena montana Draparnaud. But Pilsbry (1895,
Man. Conch. (ser. 2) 10 : 4) states that Scopoli himself used Bulimus in 1786 for
the genus now known as Strophocheilus Spix. Thus the name Bulimus has been used
for three different genera now placed each in a different tribe, and its continued
usage cannot help but produce confusion, for which reason it should be suppressed
in such a way that it can never be resuscitated again for any purpose.

To recapitulate, I would request that you take the following actions, suspending
the rules where necessary :

(1) to suppress the following names, placing them on the Official List of Invalid
and Rejected Names in Zoology :
(a) Bulimus Scopoli, 1777
(b) Bulimus Bruguiére, 1789
(ec) Bithinia Gray, 1829
(d) Bythinia MacGillivray, 1843 ;

(2) to validate the name Bithynia Leach, 1818, and to place it on the Official List
of Generic Names in Zoology with the species Helix tentaculata Linnaeus,
1758, as type by monotypy ;

(3) to place upon the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name tentaculata
Linnaeus, 1758, as originally published in the combination Helix
tentaculata ;

(4) to prepare a separate application (or to invite Mr. Ellis to do so) to cover

the genus Ena Turton, 1831, and the names of the two species contained
in it upon which Mr. Ellis has requested action.

ON THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A “ DECLARATION ”’ CLARIFYING
THE STATUS OF NAMES PUBLISHED IN THE INDEXES OF WORKS

By E. M. HERING
(Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat, Berlin, Germany)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 929)
(For the proposal submitted see 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11(8) : 246—249)
(Letter dated 25th July 1955)

In your request for a ‘“‘ Declaration ”’ clarifying the status, under Article 25, of
names for taxa published in the indexes of works you use, p. 248 in the “‘ Draft
Declaration ’’, in (1) and (2) the term “a Latin name ”’.

It may seem to the reader that this “‘ Declaration ” is only applicable to Latin
names, but not to the often-used Greek names in Zoological Nomenclature.
Therefore I propose to emend the said “‘ Declaration’ by the words: “‘ A Latin
or Greek name ”’, etc.

In all other respects I support your proposal.

SE eS ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 281

PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF .

“ OSMERUS ” (CLASS ACTINOPTERYGII) AS OF SUBGENERIC

STATUS AS FROM LINNAEUS, 1758 (PROPOSED VALIDATION

OF AN ERRONEOUS ENTRY ON THE “OFFICIAL LIST OF

GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY’? MADE BY THE RULING
GIVEN IN “ OPINION ”’ 77)

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 564)

The present application is concerned with the correction of an erroneous
entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in relation to the reputed
generic name Osmerus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Actinopterygii) made by the Ruling
given in Opinion 77 (1922, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73(No. 1) : 71—73).

2. The error referred to above was discovered in the course of a preliminary
survey of the entries so far made on the Official List, carried out by myself
in the period 1943—1944, for the purpose of estimating the amount of work
required before it would be possible to publish a volume containing particulars
of all entries so far made on that List. The error in question is exactly similar
to that which was detected in relation to the reputed generic name Cerco-
pithecus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Mammalia), placed on the Official List by the
Ruling given in Opinion 104. In each case the Commission accepted as a
validly published generic name, a term which had been used by Linnaeus in
1758 in the nominative plural to distinguish a group of species assigned by him
to some other genus. At the time when the foregoing Opinions were adopted,
there existed no authoritative ruling as to the status of terms such as Osmeri
and Cercopithect as used by Linnaeus to denote groups of species below the
genus-level, such terms being rejected by some workers but accepted by others.
It was not until 1936 (Smithson. misc. Coll. 73(8) : 1—2) that an Opinion

‘(Opinion 124) was published which put an end to this old controversy. By the

Ruling so given which was based upon a decision taken by the Commission
at its Session held at Padua in 1930 terms of the type discussed above were
ruled to have no status of availability as from Linnaeus, 1758. The Com-

_ mission recognised that in certain cases this ruling might lead to undesirable

name-changing and added a rider to its ruling intimating its willingness to
consider applications for the validation under the Plenary Powers of terms of
this type.

3. When in Opinion 124 it settled the question of principle involved, the
Commission overlooked the fact that in the two instances discussed above it

_ Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 9. December 1955.

282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

had placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology terms which under
that Ruling possessed no status of availability. The case of the name Cerco-
pithecus has been dealt with, having been validated under the Plenary Powers
by the Ruling given in Opinion 238 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl.
4 : 351—360). It is recommended that corresponding action should now be
taken as regards the reputed generic name Osmerus Linnaeus, 1758.

4, The term Osmeri was published by Linnaeus in 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)
1 : 310) as a term to denote a group consisting of two species of the genus
Salmo. The first of these species was Salmo eperlanus (: 310). This was the
species which was cited as the type species of the genus “‘ Osmerus ” Linnaeus,
1758, when that “name” was placed on the Official List by Opinion 77. It
appears to be still so regarded.

5. The “ genus ’’ Osmerus Linnaeus, 1758, is currently regarded as the type
genus of a family OSMERIDAE. I have so far, however, been unable to ascertain
where this name was first published. It is accordingly proposed that action
in this matter should be deferred until it has been found possible to examine
also the family-group-name problems involved in connection with the other
generic names for fishes placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
by the Ruling given in Opinion 77.

6. In order to remove the obstacle to the publication of the Official List
represented by the erroneous entry made thereon by the Ruling given in this
case in Opinion 77, the International Commission is now asked :—

(1) to use its Plenary Powers to validate the reputed generic name Osmerus
as from Linnaeus, 1758, and to designate Salmo eperlanus Linnaeus,
1758, to be the type species of the genus so named ;

(2) to confirm in its position as Name No. 265 on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology the generic name Osmerus Linnaeus, 1758, as
validated under the Plenary Powers under (1) above and with the
type species there designated ;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific
name eperlanus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination
Salmo eperlanus (specific name of type species of Osmerus Linnaeus,
1758).

eS

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 283

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE

GENERIC NAME “ PHILLIPSELLA’? OEHLERT, 1886, AND PRO-

POSED ADDITION OF THE NAME “ PHILLIPSINELLA”’ NOVAK, 1886

(CLASS TRILOBITA) TO THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES
IN ZOOLOGY ”’

By H. B. WHITTINGTON, D.Sc.

(Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, U.S.A.)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 757)

The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Com-
mission to take the action needed to ensure that the name Phillipsinella Novak
(Class Trilobita) shall be the oldest available name for the genus to which it
has been universally applied for the last seventy years.

2. The generic name Phillipsinella Novak, 1886 (: 583) was proposed (by
original designation) for the type species Phacops parabola Barrande, 1846
(: 6—7), which type species had been referred by Barrande (1852 : 477—478)
to the genus Phillipsia Portlock, 1843.

3. The generic name Phillipsella Oehlert, 1886 (: 125—126) was proposed
(by original designation) for the same type species, Phacops parabola Barrande.

4. Phillipsinella Novak, 1886, and Phillipsella Oehlert, 1886, are therefore
objective synonyms. Each of the names was published in a volume of a
journal, the volume apparently being published as an entity, not in parts, the
title page bearing the date 1886.

5. Novak’s paper was read before the Society on 27th November 1885,
and a preprint was distributed bearing the date 1885 on the cover and page in
explanation of the plate. The question of the status of names published in
preprints of papers that had been printed for publication in some serial publica-
tion or book was considered in Paris in 1948 by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology which inserted in the Régles a provision that names made
public in this way do not thereby acquire the status of availability (see Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 4: 146). Accordingly, the name Phillipsinella Novak ranks
for priority not from 1885 but from 1886, the year in which Novak’s paper
was duly published by the Society in its Sitzber.

6. The preprint was apparently seen by Oehlert, and a note added at the
end of the article (: 141—142) giving the date of Phillipsinella Novak as 1885,

_ Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 9. December 1955.

284 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

and stating that the name Phillipsella Oehlert must fall into synonomy. Since
1886 authors have accepted this opinion, consistently using Novak’s name, and
rarely referring to Oehlert’s.

7. A family name based upon Phillipsinella Novak, 1886, was proposed
by myself in my paper entitled “Sixteen Ordovician Genotype Trilobites ”
(1950, J. Paleont. 24 :559—561), ie. PHILLIPSINELLIDAE. This name is
currently accepted (e.g. by Hupé (P.), 1953, Trilobites in T'raité de Paleonto-
logie (ed. J. Piveteau) 3 : 224) and will be used in the forthcoming Treatise
on Invertebrate Paleontology. I recommend that this name should now be
placed on the Official List.

8. In view of these facts, I ask the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature :

(1) to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Phillipsella
Oehlert, 1886, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those
of the Law of Homonymy.

(2) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology :—Phillipsinella Novak, 1886 (gender: feminine)
(type species, by original designation: Phacops parabola Barrande,
1846) ;

(3) to place the undermentioned generic names on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—

(a) Phillipsinella Novak, 1885 (invalid because only distributed in
that year in a pre-print) ;

(b) Phillipsella Oehlert, 1886 as suppressed under the Plenary Powers
under (1) above.

(4) to place the undermentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology: parabola Barrande, 1846, as published in the
combination Phacops parabola (specific name of type species of
Phillipsinella Novak, 1886) ;

(5) to place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official List
of Family-Group Names in Zoology :—PHILLIPSINELLIDAE Whittington
(H.B.), 1950 (type genus : Phillipsinella Novak, 1886).

References

Barrande, J., 1846. Nouveaux Trilobites. Supplément a la Notice Préliminaire
sur le Systéme Silurien et les Trilobites de Bohéme. Prague : 1—40.

——, 1852. Systéme Silurien du Centre de la Bohéme, vol. 1. Prague and
Paris.

Novak, O., 1886. Studien an Hypostomen béhmischer Trilobiten nr. III.
Sitz. k. bohm. Gesell. d. Wiss., year 1885 : 581—587, 1 pl.

Oehlert, D., 1886. Etude sur Quelques Trilobites du Groupe des Proetidae.
Bull. Soc. Etud. Sci. Angers (N.S.) 15th yr., 1885 : 121—143, 2 pls.

ee eee ee

et

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 285

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE
GENERIC NAME “ACINACEA”’ BORY DE ST. VINCENT, 1804, AND
THE SPECIFIC NAME “ NOTHA”’ BORY DE ST. VINCENT, 1804, AS
PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ACINACEA NOTHA’’, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF MAKING THE GENERIC NAME “ GEMPYLUS ”’ CUVIER,
1829, AND THE NAME “ SERPENS ”’ CUVIER, 1829, AS PUBLISHED
IN THE COMBINATION “GEMPYLUS SERPENS’’, THE OLDEST
AVAILABLE NAMES FOR THE GENUS AND SPECIES CONCERNED
(CLASS PISCES)

By DENYS W. TUCKER, B.Sc.
(British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 923)

The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission
to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Acinacea Bory de
St. Vincent, 1804 (Voy. Iles Afrique 1:93) and the specific name notha
Bory de St. Vincent, 1804, as published on the same page in combination with
the foregoing generic name, thereby making the generic name Gempylus
Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1829 (Régne Anim. (ed. 2) 2 : 200) and the name Gempylus
serpens Cuvier, 1829 (loc. cit. 2 : 200) the oldest available names for the genus
and species concerned (Class Pisces, Order Percomorphi, family GEMPYLIDAE).
Opportunity is taken to clarify the status of the name Lemnisoma thyrsitoides
Lesson, 1831 (Voy. Coquille, Zool. 2 (No. 1) : 160), as regards which, however,
no action is called for on the part of the Commission. A short history of the
circumstances pertaining to the three names follows.

2. The name Acinacea notha Bory de St. Vincent is a borderline case so far
as binominal nomenclature is concerned. The author introduces it under the
name “l’acinacée batarde”, subsequently giving the Latinised form of the
generic name thus: ‘“‘Acinacée (Acinacea)’’. He then proceeds to categorise
it as follows :-—

Acinacea (notha) pinnulis supra, infraque sextis ; dentibus quingue in
mandibulo superiori .. .

In the case of new species the author follows a similar practice throughout,
giving the generic name in the usual way in italics and following it with the
specific name in bracketed lower case letters. Linnean species are convention-
ally listed and it appears probable that the author comprehended, and in his
own way applied, the principles of binominal nomenclature. The description
is accompanied (Atlas: pl. IV, fig. 2) by a figure readily identifiable with the
fish generally known as Gempylus serpens Cuvier.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 9. December 1955.

286 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

3. The name Acinacea Bory de St. Vincent has never passed into general
use. Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1846 (Nomencl. zool. Index univ.:4) published the
emendation Acinaces (a senior homonym of Acinaces Gerstaecker, 1858 (Monogr.
Endomych. : 178) in the Coleoptera (Class Insecta)). Agassiz’s emendation
has also not been accepted. In 1940 (Class. Fishes : 483) however Berg
gave the name ACINACEIDAE as an alternative to GEMPYLIDAE, and Whitley,
in 1951 (Rec. Austral. Mus. 22 : 398), sought to revive the name Acinacea
in place of Gempylus and to substitute the name ACINACEIDAE for GEMPYLIDAE.
Whitley’s recommendations have so far been ignored outside Australia.

4. The name Lemnisoma thyrsitoides Lesson, [1831], was published in a
work which bears the date ‘“ 1830” and for this reason it has usually been
assumed that the name Gempylus serpens Cuvier, 1829, has priority. Fowler,
1905 (Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1904 : 767) however mistakenly attributed
the publication date “25 July 1827” to Lesson’s name Lemnisoma and
consequently sought to supplant Gempylus with Lemnisoma (at the same time
erecting the family and subfamily LEMNISOMIDAE and LEMNISOMINAE). It is
evident that Fowler must have consulted Sherborn & Woodward, 1901 (Ann.
Mag. nat. Hist. (7) 7 : 391) for the dates of issue of the Livraisons of the Zoologie
Section of the Voy. Coquille and must accidentally have noted the date of the
Livraison embracing page 160 of volume 1 instead of that of the same page of
volume 2. In fact from a second paper by Sherborn & Woodward (1906,
Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) 17 : 336) it is apparent that the name Lemnisoma
dates not from 1827 nor even from 1830, as the title-page of the volume suggests,
but from 12th November 1831. This name is therefore a junior subjective
synonym of Gempylus Cuvier, 1829. Similarly the name thyrsitoides Lesson,
as published in the combination Lemnisoma thyrsitoides, is a junior subjective
synonym of Gempylus serpens Cuvier, 1829. The only authors who have
followed Fowler’s lead appear to be Jordan & Evermann, 1905 (Bull. U.S.
Fish. Comm. 23 : 179), except that the Zoological Record for 1905 adopted
the family name LEMNISOMIDAE. This was done however for the sole purpose
of recording Fowler’s paper. Fowler himself subsequently reverted to the use
of the name Gempylus serpens Cuvier (see Fowler, 1928, Mem. B.P. Bishop
Mus. 10 : 135; id., 1936, Hongkong Nat. 7:75; id., Bull. amer. Mus. nat.
Hist. 70 : 636).

5. The nominal species Gempylus serpens Cuvier, 1829, was founded on an
illustration of Serpens marinus compressus lividus Sloane, 1707 (Voy. Jamaica :
pl. 1, fig. 2). Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1831 (Hist. nat. Poiss. 8 : 211) erected
a second nominal species Gempylus coluber on what appears to have been the
holotype of Lemnisoma thyrsitoides Lesson. Posterity has decided unani-
mously that the name G. coluber Cuvier & Valenciennes is a junior subjective
synonym of G. serpens.

6. At this point it is desirable to consider the position of the generic name
Incoscombrus Van der Hoeven, 1858 (Handb. Zool. 2 : 161), which as originally

Bulletin of Zoological N omenclature 287

published contained two nominal species: Gempylus serpens Cuvier, 1829 ;
Gempylus coluber Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1831. No type species was designated
by Van der Hoeven and none has been selected by any subsequent author.
As has already been explained, the foregoing specific names are regarded by all
authors as being subjective synonyms of one another. From a practical
point of view the genus Lucoscombrus Van der Hoeven is therefore monotypical.
In order finally to dispose of this name I now select Gempylus serpens Cuvier
to be the type species of this genus, which thus becomes objectively identical
with Gempylus Cuvier, 1829. (The work in which the name Lucoscombrus
was published appeared in two editions, the first with a Dutch title, the second
with a German title. The first edition appeared in 1828 and the second in
1855. The foregoing generic name would have priority over Gempylus Cuvier
if it had appeared in the first as well as in the second edition. In order to clear
up this point, the copy of the rare First Edition in the Library of the British
Museum at Bloomsbury has been consulted. This examination shows that at
the point where, if at all, this name would have appeared, i.e. in the discussion
of the Scomber (2 : 237); Van der Hoeven treated Gempylus as a subgenus of
Scomber and made no mention of the name Lucoscombrus. This latter name
ranks for priority therefore only from the Second Edition of 1855.)

7. In addition, there is a generic name, Zyphothyca Swainson, 1839 (Hist.
nat. Fishes 2 : 174), which is a junior subjective synonym of Gempylus Cuvier,
1828, through having Gempylus coluber Cuvier & Valenciennes as its type species
by monotypy. Though not required taxonomically, Zyphothyca Swainson
is a nomenclatorially available name and accordingly no action in regard to it
is called for on the part of the Commission.

8. At first the genus Gempylus was placed either in the family TRICHIURIDAE
or the family scomBRIDAE. Goode & Bean, 1895 (Oceanic Ichth. : 193) were the
first authors to erect a family-group taxon for Gempylus, for which they
founded the GEMPYLINAE as a subfamily of the scomBRIDAE. Regan, 1909
(Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (8) 8 : 70) up-graded the GEMPYLINAE to full familial
status as the GEMPYLIDAE.

9. It is thus apparent that Gempylus Cuvier has enjoyed almost universal
acceptance since 1829, the subfamily GEMPYLINAE since 1895 and the family
GEMPYLIDAE since 1909. It is desirable that this situation should be stabilised,
the more so since the family GEMPYLIDAE includes fishes of considerable economic
importance and with a growing literature.

10. I therefore ask the International Commission :—

(1) to use its Plenary Powers for suppressing the under-mentioned names
for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law
of Homonymy :—

(a) the generic name Acinacea Bory de St. Vincent, 1804, and the
emendation thereof Acinaces Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1846 ;

288 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(b) the specific name notha Bory de St. Vincent, 1804, as published
in the combination Acinacea notha ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology :—Gempylus Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1829 (gender :
masculine) (type species, by monotypy: Gempylus serpens Cuvier
(G.L.C.F.D.), 1829) ;

(3) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology :—serpens Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1829, as published
in the combination Gempylus serpens (specific name of type species
of Gempylus Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1829) ;

(4) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—

(a) the generic names specified in (1)(a) above, as there suppressed
under the Plenary Powers ;

(b) Lwcoscombrus Van der Hoeven, 1858 (a junior objective synonym
of Gempylus Cuvier, 1829) ;

(5) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :—notha Bory de St.
Vincent, 1804, as published in the combination Acinacea notha, and
as suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1)(a) above ;

(6) to place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official List
of Family-Group Names in Zoology :—GEMPYLINAE Goode & Bean,
1895 (type genus : Gempylus Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1829) ;

(7) to place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :—ACINACEIDAE
Berg, 1940 (type genus : Acinacea Bory de St. Vincent, 1804, a name
suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1)(a) above).

Se |

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 289

REQUEST FOR A RULING AS TO THE SPECIMEN TO BE ACCEPTED
AS THE LECTOTYPE OF “ MEGATHYMUS ARYXNA” DYAR, 1905
(CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA)

By CYRIL F. DOS PASSOS, LL.B.

(Research Associate, American Museum of Natural History, New York ;
Research Associate, Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh)

and

ERNEST L. BELL
(Research Associate, American Museum of Natural History, New York)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 889)

The Facts
1. Megathymus neumoegeni was described by Edwards in 1882.

2. Page 320 of volume 2 (1896) and plate 69 of volume 3 ([1897]) of the
Lepidoptera-Heterocera section of the Biologia Centrali-Americana described
and figured (figs. 3 and 4) two specimens identified by Druce as “‘ newmoegeni ’’.

3. Megathymus aryxna was described by Dyar in 1905, the description
reading as follows :

“ M. aryxna, new species.

“This is the form figured in the Biologia Cent.—Am. Lep. Het., III, pl. 69,
figs. 3 and 4. It differs from newmoegeni in having the fulvous markings con-
siderably reduced, the outer band being broken into spots. I have ten
specimens from Arizona from Dr. Barnes and Mr. Poling...”’.

4. Megathymus drucei was described by Skinner in 1911, being a new name
proposed by him for figure 3 of the above mentioned (paragraph 2) specimens
figured in the Biologia as “‘ neumoegeni”’.

5. Barnes and McDunnough in 1912 stated that Dyar had restricted the
name aryxna to a single specimen, not being one of the specimens figured in the
Biologia, but being one of the “‘ ten specimens from Arizona ” referred to above
(paragraph 3). This Dyar did not do beyond writing a label at or about that
time, and affixing it to one of those ten specimens. Just when Dyar did this is
not known.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 9. December 1955,

290 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

6. Skinner and Williams in 1924 restricted the type of Megathymus aryxna
to figure 4 of the Biologia, saying “‘ we select this figure as the type of aryxna
Dyar”’. This specimen which is labelled “‘ Mex[ico]”’, is now preserved in
the British Museum Collection.

7. Omitting references to Catalogues and Check Lists, which are not
considered usually taxonomic papers, it may be stated that so far as we have
been able to find Skinner (1911), Skinner and Williams (1924), Freeman (1950),
and Bell and dos Passos (1954) have used the name Megathymus aryxna in the
manner in which the present authors wish it to be recognized by the Inter-
national Commission, while Holland (1898), Barnes and McDunnough (1912),
Draudt (1924), Holland (1931), and Stallings and Turner (1954) have used it in
the other sense.

The Issue

8. The question at issue is whether the lectotype of Megathymus aryxna
is the specimen in the British Museum (Natural History), figured in the Biologia
(pl. 69, fig. 4), or one of the ten specimens in the United States National Museum,
to which Dyar attached a label stating that the name aryxna was restricted
tothatspecimen. This issue is raised by two recent papers, the first by Stallings
and Turner (1954) and the second by Bell and dos Passos (1954).

The Argument

9. Upon the foregoing statement of facts and the assumption that the
ten specimens from Arizona constituted part of the type series, it is contended
by Stallings and Turner that Barnes and McDunnough in 1912 effectively
published the unpublished restriction of Dyar, but they cite no reference for
this conclusion beyond page 23 of volume 1, Number 3 of the Contributions
to the Natural History of the Lepidoptera of North America, although in such an
important matter the restriction should be quoted, or at least cited to the very
line. We have read that page carefully, but can find no language approaching
a restriction which should be always clear and unequivocal. The nearest
approach to such a statement is on lines eight, nine and ten of Barnes and
McDunnough’s work where they state that ‘‘ at our suggestion Dr. Dyar has
restricted the name aryxna to the unnamed form [italics ours] of which fig. 1
represents a co-type”’. This reference must be to Dyar’s label, because
admittedly there is no published restriction by him, but is that a valid restric-
tion by Dyar ? Since when does writing a label and affixing it to a specimen
constitute a restriction? How can a name be restricted to an “‘ unnamed
form ” by which Barnes and McDunnough referred to four of the ten specimens
that did not agree with any part of the description ? For they said “ Dyar’s
original diagnosis of this species cannot apply to it in its restricted form ”.
As noted, when Barnes and McDunnough came to figure the “ unnamed form”

|
.
+

a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 291

they did not call it a lectotype but a “‘ Co-type ”. It was not even that, because
those four specimens were never part of the type series.

10. Stallings and Turner say in reference to the second sentence of Dyar’s
description “ Frankly, we are unable to determine which of the two species
he was describing’. As far as we know, no one else has had any difficulty in
determining which specimens Dyar was describing. Megathymus aryxna was,
in fact, nothing but a substitute or new name for specimens which Dyar claimed
were erroneously identified as ‘‘ newmoegeni ” by Druce in the Biologia. Stallings
and Turner fail to quote the first sentence of the original description, but admit
“The first sentence in his description does refer to Fig. [sic]3 & 4 in the Biologia.”
Obviously the description is in the first sentence. The second sentence that
Stallings and Turner quote is more comparative than descriptive.

11. In concluding their argument on this subject, Stallings and Turner
refer without page citation to ‘“‘ the action of the International Commission
last August at the Copenhagen Congress with reference to the Principle of the
First Reviser ’, but fail to state how that principle is in any way relevant to
the facts. That principle “is to be rigidly construed ’’, and relates “‘in the
case of specific names, only when an author, after citing two or more such names
published in the same book and on the same date, clearly indicates by whatever
method, (a) that he is of the opinion that the nominal species so named represent
the same taxon, and (b) that he is selecting one of the names concerned, to the
exclusion of the other name or names, to be the name to be used for that
taxon ’”’ (Hemming, 1953). There is no such situation here.

12. On the other hand, Bell and dos Passos conclude from the evidence :

(1) that the type series of aryxna consists only of the two specimens figured
in the Biologia, and does not include any of the specimens to which
Dyar may have intended, seven years later, to restrict that name,
because being a substitute name the types were only those two speci-
mens (see Decision 142 of the 1953 Copenhagen Congress) ;

(2) that the action of Skinner in giving the name drucei to the specimen
illustrated as figure 3 of the Biologia automatically restricted the name
aryxna to figure 4, that being the only remaining syntype ;

(3) that neither Dyar, as Stallings and Turner admit by stating “ He
never published this restriction”, nor Barnes and McDunnough
ever published any restriction, publication being an essential part of
such a selection (see Decision 137(4) of the 1953 Copenhagen
Congress) ;

(4) that Skinner and Williams expressly restricted the type of aryxna
to figure 4 of the Biologia, and after selecting figure 4 of the Biologia
as “the type of aryana Dyar”’, said “‘ The shifting of the concept
by Dyar at the suggestion of Barnes and McDunnough is not valid ”.

292 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Actually it was not a shifting at all, but at most a contemplated
shifting that was never carried out in any manner.

Conclusion

13. As shown in paragraph 7 above, there is no uniform usage of the name
aryxna, it having been used about half of the time in the manner advocated
herein and the other half as used by Stallings and Turner, and it is impossible
for there to be any stability in the nomenclature of some species of Megathymus
until the International Commission has designated the lectotype of aryxna.

14. Under the theory of Stallings and Turner the pertinent synonymy
would read :

Megathymus neumoegeni Edwards, 1882
aryxna Dyar, 1905 (partim)
Megathymus aryxna Dyar, 1905
evansi Freeman, 1950
Megathymus drucei Skinner, 1911

15. The present authors believe however that it should read :

Megathymus neumoegeni Edwards, 1882
aryxna Dyar, 1905

Megathymus evansi Freeman, 1950

Megathymus drucei Skinner, 1911.

16. It is to avoid any further confusion in the use of this name that the
present application is made.

17. We have refrained from considering the validity on taxonomic grounds
of some of the above mentioned taxa, and the above synonymy is not to be
considered as an expression of any opinion on our part concerning that problem,
because that is a subjective matter and does not concern the International
Commission. Once the type of aryxna is fixed, other problems will solve
themselves.

18. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
requested :
(1) to give a Ruling :—
(a) that the sole syntypes of the nominal species Megathymus aryxna
Dyar, 1905, were the specimens figured respectively under the
name Megathymus neumoegeni as figures 3 and 4 on plate 69
of volume 3 of the Lepidoptera-Heterocera Section of Godman
and Salvin’s Biologia Centrali-Americana ;
(b) that the specimen labelled ‘‘ Mex[ico] ” now in the British Museum
Collection, which was figured as figure 4 on the plate referred

|

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 293

to above is the lecto-type of the nominal species Megathymus
aryxna Dyar, having been duly selected as such by Skinner
and Williams (1924: 205) ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology :—

(a) newmoegent Edwards, 1882, as published in the combination
Megathymus neumoegent ;

(b) aryxna Dyar, 1905, as published in the combination Megathymus
aryxna and as defined by the Ruling given in (1)(b) above.

Bibliography

Barnes, William, and James Halliday McDunnough, 1912. “ Revision of the
Megathymidae ”’. Contributions to the Natural History of the Lepidoptera
of North America. Decatur, Illinois, the Review Press, vol. 1, no. 3,
56 pp., 1 fig., 6 pls.

Bell, Ernest Layton, and Cyril Franklin dos Passos, 1954. ‘‘ The lectotype of
Megathymus aryxna Dyar (Lepidoptera, Megathymidae).’’ Amer. Mus.
Novitates, no. 1700, pp. 1—5.

Draudt, Max, 1907—1924. The Macrolepidoptera of the American faunistic
region. 5. Subfamily: Megathyminae Mab. In Seitz, Adalbert, The
Macrolepidoptera of the world. A systematic description of the hitherto
known Macrolepidoptera. The American Rhopalocera. Stuttgart,
Alfred Kernen, vol. 5, (text) pp. viii+[4]+1140 ; (plates) pp. vi+[2]+
203 colored pls.

Druce, Herbert, 1881—1900. Biologia Centrali-Americana. Insecta.
Lepidoptera-Heterocera. in Godman, Frederick Ducane, and Osbert
Salvin (eds.), London, Taylor and Francis, vol. 2 (1891—1900),
[4]+622 pp. ; vol. 3 (1881—1900), [4] pp. +101 pls. (colored).

Dyar, Harrison Gray, 1905. “A review of the Hesperiidae of the United
States.” J. New York ent. Soc., vol. 13, pp. 111—141.

Edwards, William Henry, 1882. ‘‘ Description of species of butterflies taken
in Arizona by Jacob Doll, 1881.” Papilio, vol. 2, pp. 19—29.

Freeman, Hugh Avery, 1950. “‘ Notes on Megathymus, with description of a
new species (Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera, Megathymidae).”” Field and
Lab., vol. 18, pp. 144—146.

Hemming, Francis (ed.), 1953. Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomen-
clature. Additions to, and modifications of, the Régles Internationales

: de la Nomenclature Zoologique. Approved and adopted by the Fourteenth

International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, August, 1953. London,
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, xxx+136 pp., 2 pls.

294 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Holland, William Jacob, 1898. The Butterfly Book. New York, Doubleday and
McClure Co., [2] + xx + 382 pp., 48 pls. (colored).

——, 1931. The Butterfly Book. New and thoroughly revised edition. Garden
City, New York, Doubleday, Doran and Co., Inc., [2] + xii + 424 pp.,
77 pls. (73 colored).

Skinner, Henry, 1911. “‘ The larger boreal American Hesperidae, including
Eudamus, Erycides, Pyrrhopyge and Megathymus.” Trans. Amer. ent.
Soc., vol. 37, pp. 169—209, pl. 10 (colored).

Skinner, Henry, and Roswell Carter Williams, Jr., 1924. ‘On the male
genitalia of the Hesperiidae of North America. Paper 6.” Trans.
Amer. ent. Soc., vol. 50, pp. 177—208, figs. 1—26.

Stallings, Don Brigg, and JE Rice Turner, 1954. “Notes on Megathymus
neumoegeni, with description of a new species (Megathymidae).” The
Lepidopterists’ News, vol. 8, pp. 77—87, pls. 1—5.

SUPPORT FOR THE DOS PASSOS/BELL PROPOSAL RELATING TO
THE NAME ‘‘ MEGATHYMUS ARYXNA ’”’ DYAR, 1905

By Brigadier W. H. EVANS, C.S.I., C.1.E., D.8.0.
(British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 889)
(For the application submitted in this case, see page 289 of the present volume)

(Letter dated 19th January 1955)

Your Z.N.(S.) 889 of 18th January re lectotype of Megathymus aryxna, I am
in entire agreement with the views expressed by Bell and Dos Passos.

Up to the publication in 1950 by Freeman of evans the practice was to regard
aryxna as = neumoegent, vide “‘ Hesperioidea of N. America” by Lindsey Bell
and Williams 1931, the latest publication.

Early in the war I worked out Megathymus in the British Museum Collection
and found that there were two species occurring together in Arizona over the
label newmoegeni. I looked up the literature and found that the second species was
the aryxna of Barnes & Macdunnough but not of Dyar, whose type must be taken
as fig. 4 in the Biologia. I sent my analysis to Bell, suggesting he should call the
second species drucez.

During 1952 and 1953 discussion took place between the two schools of thought
in America. I was called upon by both sides to furnish photographs and genitalia
drawings of Druce’s figs. 3 and 4, both of which are in the British Museum bearing
a label “ B.C.A.Lep Het Megathymus neumoegeni ”’.

Stallings & Turner published their solution of the problem in 1954. This
reached me just before the paged proofs of vol. 4 of Catalogue of American
Hesperiidae in the British Museum went to press and I added a postcript—‘‘ The
decision that aryxana = evansi disregards the law that a type must agree with the
original description ’’. On the receipt of the Bell & Dos Passos separate, Mr. Riley
sent a note to the printers asking them to add that their paper confirmed my
opinion.

——oe ee,

i, . oh eet

—

=—_—~ |

a ee ee ee ee ee ee ae ee ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 295

ON THE QUESTION OF THE LECTOTYPE OF “ MEGATHYMUS ARYXNA ”’
DYAR, 1905

By DON B. STALLINGS
and
J. R. TURNER
(Caldwell, Kansas, U.S.A.)
(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 889)
(For the application submitted in this case, see page 289 of the present volume)
(Letter dated 22nd February 1955)

The writers have given considerable thought to the proper application of the
name Megathymus aryxna Dyar, 1905. Some of these thoughts have been expressed
in our recent paper published in The Lepidopterists’ News, 1954, page 77, entitled
“Notes on Megathymus newmoegeni, with Description of a New Species (Megathy-
_midae)”’. For convenience we will refer in this paper to the various species involved
in the same manner as we did in the above mentioned publication.

To commence with at the time Dyar (1905) described Megathymus aryxna
(J. N.Y. ent. Soc. 13 : p. 141) he probably was one of the few men who knew what
true Megathymus neumoegeni Edwards was. In his description of M. aryxna
he refers first to two specimens pictured at figures 3 and 4, Plate 69, of Vol. 3
of the Lep.-Het. Section of Godman & Salvin’s Biologia Centr.-Amer. and then
to ten specimens before him. These ten specimens before him were all from the
State of Arizona, U.S.A. the two specimens referred to in Biol. Centr.-Amer. were
from Mexico. Unfortunately the ten specimens before Dyar consisted of two
species, six specimens of what we call Species No. 1 and four specimens of what
we call Species No. 2. The two specimens in Biol. Centr.-Amer. appear to be
Species No. 1—they are certainly not Species No. 2.

The literature thereafter is not helpful. The name M. newmoegent Edwards is
consistently applied to the above mentioned Species No. 1. This fact is most
important in order properly to understand what happened thereafter.

Sometime in 1910 or shortly before then Barnes and McDunnough suggested
to Dyar that Species No. 1 was M. neumoegeni and that he should restrict his name
of aryxna to Species No. 2. This he did as explained in the following passage in our
paper in the Lepidopterists’ News (: 78), namely :—

to the extent of making a label as follows and attaching it to one specimen of Species No. 2 :—
Megathymus
aryxna
Cotype Dyar
(Sensu Restr.) (1910)

He never published his restriction but we believe that Barnes and McDunnough
did in their paper of 1912 ‘“‘ Contrib. to the Natural History of the Lepidoptera
of North America, Vol. 1 No. 3, Revision of the Megathymidae’’. At page 23,
lines, 8, 9 and 10, Barnes and McDunnough say “ . . . at our suggestion Dr. Dyar
has restricted the name aryxna to the unnamed form of which fig. 1 represents
a co-type”’. Their Figure 1 of Plate 1 is a picture of the specimen that Dyar

_ attached the restricting label to. It is our opinion that this was a sufficient publica-

- tion of the restriction and at that time the name aryxna became fixed.

Barnes and McDunnough did not then particularly help the situation by
proceeding to say that the description of aryxna (as described by Dyar) did not
fit the Species No. 2 which he restricted it to. With this we can not agree. Turn to
our paper, Plate 2, top and second row—this is true newmoegeni—note how the
veins do not have any dark coloring along the area of light coloration so that the
light areas do not appear to be divided (by the veins) into spots. Now look at
_ Plates 1, 2 and 3 at all of the males of the various other species involved (Dyar

296 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

had only males before him when he described aryxna) and note how the outer
lines (of lighter color) are divided into spots (by the veins having dark coloring).
Dyar’s description is “‘ It differs from newmoegeni in having the fulvous markings
considerably reduced, the outer band being broken into spots”’. It is immediately
evident that this description applies equally well to Species No. 1 as to Species No. 2.
Hence we are not faced with the problem of the description not fitting the species.

As we see the situation there are two problems to be decided. 1. Does the des-
cription of aryxna fit the species as restricted by Dyar. 2. Is the restriction of
Dyar valid. The answer to both questions in our opinion, is yes.

There is no great problem involved in the literature and the name aryxna. The
name has only been used in about a dozen different publications. In about half
of the publications the author was without information and it is impossible to deter-
mine what they were applying the name to. In our paper we have cited the
literature in which the name is used in such a manner that you can determine
whether the name was applied to Species No. 1 or Species No. 2.

We are unable to give the importance to the fact that Dyar mentioned the two
specimens in Biol. Centr.-Amer. before he did the ten before him that Bell and Dos
Passos do in their recent paper “‘ The Lectotype of Megathymus Aryxna Dyar
(Lepidoptera, Megathymidae) ’’ American Museum Novitates, No. 1700, Dec. 20,
1954, published shortly after our paper. If this priority is important, then by the
same token, Fig. 3 becomes the key—not Fig. 4. To us it appears that Dyar
was describing a new species from Arizona—not from Mexico, the specimens before
him were what he was describing—he was merely referring to the specimens in the
Biolo. as being the same thing. Even should it be determined that his restriction
was not valid we feel it would be an error to designate either of the Mexican specimens
as the lectotype.

While the writers feel that the foregoing is the correct situation in regard to the
proper application of the name aryxna we would not at all be adverse to a waiver of
the rules so that the name aryxna could be applied to Species No. 1, leaving the
name M/. evansi Freeman available to Species No. 2. This would probably mean, of
course, that the lectotype of aryxna would then be designated as the Mexican
specimen, following Skinner—which we do not feel was the intention of Dyar.

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO

DESIGNATE FOR THE GENUS “ SCORPIO ’”’ LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS

ARACHNIDA), A TYPE SPECIES IN HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED
USAGE

By OTTO KRAUS

(Forschungs-Institut und Natur-Museum Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. Main,
Germany)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 567)
(For the proposal submitted see 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11(6) : 173—175)
(Extract from letter dated 30th July 1955)

Bei dieser Gelegenheit méchte ich Ihnen noch mitteilen, dass ich Ihre
Ausfiihrungen iiber die Gattung Scorpio und ihre typische Art mit grossem Interesse
gelesen habe. Ihr Antrag ist nachdriicklich zu unterstiitzen, zumal es sich bei
Scorpio europaeus Linnaeus, 1758, um eine vdllig unsichere Art handelt.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 297

PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF
THE FAMILY-GROUP NAME “SEGUENZICERATIDAE ”’ SPATH
(L.F.), 1924 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA)

By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S.
(Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 931)

The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission
to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the family-group name SEGUENZICERA-
TIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1924 (Pal. ind. (n.s.) 9 Mem. 1) :13 (type genus:
Seguenziceras Levi, 1896). The grounds for this application are set out below.

2. In an application submitted in October 1950 I asked the Commission
to give a Ruling on the question whether the reputed name Arieticeras
Quenstedt, 1883, possessed the status of availability and therefore whether
it invalidated the later name Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885. The question of
principle involved was considered by the International Congress of Zoology
at Copenhagen in 1953, and in the light of the decision then taken, the
Commission has since ruled that Arieticeras Quenstedt, 1883, possesses no
status of availability and consequently that the name Arieticeras Seguenza
is not to be rejected as a junior homonym. In announcing this decision in
Opinion 337 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 10 : 109—124) published
on 17th March 1955, the Commission placed the name Arveticeras Seguenza
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, at the same time placing the
invalid substitute name Seguenziceras Levi, 1896, on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

8. In September 1954 Mr. Hemming, as Secretary to the Commission,
informed me that it was desired to obtain decisions from the International
Commission in regard to the family-group name aspects involved in any
applications concerning ammonite nomenclature which had been published
in May 1951 in Triple-Part 6/8 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature. In all except the present case the application of the rules
adopted by the Copenhagen Congress made it possible to formulate recommenda-
tions which were in harmony with current nomenclatorial practice.

4, In the present case the difficulty arises from the unfortunate decision
by the Copenhagen Congress that a family-group name is not to be rejected
when the name of its type genus is rejected as being (as in the present case) a

junior objective synonym of some other generic name (1953, Copenhagen
Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 36, Decision 54(1)(a)). I have already protested

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 9. December 1955.

298 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

strongly against this decision (1954, Geol. Mag. 91 : 174, 410; 1955, J. Paleont.
29 : 188) which in my group and, as I now learn, in many other groups must,
if applied, lead to the overturning of many well-known family-group names
in favour of other names which have passed out of use completely. It is my
strong hope that the next (Fifteenth) International Congress of Zoology, when
it meets in London in 1958, will reverse the foregoing decision in favour of the
long-established practice under which a change is made in a family-group
name when it is found necessary to change the name of its type genus because
that name is either a junior objective synonym or a junior subjective synonym
of some earlier name. In the present case I consider that it would be
ridiculous if there were to be an available name SEGUENZICERATIDAE in view
of the fact that by the ruling given by the Commission that Seguenziceras
Levi, 1896, is a junior objective synonym of Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885.

5. I therefore ask the International Commission :—

(1) to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the family-group name
SEGUENZICERATIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1924 (type genus: Seguenziceras
Levi, 1896, a junior objective synonym of Arieticeras Seguenza,
1885) ;

(2) to place the foregoing family-group name, as suppressed under the
Plenary Powers under (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology.

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE GENUS
FOR THE NOMINAL ORDER “ AMMONOIDEA ” ZITTEL, 1884

By D. T. DONOVAN
(University of Bristol, England)
(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 875)
(For the application submitted see 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11(6) : 199—200)
(Letter dated 13th July 1955)

I am writing to support Dr. Arkell’s request that the ordinal name Ammonoidea
should be placed on the Official List of Names in the Order-Class Group in Zoology,
with the type genus Arietites Waagen designated by him.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 299

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO PRESCRIBE

FOR THE GENERIC NAME “ LEPISMA”’ LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS

INSECTA, ORDER THYSANURA) A GENDER IN HARMONY WITH
ACCEPTED USAGE

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 988)

The question of the gender to be attributed to the generic names in the
Phylum Arthropoda placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
in the period up to the end of 1936 has recently been examined in the light
of a Report furnished, at the request of the International Trust for Zoological
Nomenclature, by Mr. F. J. Lelievre, then of the Classical Languages Depart-
ment of Bedford College, London University. If we leave aside the names of
genera of the Order Decapoda placed on the Official List during the above
period (which are being dealt with separately), we find, as the result of con-
sultations with interested specialists, that in the case of all except one of the
fifty-six generic names concerned, the gender which has been ascertained to be
the correct gender is also the gender currently adopted by specialists in the
group concerned. The single exception is the name Lepisma Linnaeus, 1758
(Class Insecta, Order Thysanura), with which the present application is
concerned.

2. The word “‘ Lepisma”’ is a Greek word of neuter gender. This name
was however, treated as a feminine word by Linnaeus and, as I am informed
by Dr. Theresa Clay (British Museum (Natural History), London), has been so
treated by all subsequent authors. Dr. Clay, writing on 7th January 1955,
reported as follows :—

Lepisma contains something like twenty or thirty species and includes
one name with a feminine termination which is widely used in the non-
specialist literature, namely Lepisma saccharina Linnaeus, the silver fish.

3. In carrying out the duty imposed upon it under a General Directive
issued by the International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, that an appropriate
gender be assigned to each generic name already by that time placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, the Commision has consistently taken
the view that linguistic considerations should in this matter be tempered by
a due regard for accepted nomenclatorial practice and should not be permitted
to become the instrument for vexatious and confusing nomenclatorial changes.
In view of the unanimous practice of specialists in assigning the feminine
gender to the generic name Lepisma and the fact that the type species of this

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 9. December 1955.

ao ae wd tie a

300 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

genus has as its specific name an adjective formed with a feminine termination
(Lepisma saccharina Linnaeus, 1758) and is a species which is widely cited in
non-specialist literature, it appears to me that this is a case which falls within
the class for which the Commission has taken the view that an exception should
be made to the general rule and is therefore one where common usage rather than
linguistic niceties ought to prevail.

4, I accordingly recommend that the Commission should use its Plenary
Powers to direct that the feminine gender be attributed to the generic name
Lepisma Linnaeus, 1758, and that this gender be therefore inscribed in the entry
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology relating to this name.

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL TO USE THE PLENARY POWERS TO

PRESCRIBE FOR THE GENERIC NAME ‘“ LEPISMA’’ LINNAEUS,

1758 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER THYSANURA) A GENDER IN
HARMONY WITH ACCEPTED USAGE

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 988)
(For the application in this case, see the preceding paper)

(a) By THERESA CLAY, D.Sc.
(British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Statement dated 18th July 1955)

Linnaeus, when he originally described Lepisma in 1758, considered it to be
feminine as shown by his inclusion of the species L. saccharina and it has been used
in this gender since. Lepisma saccharina Linn., the widely distributed “ silver-
fish ’’, is of some economic importance and has been frequently referred to in books
and papers dealing with descriptions and control of insect pests. Im the more
specialised systematic literature there are some twenty or so species recognised in
the genus, all of which have been accorded the feminine gender. In view of these
facts I should like to support the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to attribute
the feminine gender to the name Lepisma Linnaeus, 1758.

(b) By M. J. DELANY
(University of Glasgow, Scotland)

(Statement dated 29th July 1955)

I should like to support Mr. Hemming’s recommendation that the feminine
gender should be attributed to the generic name Lepsima Linnaeus, 1758.

To my knowledge all species of Lepisma have been accorded the feminine gender,
as far as this is applicable, since 1758 when Linnaeus first described the genus under
the name Lepisma saccharina. In view of this I suggest the International Com-
mission exercises its Plenary Powers to validate the feminine gender of Lepisma
Linnaeus, 1758, as proposed by Mr. Hemming.

Bulletin of Zoological N omenclature 301

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED ADOPTION, UNDER THE PLENARY
POWERS, OF A “ DECLARATION”? CONFERRING UPON THE

By Sir GAVIN de BEER, D.Sc., F.R.S.
(British Museum (Natural History))

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 938)
(For the proposal submitted see 1955, Bull. zool. Nomenel. 11(8) : 256—259)

(Letter dated 11th August 1955)

I have discussed your letter of 8th August with my Keepers of Zoology,
Entomology and Geology and we are all agreed that the suggestion contained in
paragraph 9 of your paper Z.N.(S.) 938 should be adopted.

It seems to us that it is the only possible solution of the problem since it not
only avoids endless future arguments and publication, but also minimises change
of established usage. I don’t think that it is necessary for me to elaborate on this,
since you have summed up the argument admirably in your paper.

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL TO PRESCRIBE FOR GENERIC NAMES
IN THE CLASS AVES HAVING THE TERMINATION “ -RHYNCHUS ”
A GENDER IN HARMONY WITH ACCEPTED USAGE

By FINN SALOMONSEN
(Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark)
(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 942)
(For the proposal submitted see 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11(8) : 260—262)

(Extract from letter dated 13th August 1955)

I am certainly in accordance with you in this matter. It is common usage
that generic names in birds having the termination “ -rhynchus”’ are treated as
being of the masculine gender, and I ask the Commission to use its Plenary Powers
to prescribe this for all avian genera.

ON THE PROPOSAL TO PRESCRIBE FOR GENERIC NAMES IN THE

ORDER DECAPODA (CLASS CRUSTACEA) HAVING THE TERMINA-

TIONS “-OPSIS’? AND «“ -GNATHUS ” AND FOR THE GENERIC

NAME “ NEPHROPS ” [LEACH], [1814], A GENDER IN HARMONY
WITH ACCEPTED USAGE

By L. B. HOLTHUIS
(Rijksmuseum van N atuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The N etherlands)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 942)
(For the proposal submitted see 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11(8) : 260—262)

(Letter dated 12th August 1955)

I fully support the proposal to consider all names of Decapod Crustacea ending
in “-opsis ” and “ -gnathus ” as being of the masculine gender. I cannot be so

302 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

positive as to the name Nephrops. I entirely agree that apart from Leach (1814,
Edinb. Encycl. 7 : 400), who in the original description of Nephrops used the species
name Nephrops norvegica, practically all authors (including Leach, 1816, Malac.
Podophth. Brit. pl. 36) treated Nephrops as a masculine name. If the name Nephrops
is to be placed on the Official List in the masculine gender, then this exception to
the rule in my opinion should be noted in the body of the Rules, dealing with the
gender of the names. Furthermore, would it not be wise to indicate that the
other generic names formed by the addition of a prefix to the word Nephrops
(Astaconephrops Nobili, 1899, Eunephrops Smith, 1885, and Paranephrops White,
1842) also must be considered to be masculine?

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL TO PRESCRIBE FOR THE GENERIC
NAME “ SYNGNATHUS ”’ LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS PISCES), A GENDER
IN HARMONY WITH ACCEPTED USAGE
By DENYS W. TUCKER, B.Sc.

(British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 942)
(For the proposal submitted see 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl, 11(8) : 260—262)
(Extract from letter dated 10th August 1955)

I write to support the treatment of Syngnathus (Class Pisces) as being of
masculine gender in accordance with current usage.

It appears to me to be a regrettable circumstance, but true, that the race of
biologists having a really sound grasp of Latin and Greek became extinct with
D’Arcy Thompson. The present situation requires that the grammatical aspects
of nomenclature shall be made as simple as possible and the universal treatment
of “‘ -us ” as a masculine termination, with correspondingly arbitrary treatments of
various other terminations, would, in my view, be a desirable and realistic practice.

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL TO PRESCRIBE FOR THE GENERIC

NAMES “SYNGNATHUS ”’ LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS PISCES), AND

“ DESMOGNATHUS ”’ BAIRD, 1850 (CLASS AMPHIBIA), A GENDER
IN HARMONY WITH ACCEPTED USAGE

By ROBERT MERTENS

(Forschungs-Institut und Natur-Museum Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. Maine,
Germany)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 942)
(For the proposal submitted see 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11(8) : 260—262)
(Letter dated 13th August 1955)

Auf Ihre Bitte um Stellungnahme vom 8. August, teile ich Ihnen mit, dass ich
durchaus der Ansicht bin, dass die Gattungsnamen Syngnathus und Desmognathus
als mannlich aufzufassen sind.

ee

ee a

= ee eee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 303

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY
POWERS TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME “ FISTULIPORA ”’
MCCOY, 1849 (CLASS BRYOZOA)

By MADELEINE A. FRITZ
’ (Royal Ontario Museum of Zoology and Palaeontology, Toronto, Canada)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 324)
(For the proposal submitted see 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11(5) : 155—157)
(Extract from letter dated 18th July 1955)

Having worked rather extensively with the genus Fistulipora, as established by
McCoy, and recognizing the value of this ‘prolific genus, I am naturally anxious to
see the name retained as a member of the family FISTULIPORIDAE. It would seem
most unwise and impractical to lose this widely known term and to employ the same
for an obscure fossil type of uncertain affinities.

I heartily endorse the petition as set forth under clause 8, p. 157, of the above-
mentioned publication.

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A “ DECLARATION ”’

CLARIFYING THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE “ REGLES ”

IN RELATION TO THE AUTHORSHIP TO BE ATTRIBUTED IN

CERTAIN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES TO ZOOLOGICAL NAMES, AND

TO ACTIONS TAKEN UNDER THE “REGLES”’ AFFECTING THE
STATUS OF SUCH NAMES

By L. R. COX, M.A., Se.D., F.R.S.
(British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 891)
(For the proposal submitted see 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11(8) : 235—238)
(Enclosure to letter dated 9th June 1955)

I wish to support the application of the Secretary of the Commission for a
Declaration (on the lines suggested) regarding the availability and authorship of
new names, and the validity of, and authority for, acts affecting zoological nomen-
clature, published in anonymous or secretarial reports of proceedings at meetings
of learned societies at which papers containing the names or proposals in question
were read, or in abstracts prepared for such meetings.

It is clear from decisions already made by the Commission that all such reports
and abstracts, if complying with the necessary requirements to constitute published
matter, must be accepted as valid media for the publication of matter affecting
zoological nomenclature, and that in discussions on this subject it is not feasible
to discriminate between different types of published matter on the basis of scientific
standard, or to exclude some classes of periodicals in which reports of meetings
could conceivably appear from consideration on the ground that they have not
the status of scientific publications. Since, however, misunderstandings still

-

_ exist on these points, it may be desirable to confirm the availability (for nomen-

clatorial purposes) of publications of the types considered in the suggested
Declaration. At the same time I strongly urge that a recommendation should be
made urging editors and society officers to avoid in future the introduction of new
names in this manner, and in particular to desist from the publication of unillus-

_ trated preliminary abbreviated diagnoses of new species in abstracts of papers

with the deliberate object of securing priority.

PURCHASED
304 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

With regard to the question of authorship, it would clearly be most unsatisfactory
if new names, etc., which originated with the author of a paper were treated as
anonymous or attributed to an editor or secretary according to the available informa-
tion about the authorship of the report or abstract in which they first appeared.
Such a course would inevitably lead to confusion since in most cases such names
eventually appeared under those of their true authors when the full papers
containing them were published, and have always been attributed to their true
authors.

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS

TO VALIDATE (a) THE EMENDATION “SPHENODON’”’ OF THE

GENERIC NAME “SPHAENODON ’’ GRAY (J.E.), 1831, AND (b) THE

FAMILY-GROUP NAME ‘“ SPHENODONTIDAE ”’ COPE, 1870 (CLASS
REPTILIA)

By Prof Dr. T. JACZEWSKI
(Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 811)
(For the proposal submitted see 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11(5) : 1389—141)
(Letter dated 12th June 1955)

I wish to support to the full extent the proposition by Professor Dr. Robert
Mertens, concerning the validation of the emended generic name Sphenodon Gray,
1831, and of the family-group name SPHENODONTIDAE Cope, 1870.

In particular I wish to support most strongly the opinion expressed by Dr.
Mertens in paragraph 6 (pp. 140—141) of the above proposition, concerning the
use of family-group names derived from generic names which proved to be synonyms.
I quite agree with Dr. Mertens that it is to be hoped that the unfortunate Copen-
hagen Decision No. 54, point (1)(a), will be finally reversed by the next International
Congress. .

In my opinion the only way leading to reasonable stability of family-group names
is through the previous stabilisation, i.e., placing on the Official List, of the names
of the corresponding type genera of the families in question. I think that the
Copenhagen Decision is manifestly contrary to the very principle of the type
method which is taken as the basis for the formation of family-group names. I am
unable to see any reasonable basis for the maintenance of family-group names
derived from synonymous generic names which are liable to be placed at any —
time on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology and thus
become doomed to oblivion. I think valid family names based on invalid generic
names are a very anomalous combination.

Returning to the proposition of Professor Dr. R. Mertens, I think that the
generic names Hatteria Gray, 1842, and Rhynchocephalus Owen, 1845, should also
be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, as
proposed at the end of paragraph 4(: 140). This proposition is omitted, perhaps
by mistake, in paragraph 7 ( : 141).

CONTENTS
(continued from front wrapper)
New Applications

Proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name
Bithynia Leach, 1818 (Class Gastropoda). By A. E. Ellis
(Epsom College, Epsom, Surrey, England)... +

Proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of Osmerus (Class
Actinopterygii) as of subgeneric status as from Linnaeus, 1758
(proposed validation of an erroneous entry on the Official List
of Generic Names in Zoology made by the Ruling given in
Opinion 77). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ...

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name
Phillipsella Oehlert, 1886, and proposed addition of the name
Phillipsinella Novak, 1886 (Class Trilobita) to the Official List
of Generic Names in Zoology. By H. B. Whittington (Musewm
of Comparative Zoology at Harvard neg rete a Massa-
chusetts, U.S.A.) ...

Proposed use of the Plenary P Powers to suppress the generic name
Acinacea Bory de St. Vincent, 1804, and the specific name
notha Bory de St. Vincent, 1804, as published in the combination
Acinacea notha, for the purpose of making the generic name
Gempylus Cuvier, 1829, and the name serpens Cuvier, 1829, as
published in the combination Gempylus serpens, the oldest
available names for the genus and species concerned (Class
Pisces). By peas W. Tucker = aba Museum corer
History)) ;

Request for a Ruling as to the specimen to be ee as the
lectotype of Megathymus aryxna Dyar, 1905 (Class Insecta,
Order Lepidoptera). By Cyril F. dos Passos, LL.B. and
Ernest L. Bell iss waa Museum oe Natural re New
York)

Proposed use of the Hae Powers to suppress the ms fe -group
name SEGUENZICERATIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1924 (Class Cephalo-
poda, Order Ammonoidea). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc.,
F.R.S. (Sedgwick Musewm, Cambridge University) ;

Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to determine for the name
Lepisma Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Thysanura) a
gender in harmony with accepted usage. By Francis
Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) : a ;

Comments on Applications published in the present Part

Bithynia Leach, 1818 : comment af Joshua L. pen Jr. oe ft
California, U.S.A.).. :

Proposed Declaration clarifying the status of names published in
indexes : comment by E. M. Hering (Hwmboldt-Universitat zu
Berlin) es we a . ve a ~

Page

275

281

283

289

279

280

CONTENTS
(continued from inside back wrapper)

Comments on Applications published in previous Parts—(continued)

Megathymus aryxna Dyar, 1905: comments by: (1) W. H. Evans,

C.S.1L., C.LE., D.S.0. (British Museum (Natural History), .

London); (2) Don B. eee and J. R. Turner eee
Kansas, U.S.A.) te

Lepisma Linnaeus, 1758: comments by: (1) Theresa Clay, D.Sc.
(British Museum (Natural History), London); (2) M. J.
Delany (University of Glasgow, Scotland) i oa He

Scorpio Linnaeus, 1758: comment by Otto Kraus (Forschungs-
Institut und Natur-Musewm een e: Frankfurt aM.,
Germany) yi ao =

AMMONOIDEA Zittel, 1854 (Ordinal Name): comment by D. T.
Donovan (University of Bristol, England) ae 3%

Proposed Declaration providing for the variation of the gender of
generic names to conform with established practice : comment
by Sir Gavin De Siete DSc., F.B.S. Soe iia British
Museum) :

Proposed variation of the gender of certain generic names in the
Classes Acanthocephala, Amphibia, Aves, Crustacea, and
Pisces to conform with established practice : comments by :
(1) Finn Salomonsen (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum,
Copenhagen, Denmark) ; ; (2) L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van
Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) ; (3) Denys W.
Tucker, B.Sc. (British Museum (Natural History), London) ; (4)
Robert Mertens (Forschungs-Institut und Natur-Museum
Senckenberg, Frankfurta.M., Germany) . - :

Fistulipora McCoy, 1849: comment by Madeleine A. Fritz (Royal
Ontario Museum of pied and ssi Toronto,
Canada)

Proposed Declaration prescribing the authorship to be attributed
to zoological names in certain cases: comment by L. R. Cox.,
M.A., D.Sc., F.RS. Sabay: Museum Be ita ere
London) as

Sphenodon Gray (J.E.), 1831: comment by T. Jaczewski (Institute
of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw) ae

Printed in England by Mercatre & Cooper Limitep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC2

Page

294

301

301

VOLUME ll. Part 10 30th December 1955
pp. 305—324, i—xviii 4 a)
PURCHASED

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON

ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

CONTENTS :
Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Page

Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature by voting on applications ee

in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ase fs .. 305
Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in one case ... 305

(continued back wrapper)

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
and
Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publication Office,
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
1955

Price Seventeen Shillings

(All rights reserved)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

A. The Officers of the Commission

Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological
Museum, Tring, Herts, England)

President: Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(12th August 1953)

Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953)
Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948)

B. The Members of the Commission

(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent
re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)

Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(Ist January 1947)

Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Za Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948)

Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)

Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948)
Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)

Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)

Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th June 1950)

Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw,
Poland) (15th June 1950)

Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt
a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950)

Professor Dr. Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin,
Germany) (5th July 1950)

Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President)

Professor J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953)

Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)
(President)

Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th
August 1953)

Professor Béla Hanké (Mezigazdasdgi Muzewm, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)

Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th
August 1953)

Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, Hngland) (12th August 1953)

Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th
August 1953)

Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra,
A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954)

Dr. Alden H. Miller (Musewm of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California,
U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) “

Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Prantl (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October
1954)

Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kiihnelt (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th
November 1954)

Professor F, 8. Bodenheimer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954)
Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954)

Professor Enrico Tortonese (Museo di Storia Naturale “G. Dorria,” Genova, Italy) (16th
December 1954)

——— ee

SC De a

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 11, Part 10 (pp. 305—324, i—xviii) 30th December, 1955

NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY

The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the
recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56, 57—59), by the Thirteenth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencel.
5 : 5—13, 131).

(a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published
in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’

NoTIcE is hereby given that normally the International Commission will
start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of
publication in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who
may desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present
Part (Vol. 11, Part 10) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing
to the Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible and in any case, in
sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secretariat
of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above.

(b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on

Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in one case

Notice is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers is involved in
applications published in the present Part of*the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature in relation to the following case :—

Pagurus Fabricius, 1775, suppression of, coupled with retention of name
PAGURIDAE Latreille, [1802—1803], at family-name level and issue of
direction giving precedence to DARDANINAE Schmitt, 1926, over
DIOGENINAE Ortmann, 1892 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda)
(Z.N.(S.) 859).

306 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

8. Comments received in sufficient time will be published in the Bulletin :
other comments, provided that they are received within the prescribed period
of six calendar months from the date of publication of the present Part will
be laid before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at
the time of commencement of voting on the application concerned.

4. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon at the Session held by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 56), corresponding Notices have been sent
to the serial publications Nature and Science.

(ec) Accounts of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
for the year 1954

Attention is drawn to the publication in the present Part of the Accounts
of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature for the year 1954 and
of the Balance Sheet as at 3lst December 1954. The corresponding Accounts
and Balance Sheets in respect of the years 1952 and 1953 are being published
in Part 12 of volume 9 of the present serial (now in the press).

FRANCIS HEMMING

Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature

28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park,
Lonpon, N.W.1, England.

30th December, 1955.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 307

APPLICATION FOR A DECISION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE
GENERIC NAME “ PAGURUS ”’ FABRICIUS, 1775 (CLASS CRUSTACEA,
ORDER DECAPODA) AND APPLICATION FOR THE USE OF THE
PLENARY POWERS IN REGARD THERETO IN CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES

by

J. FOREST
(Muséum National d@ Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France)

and

L. B. HOLTHUIS
(Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 859)
Part I (by J. Forest and L. B. Holthuis)

The form in which this proposal is presented is rather unusual, since it is
submitted by two applicants, who advocate different solutions for the problem
discussed in it. This is the reason why the present paper is divided in three
parts. In the first part, submitted jointly by the two authors, the nomen-
clatorial status of the generic name Pagurus Fabricius, 1775, and the problem
connected with it, are discussed. The second part is written by the first author
(Forest) and gives his views on this problem and his proposals for its solution.
The third part, finally, contains the viewpoint of the second author (Holthuis)
and the proposals submitted by him. It is the hope of the applicants that the
Commission, after due consideration of the two viewpoints, legalize one of them
by accepting the proposals of the author supporting it. The problem, now,

is the following :

2. The generic name Pagurus Fabricius, 1775, is used by all carcinologists

_ and is the best known of the names given to the genera of hermit crabs ; it is
_ thename of the type genus of the subfamily PAGURINAE, of the family PAGURIDAE,

. Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 10. December 1955.

308 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

and of the section PAGURIDEA ; the latter containing all species of hermit crabs
that are known at present. It is, therefore, the more regrettable that no
uniformity exists among carcinologists in the use of this name: it being
currently applied by different carcinologists to two widely different genera.
The object of the present application is to bring this question before the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in order to end the highly
undesirable state of confusion that exists at present in the literature dealing
with this group of Crustacea.

3. The following are the original references to the generic names dealt
with in the present application :—

Bernhardus Dana, 1851 (November-December), Proc. Acad. nat. Sct.
Philad. 5(11) : 267 (gender : masculine) (type species, by original designation :
Cancer bernhardus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 631).

“Dardanus Paulson, 1875, Issljed. Rakoobr. Krasn. Morja (Stud. Crust.
Red Sea) : 90 (gender: masculine) (type species, by monotypy: Dardanus
hellerii Paulson, 1875, Issljed. Rakoobr. Krasn. Morja (Stud. Crust. Red Sea) : 90
(which is a junior subjective synonym of Pagurus sanguinolentus Quoy &
Gaimard, 1825, Freyeinet’s Voy. autour Monde Uranie & Physicienne (Zool.) :
532).

Diogenes Dana, 1851, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 5(11) : 268 (gender :
masculine) (type species, by selection by Dana, 1852 (Amer. J. Sct. Arts (2)
13 (37) : 122): Pagurus miles Fabricius, 1787, Mant. Ins. 1 : 327).

Eupagurus Brandt, 1851 (September 30), Middendorff’s Reise N. u. G:

Sibiriens 2 (Zool. 1) : 105 (gender: masculine) (type species, by selection by
Stimpson, 1858 (Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1858 : 74) : Cancer bernhardus ~—

Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 631).

Pagurus Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 410 (gender : masculine) (type species,

by selection by Latreille, 1810 (Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arachn. Ins. : 422) :
Cancer bernhardus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 631).

POT Oe ane ee

fet]

ne ee ae ee See ae ee

x

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 309

Pagurus Berthold, 1827, in Latreille, Nat. Fam. Thierr. : 255 (a nomen
nudum).

4, Like in so many controversies concerning carcinological nomenclature
the origin of all the trouble lies in the fact that the carcinologists are divided
into two groups, each of which considers a different species as the type species
of the genus concerned. In the present case, one of these two groups, which
we for reasons of convenience will name “ Group I”’, is of the opinion that
Cancer bernhardus Linnaeus, 1758, is the type species of the genus Pagurus
Fabricius, 1775, while ‘‘ Group II ”’ indicates as the type species of that genus
Pagurus punctulatus Olivier (1811, Encycl. méthod. Hist. nat. 8 : 641) (= Cancer
megistos Herbst, 1804, Vers. Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 3(4) : 23). There can
be little doubt that Group I is right. Cancer bernhardus is the second of the
thirteen species originally included by Fabricius (1775) in his new genus
Pagurus, and it was selected as the type of that genus by Latreille (1810).
Pagurus punctulatus, on the other hand, does not figure among the species
originally included in the genus Pagurus, while furthermore not a single one
of the species placed by Fabricius (1775) in that genus, at present is considered
to be congeneric with Pagurus punctulatus Olivier. Dana’s (1852, Proc. Acad.

nat. Sci. Philad. 6 (1) : 6) selection of Pagurus punctulatus Olivier as the type
_ species of the genus Pagurus thus is invalid for two reasons. First, Dana’s
_ type selection is not the first, it having been made 42 years after Latreille’s
_ (1810) selection, and, second, the species selected by Dana is not one of the
species originally included in the genus.

]

5. Dana was followed in this error by the majority of carcinologists till
1896, when Benedict (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6) 18:99, footnote) pointed
out that Cancer bernhardus Linnaeus, actually is the type species of the genus
Pagurus. Since that time a large number of authors has followed Benedict,
but a considerable number continued to use the incorrect nomenclature.

6. To make matters even worse, the two genera discussed here, are the
type genera of the two subfamilies that together form the family PAGURIDAE.
Authors belonging to Group I use the names PAGURINAE and DARDANINAE
(or PAGURISTINAE Or DIOGENINAE) to indicate these subfamilies, while those of
roup II employ the names EUPAGURINAE and PAGURINAE respectively. It
ill be obvious to anyone that this state of affairs in which different authors
each of the names Pagurus and PAGURINAE for two widely different taxa
: intolerable, and it is hoped that a decision by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature will bring this confusion to an end

310 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

———

7. There are three possible solutions to this problem. In the following
table the names for the two genera (indicated as Genus A and Genus B
respectively), which under each of these solutions (indicated as Solutions I,
IT, and III respectively) would be the legal names, are indicated, together
with the names of their respective type species :—

Solution I Solution II Solution III

Pagurus Fabricius, | Hupagurus Brandt, | Hupagurus Brandt,
1775 1851 1851

Type species : Type species : Type species :
Cancer bernhardus| Cancer bernhardus| Cancer bernhardus
Linnaeus, 1758. Linnaeus, 1758. Linnaeus, 1758.

Dardanus Paulson, | Pagurus Fabricius, | Dardanus Paulson,
1875 1775 1875

Type species : Type species : Type species :
Dardanus hellerii Pagurus punctula-| Dardanus hellerii
Paulson, 1875. tus Olivier, 1811. Paulson, 1875.

8. Solution I is attained by a strict application of the International Rules —
of Zoological Nomenclature. The use of the Plenary Powers is not involved —
under this solution. The support for this solution comes from the members —
of Group I, who already are employing the names which under this Solution
are correct. Group I includes all American and Soviet carcinologists (with the —
exception of the American author Lee Boone). The names Pagurus and —
Dardanus are being used for the genera A and B respectively in both the ~
scientific and non-scientific literature of the American countries and the
U.S.S.R. These names also are used by the Hawaiian and Australian carcinolo- —
gists. Furthermore these names are used by a few zoologists in western —
Europe: the Spanish carcinologist Dr. R. Zariquiey Alvarez and two Dutch ~
workers in the group (the late Miss Alida M. Buitendijk, who worked extensively __
on Indo-West Pacific PaGuRIDAE, and the second author of the present —
proposal).

9. Solution II is the one supported by the group of authors indicated — ;
here as Group II. To attain this solution the Plenary Powers of the Com- —
mission have to be used to designate Pagurus punctulatus Olivier, 1811, as
the type species of the genus Pagurus Fabricius, at the same time suppressing —
all previous type selections for that genus. Group II includes practically
all French, British, German, and Scandinavian carcinologists. Also the —

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 31l

carcinologists from South Africa, India, Japan, and New Zealand belong here.
Tn the non-scientific literature of Western Europe the names Hupagurus and
Pagurus are commonly used for genus A and B respectively.

10. Solution III can be attained by the suppression of the ambiguous
generic name Pagurus Fabricius under the Plenary Powers of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, by which action the generic names
Eupagurus Brandt and Dardanus Paulson, about the identity of which no
ambiguity exists, would become available names. This solution has been
adopted by two French carcinologists : Professor Th. Monod, and the first author
of the present paper.

11. The present authors hope that in the foregoing paragraphs they have
given a sufficiently clear picture of the present awkward situation of the generic
name Pagurus Fabricius. There is one more problem, however, that needs to
be solved before a final action with regard to this generic name can be taken.
This problem concerns the identity of Cancer bernhardus Linnaeus, 1758, the
type species of the genera Pagurus Fabricius and Hupagurus Brandt.
Linnaeus’s (1758) original definition of Cancer bernhardus does not fit for the
species which at present currently is indicated with the name Pagurus (or
Eupagurus) bernhardus (Linnaeus). Linnaeus’s description namely runs as
follows :

“ C[ancer]. macrourus parasiticus, chelis cordatis laevibus: sinistra majore.

Maitth. diosc. 230. Aldr. exsangu. 218
Rond. pisc. 1. p. 553. Jonst. exsangu. t. 7. f. 6—12.
Bellon. aquat. 362. Swammerd. bibl. t. 11. f. 1, 2.

Gesn. aquat. 161.
Habitat in Oceano Europaeo, intra varias testas Concharum.
Chelae margine anteriore versus basin barbatae.”’

12. In the species which is at present generally known as Pagurus bernhardus

_ the two chelae are roughened by tubercles, and the right chela always is larger
_ than the left. For this species the definition given by Linnaeus (1767, Syst.
_ Nat. (ed. 12) 1: 1049) for Cancer bernhardus fits far better: ‘‘ C[ancer].

macrourus parasiticus, chelis cordatis muricatis: dextra majore.” All
subsequent authors, like Fabricius (1775) in the original description of the

- genus Pagurus, ignore Linnaeus’s 1758 description of Cancer bernhardus and
__ use the specific name bernhardus in the sense adopted by Linnaeus in 1767.

312 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

13. Linnaeus’s (1758) definition is based either on Diogenes pugilator
(Roux, 1829) or on Paguristes oculatus (Fabricius, 1775). Many of the descrip-
tions and figures of hermit crabs given by the authors cited by Linnaeus (1758)
in the original description of Cancer bernhardus, are not recognisable, but a few
can be identified with known species. The figures given by Matthioli, Rondelet,
Bellonius, Gesner, Aldrovandus, and Jonston are either so crude as to make
identification impossible or show a species with the left chela larger than the
right. This species, presumably Diogenes pugilator, is figured by Matthioli,
Rondelet, Gesner, and Jonston; the figures given by the last two authors
being no more than copies of that given by Rondelet. The species described
and figured by Swammerdam, however, can be identified without the least
doubt as being identical with the species currently known as Pagurus (or
Eupagurus) bernhardus. Cancer bernhardus Linnaeus, 1758, thus is a composite
species, Linnaeus having confounded under that name at least two species :
Pagurus bernhardus, and Diogenes pugilator, and/or Paguristes oculatus. In
normal circumstances it would be logical to choose as the lectotype of Cancer
bernhardus a specimen that agrees with Linnaeus’s original definition. In
the present case, however, such a selection would mean that Pagurus bernhardus
would become synonymous with either Diogenes pugilator or with Paguristes
oculatus, so that the well known generic name Pagurus and the equally well
known specific name bernhardus would have to be transferred to a genus and
a species for which they have practically never been used. This transfer of
names would cause such enormous confusion that no well-thinking carcinologist
would ever attempt to introduce it. The only sensible solution is. therefore
to select as the lectotype of Cancer bernhardus the specimen figured by
Swammerdam (1737, Bibl. Naturae: pl. 11, fig. 1), even if this specimen does
not agree with Linnaeus’s original definition of the species. We accordingly
here select the above specimen to be the lectotype of this species.

14. Swammerdam received his material from fishermen living in the Dutch
coastal village of Scheveningen near The Hague, who saved for him any curious
animal that they got in their nets. It is known that around 1700 the
Scheveningen fishermen went out in their flat-bottomed ships and fished in
the southern North Sea (from the Dogger Bank southwards), generally staying
rather close to the Dutch coast. Swammerdam’s specimens therefore certainly
came from the southern North Sea, a locality which we now may indicate as
the restricted type locality of Cancer bernhardus Linnaeus, the actual type
locality being “‘ in Oceano Europaeo”’. We do not know what became of the
specimen of Pagurus bernhardus after Swammerdam described and figured it.
He may have discarded it or placed it in his collection. When Swammerdam
died on February 17, 1680, he had the intention to sell his collection but had
not yet done so (see Engel, 1938, Bijdr. Dierk. 27 : 320). It is not known what

happened to the collection after Swammerdam’s death, and we must consider —

his specimens as either destroyed or lost.

—

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 313

15. The name for the subfamily containing Genus B shows the following
synonymy :—

PAGURINAE (correction by Samouelle (1819, Entomol. useful Comp.:91) of
PaGurRi) Latreille, 1802—1803, Hist. nat. Crust. Ins. 3 : 29 (type genus
Pagurus Fabricius, 1775). (Ortmann, 1892 (Zool. Jb. Syst. 6 : 269, 275)
was the first author to use the subfamily name PAGURINAE in the sense
adopted by workers belonging to Group I.)

DIOGENINAE Ortmann, 1892, Zool. Jb. Syst. 6 : 270, 294 (type genus : Diogenes
Dana, 1851)

DARDANINAE Schmitt, 1926, Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 53 : 45 (type genus :
Dardanus Paulson, 1875)

PAGURISTINAE Makarov, 1938, Faune URSS 10(3):157 (type genus:
Paguristes Dana, 1851, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 5 : 268, 269, 271).
(This name was first published in the invalid vernacular (German) form
as PAGURISTINEN by Boas in 1924 (Biol. Meddel. K. Dansk Videns. Selsk.
Kjobenhaven 4(4) : 30.)

16. Authors of Group II use the name PAguRINAE for the foregoing sub-
family. Under the Rules authors belonging to Group I should use for this
subfamily the name DIOGENINAE, that being the oldest available name. This
name has, however, hardly been used at all in modern carcinological literature,
and it is desirable that the Commission should use its Plenary Powers to direct
that the name DIOGENINAE Ortmann is not to be used in preference to the
name DARDANINAE Dana, notwithstanding its priority over that name. This
course is necessary, partly because the general introduction of the name
DIOGENINAE Ortmann at the subfamily level would do violence to established
practice and partly because the genus Diogenes Dana is most unsuitable for
adoption as the type genus of a family-group taxon, as its species present
certain aberrant characters not shared by the remainder of the group.

17. The subfamily containing Genus A is called PAGURINAE by authors
of Group I. By authors of Group II it is known as EUPAGURINAE Ortmann,
1892 (Zool. Jb. Syst. § : 270, 296 (type genus: Hupagurus, Brandt, 1851).
So far as is known to us, there are no junior synonyms of the name EUPAGURINAE.

Part IJ. Discussion and proposals by J. Forest =

18. The selection of the specimen figured by Swammerdam as the lecto-
type of Cancer bernhardus Linnaeus, the only practical way of remedying the

314 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

antinomy existing between the definitions given by Linnaeus in 1758 and
in 1767, involves, under a strict observance of the Rules the attribution of the
name Pagurus Fabricius to Genus A, in conformity with Latreille’s 1810
selection of Pagurus bernhardus as the type species of this genus.

19. In the present case, however, such a strict application of the Rules
would, it seems to me, let the confusion in the Paguridean nomenclature
continue. We may assume that in the future some carcinologists will again
use the name Pagurus for Genus B, following in this the eminent early carci-
nologists, who are the authors of basic monographs on the Pagurids, like Dana
and especially Alcock (1905, Cat. Indian Decap. Crust. Indian Mus. 2(1)),
whose monograph contains the most complete study of the group yet published.
Tf, e.g., a new species of Pagurus is mentioned in the Zoological Record, we shall
still wonder which genus is actually meant. A suspension of the Rules, giving
the name Pagurus to Genus B, would cause the same inconveniences. No
decision in which the generic name Pagurus was maintained could end the
present state of confusion. The same holds true for the subfamily name
PAGURINAE. This name was first used by Ortmann in 1892 (Zool. Jb. Syst.
6 : 270, 275). It was employed by this author for the subfamily containing
genus B. In 1938 Makarov (Faune URSS 10(3) : 156, 169) used the same
subfamily name for the other subfamily of PacuRIDAE. At present it is
practically impossible to know which subfamily is meant when the name
PAGURINAE is used for it.

20. Therefore I propose the complete suppression of the names Pagurus
and PAGURINAE, which have by now lost their usefulness because of the different
meaning attached to them by different carcinologists. By this action the
unambiguous generic names Hupagurus Brandt and Dardanus Paulson, together
with the equally unambiguous subfamily names EUPAGURINAE and DARDANINAE,
become valid names. This solution has already been adopted by Professor
Th. Monod (1933, Bull. Com. Hiud. Hist. Sci. Afr. occid. frang. 13 : 25—30).
I would suggest however that the name PAGURIDAE be maintained for the family
since this name has continually been used by all carcinologists and no ambiguity
whatsoever is attached to it. The same holds true for the names based on the
generic name Pagurus given to those taxa of the family group that are above
the family level. It seems to be of little sense to coin new names for these

groups.

21. I now submit to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature the following proposals in which I ask for :—

|
:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 315

(1) the use of the Plenary Powers :—

(a) to suppress the generic name Pagurus Fabricius, 1775 (type species,
by selection by Latreille (1810): Cancer bernhardus Linnaeus,
1758) for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those
of the Law of Homonymy ;

(b) to validate the family-group name PAGURIDAE (correction of
PAGURIZ) Latreille, [1802—1803] (type genus : Pagurus Fabricius,
1775) for use as the name for taxa belonging to the family and
higher categories within the family-group of categories, but not
for taxa belonging to any category within that group below the
category of family ;

(c) to direct that the family-group name DIOGENINAE Ortmann,
1892, is not to be used in preference to the name DARDANINAE
Schmitt, 1926, by workers who consider that the type genera
of these two nominal family-group taxa are referrable to the
same family-group taxon ;

(2) the insertion in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the
under-mentioned generic names :—

(a) Dardanus Paulson, 1875 (gender: masculine) (type species, by
monotypy: Dardanus hellerii Paulson, 1875) ;

(b) Hupagurus Brandt, 1851 (30th Sept.) (gender: masculine) (type
species, by selection by Stimpson (1858): Cancer bernhardus
Linnaeus, 1758) ;

(3) the insertion in the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names
in Zoology of the following generic names :—

(a) Bernhardus Dana, 1851 (Nov.-Dec.) (a junior objective synonym
of Eupagurus Brandt, 1851) ;

(b) Pagurus Fabricius, 1775, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers
under (1)(a) above ;

(c) Pagurus Berthold, 1827 (a nomen nudum) ;

(4) a ruling that the nominal species Cancer bernhardus Linnaeus, 1758,
be interpreted by the lectotype selected by Forest & Holthuis in the
present application, namely the specimen figured by Swammerdam
in 1737 as fig. 1 on pl. XI of that author’s Bybel der Natuure ;

(5) the insertion in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the
under-mentioned specific names :—

316 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(a) bernhardus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination
Cancer bernhardus and as defined by the lectotype specified in
(4) above (specific name of type species of Hupagurus Brandt,
1851);

(b) sanguinolentus Quoy & Gaimard, 1825, as published in the com-
bination Pagurus sanguinolentus ;

(6) the insertion in the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology
of the under-mentioned family-group names :—

(a) DIOGENINAE Ortmann, 1892 (type genus: Diogenes Dana, 1851),
the entry of this name on the Official List to be subject to the
following endorsements :—(i) that this name is placed on the
Jist for use by those workers who consider on taxonomic
grounds that Diogenes Dana, 1851, should be placed in a family-
group-taxon different from that in which Dardanus Paulson,
1875, is placed, and (ii) that, in accordance with the directions
given under the Plenary Powers under (1)(c) above, the name
DIOGENINAE Ortmann, 1892, is not to be used in preference
to the name DARDANINAE Schmitt, 1926, notwithstanding its
older date ;

(b) DARDANINAE Schmitt, 1926 (type genus : Dardanus Paulson, 1875),
the entry of this name on the List to be subject to the following
endorsement :—this name to be given preference, in accordance
with the directions given under the Plenary Powers under
(1)(c) above, over the name DIOGENINAE Ortmann, 1892, by any
worker who may consider on taxonomic grounds that Dardanus
Paulson, 1875, and Diogenes Dana, 1851, are referrable to the _
same family-group taxon ; F

(c) EUPAGURINAE Ortmann, 1892 (type genus: Hupagurus Brandt,
1851), as the name for taxa belonging to any category within the
family-group below the category of family ;

(d) PAGURIDAE (correction of pacuRm) Latreille, [1802—1803] (type
genus: Pagurus Fabricius, 1775), as the name, under the
Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above, for taxa belonging to the
family and higher categories within the family-group but not -
for taxa belonging to any category within that group below the —
category of family ; ‘

(7) the insertion in the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group —
Names in Zoology of the under-mentioned names :—

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 317

(a) EUPAGURIDAE (elevation of EUPAGURINAE) Ortmann, 1892 (type
genus : Hupagurus Brandt, 1851), as the name for taxa belonging
to the family and higher categories within the family-group
(invalid because for taxa of the foregoing ranks a junior objective
synonym of PAGURIDAE (correction of PaGURIZ) Latreille, [1802—
1803)) ;

(b) PAGURINAE (correction at subfamily level of pacuru) Latreille,
[1802—1803], as the name for taxa of all categories within the
family-group below the category of family (invalid because,
under Declaration 20, suppressed automatically as the name for
such taxa consequent upon the suppression under the Plenary
Powers of the generic name Pagurus Fabricius, 1775, the name
of the type genus).

22. I should like to add by way of explanation that of the proposals now
submitted that which I regard as being of the first importance is the suppression
of the generic name Pagurus Fabricius. Accordingly, I hope that, if the Com-
mission were to feel that it would be difficult to take this action while at the same
time keeping alive the family-name PAGURIDAE (though not the family-group
names of lower rank based upon the generic name Pagurus), the Commission
will give precedence to the request for the suppression of the above generic
name. In that event, I would ask the Commission, while rejecting my proposal
(1)(b) (proposal for the validation of the family name PAGURIDAE), to place the
family-group name EUPAGURINAE Ortmann, 1892, on the Official List of Family-
Group Names in Zoology. Under this arrangement, the name for the family
in question would become EUPAGURIDAE in view of the co-ordinate character
of names given to taxa of all categories in the family-group. The adoption of
this course would have the following consequential effects on the proposals
which I have submitted as regards family-group names :—(i) it would be
necessary to delete the qualifications proposed in (6)(c) (relating to the family-
group name EUPAGURINAE) ; (ii) proposal (6)(d) (relating to the placing of
PAGURIDAE on the Official List) and proposal (7)(a) (relating to the placing on the
Official Index of EUPAGURIDAE, while retaining that name for taxa below full
family rank) would need to be deleted. (The proposed deletion, as suggested
in (i) above, of the qualification to the entry of EUPAGURINAE on the Official
Tist would have the effect of making that name available at the family-name
level instead of only at the subfamily level and lower levels as now proposed.)
Finally, (iii) it would be necessary to delete the qualification at present inserted
in proposal (7)(b) since in the circumstances envisaged the family-group name

_ based upon the generic name Pagurus would become invalid for all purposes
! instead of (as now proposed) being retained at the family-name level.

318 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Part III. Discussion and proposals by L. B. Holthuis

23. Of the three solutions to the present problem, it is Solution I which,
in my opinion, is the most acceptable. Solution III, it is true, has some
attractive aspects, but a number of reasons make me believe that the other
Solutions are to be preferred. These reasons are the following :—

(a) Solution III has been adhered to in the publications of only one author
(Th. Monod), who rejects the generic name Pagurus, while until now all other
carcinologists have been using this name, although in two different senses.
Acceptance of Solution III would mean that every carcinologist except one
would have to change the nomenclature that he has been using thus far. It
seems more logical to me to legalize a solution that has been accepted by the
majority of carcinologists so that the number of authors that have to change
the names adopted by them, be as small as possible.

(b) The generic name Pagurus Fabricius is the oldest of the generic names
for hermit crabs and it may be considered to be the typical name in this group.
As has already been pointed out Pagurus is the type genus of the subfamily
PAGURINAE, of the family PacuRIDAE, and of the section PAGURIDEA (the
latter group containing all hermit crabs). Furthermore the name has pene-
trated widely in non-systematic literature and even vernacular derivations
like “ pagures”’, “‘ pagurides”’, “ pagurids”, and “ Paguriden”’ are found
in a very large number of scientific and non-scientific publications. From
the name Pagurus are derived a great number of names for genera of hermit
crabs like Anapagurus, Catapagurus, Cestopagurus, Holopagurus, Mixtopagurus,
Nematopagurus, Orthopagurus, Parapagurus, Sympagurus, etc. The suppression
of the name Pagurus would therefore deprive the section PAGURIDEA of the
basic name on which the nomenclature of most of its genera and higher taxa .
is based.

(c) I strongly doubt that the continuation of the use of the generic name
Pagurus will do much harm. It is true that under Solution I and Solution II
the name Pagurus will be an ambiguous name for some time, but this state
of ambiguity will last only until such time as the decision on this question made
by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is generally
accepted by zoologists. Such a period of ambiguity, however, exists in the —
ease of every generic name when the genus so named is split up into two or ©
more genera. When, e.g., an author finds that the species generally placed
in a genus X, in his opinion actually belong in two different genera, which he —
then names X and Y, the name X will be an ambiguous name till the decision —

'
~

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 319

of this author has been accepted by other zoologists. Such a period of instability
will also occur if Solution III is decided upon by the Commission, as it will take
some time before zoologists get acquainted with this decision. I do not see
any reason why this period for Solution III should be shorter than for Solution
I or Solution IT.

(d) I believe that not too much importance should be attached to the
ambiguity of the name Pagurus. As a generic name it practically always is
used in combination with a specific name, and the latter will provide an imme-
diate clue as to the identity of the genus so named. The combination of the
generic name Pagurus and a specific name will show whether the author using
these names belongs to Group I or to Group IJ. When new species of the
genus Pagurus are described the description will provide the clue. In this
respect too the continued use of the generic name Pagurus will not do too much
harm.

24. For these reasons I do not believe that Solution IIT should be preferred
to either of the two other Solutions. As far as the latter are concerned, I
might put forward the following considerations.

25. In order to legalize Solution II it would be necessary to suspend the
Rules, while Solution I is obtainable without such action. A suspension of the
Rules is to be given “‘ for the purpose of preventing confusion and of promoting
a stable and universally accepted nomenclature ’” (Hemming, 1953, Copenhagen
Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 23). In the present case some confusion cannot be
prevented since it is already in existence. In order to attain a universally
accepted nomenclature, the authors forming either Group I or Group IT would
have to change the names they have been adopting thus far. In my opinion,

~a suspension of the Rules would be justified here only if the workers of Group IT
were distinctly more numerous than those of Group I, so that such a suspension
would cause less confusion than would the strict application of the Rules.
In Part I of this application the size of Groups I and IT have already been
indicated jointly by the present applicants. Though I cannot give exact
figures of the numbers of the carcinologists of today belonging to one or the
other of the two Groups, I am of the opinion that Group I certainly is not smaller
than Group II, and that it is growing gradually at the expense of that Group,
mainly because it adheres to the Rules. Furthermore, the number of species ~
of genera A and B living in the territory covered by the workers of Group I
is larger, I believe, than the number in the region investigated by Group II.
Alcock (1905, Cat. Indian Decap. Crust. Indian Mus. 2(1) : 174—184), e.g.,
listed 13 species of Hupagurus as belonging to the fauna of Europe and not less
than 55 species of the same genus as occurring in North America.

320 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

26. I do not believe therefore that a suspension of the Rules would serve
any useful purpose on this occasion. Accordingly, in my opinion such a sus-
pension would not be justified in the present case. For this reason the Com-
mission is asked to :—

(1) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the under-mentioned

generic names :—

(a) Pagurus Fabricius, 1775 (type species, by subsequent selection
by Latreille (1810) : Cancer bernhardus Linnaeus, 1758) ;

(b) Dardanus Paulson, 1875 (type species, by monotypy: Dardanus
hellerit Paulson, 1875).

(c) Diogenes Dana, 1851 (type species, by subsequent selection by
Dana (1852): Pagurus miles Fabricius, 1787) ;

(2) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology the under-mentioned generic names :—
(a) Hupagurus Brandt, 1851 (a junior objective synonym of Pagurus
Fabricius, 1775) ;
(b) Bernhardus Dana, 1851 (a junior objective synonym of Pagurus
Fabricius, 1775).

(c) Pagurus Berthold, 1827 (a nomen nudum) ;

(3) rule that the nominal species Cancer bernhardus Linnaeus, 1758, be
interpreted by the lectotype selected by Forest & Holthuis in the
present application, namely the specimen figured by Swammerdam
in 1737 as fig. 1 on pl. XI of that author’s Bybel der Natuure ;

(4) place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology :—

(a) bernhardus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination

Cancer bernhardus and as defined by the lectotype specified in (3)

above (specific name of type species of Pagurus Fabricius, 1775) ;

(b) miles Fabricius, 1787, as published in the combination Pagurus
miles (specific name of type species of Diogenes Dana, 1851) ;

(c) sanguinolentus Quoy & Gaimard, 1825, as published in the com-
bination Pagurus sanguinolentus ;

(5) place the under-mentioned family-group names on the Official List of

Family-Group Names in Zoology :—
(a) DIOGENINAE Ortmann, 1892 (type genus : Diogenes Dana, 1851) ;

(b) PAGURIDAE (correction by Samouelle, 1819, of Pacurm) Latreille,
[1802—1803] (type genus : Pagurus Fabricius, 1775) ;

:

a i i i

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 321

(6) place the under-mentioned family-group names on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Family- Group Names in Zoology :—

(a) EUPAGURINAE Ortmann, 1892 (type genus: ELupagurus Brandt,
1851) (invalid because the type genus has as its type species the
same species as that which is the type species of Pagurus
Fabricius, 1775, the type genus of the older family-group taxon
PAGURIDAE (correction of PaguRI) Latreille, [1802—1803]);

(b) PAcuRI Latreille, [1802—1803] (type genus : Pagurus Fabricius,
1775) (an Invalid Original Spelling for PAGuRIDAz) ;

(c) PAGURISTINEN Boas, 1924 (type genus: Paguristes Dana, 1851)

(invalid because a vernacular (German) word and not a Latin
or Latinised word).

322 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSITION POUR LE REJET DEFINITIF DES NOMS DE GENRES

““PAGURUS ”’ FABRICIUS, 1775, ET ‘“‘ PAGURUS ’? LATREILLE, 1803;

PROPOSITION D’ACCEPTER DEFINITIVEMENT ‘“ EUPAGURUS ”

BRANDT, 1851 (SUB. GEN.) ET ‘‘DARDANUS’”’ PAULSON, 1875,
COMME NOMS DE GENRES

par ROBERT Ph. DOLLFUS
(Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 859)
(For the application in this case, see the preceding paper)
(Letter received 20th December 1954)

Joh. Chr. Fabricius (1775 p. 410; 1781 p. 506; 1787 p. 327; 1793 p. 468;
1798 p. 411) a désigné comme “ chef de file”’ et premiére espéce de son genre
Pagurus, le ‘‘ Cancer latro L.”’. L’usage n’était pas répandu & cette époque de
désigner un “ type du genre”’, mais les auteurs désignaient un “ chef de file” et
il est parfaitement clair que, pour Fabricius, le ‘“‘ chef de file’? (nous disons
actuellement l’espéce type) était Cancer Latro L. 1767.

Comme seconde espéce, en 1775 et 1781, Fabricius a mentionné “ Cancer
bernhardus L.’’, mais, en 1787, 1793 et 1798 il a mentionné comme seconde espéce
Pagurus aniculus Fabr., plagant Vespéce ‘‘ Bernhardus” & la 3e place, la
considérant done comme plus éloignée du “ chef de file”’t. Dans le Nomenclator
de Fr. Weber (1795 p. 93)t l’espéce Latro est aussi la premiére et l’espéce Bernhardus
la 3e.

Plus de 25 ans aprés la création de Pagurus par Fabricius est apparu le genre
homonyme Pagurus P. A. Latreille (1803, t. V, p. 160, 167§; 1803 t. VI, p. 137—
161; 1806 p. 48; 1810 p. 4221; 1818 p. 358—367||; 1829 p. 76—77), avec,
comme “‘ chef de file ’’, ou ‘‘ exemple ’’, ou espéce représentative du genre [e’est &
dire espéce type] “‘ Cancer Bernhardus Lin”.

+ L’importance des espéces “ chef de file’ pour le choix de l’espéce type a été soulignée dans
les paragraphes r et s de l’article 30 des Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique.

{ Weber (Friderico)—Nomenclator entomologicus secundum Entomologiam systematicam
ill. Fabricii adjectis speciebus recens detectis et varietatibus, conscriptus a... VIII + 172 p.;
Chilonii et Hamburgi 1795.

§ Aucune espéce n’est mentionnée par Latreille 1803 p. 191 & propos du genre Pagure.
7 Aucune espéce n’est mentionnée par Latreille 1810 p. 100 pour le genre “‘ Pagure. Pagurus”.

|| En 1818, p. 359, Latreille dit que Fabricius a détaché les pagures des crabes macroures de
Linné “ pour en former un genre propre dont il a plus particulitrement développé les caractéres
dans le supplément de son Entomologie systématique”’, mais Latreille, p. 365 écrit: “* Les
Pagures, Paguri Leach” sans attribuer le genre & Fabricius.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 10. December 1955.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 323

Le mot ‘‘ type ” est employé pour la premiére fois par Latreille en 1810 (p. 421—
444 “ table des genres avec l’indication de lespéce qui leur sert de type”’)+. Dans
cette publication, & propos du “ type’ Latreille ne cite nulle part Fabricius
comme auteur du “‘ genre Pagurus ”{. En 1806, p. 46, on lit: “ gen. Pagurus
Dald. § Fab., Lam.—Cancer, Linn.—Astacus de Geer” et plus tard (1829 Diet) is
““Pagures propres, Pagurus, Latr.”. I] y a done bien un genre Pagurus
Latreille, qui n’est pas celui de Fabricius et Cancer latro L. est accepté, dans la
méme publication (1829 p. 76) comme type de Birgus Leach (1815), sans qu’il
soit question du genre Pagurus Fabr.

Beaucoup de carcinologistes ont suivi Latreille, par exemple W. E. Leach
(1815 p. 337), Henri Milne-Edwards (1836 p. 266 ; 1848 p. 59), James E. Benedict
(1896 p. 99 note*), ete... . et accepté Pagurus avec P. bernhardus (L.) comme
espéce type mais beaucoup d’autres ont accepté comme genre pour l’espéce
bernhardus, le sous-genre Eupagurus Joh. Fried. Brandt 1851 (= gen. Bernhardus
James D. Dana 1852). Lorsque J. F. Brandt (1851 p- 29) proposa Eupagurus
comme sous-genre de Pagurus Joh. Chr. Fabr., il eut soin de préciser que Hupagurus
etait pris dans le sens de “ Pagures ordinaires ”” H. M. Edwards (1848 p. 59), ayant
comme chef de file et premiére espéce “ Pagurus Bernhardus Fabr.”’. L’acception
du genre Eupagurus ne prétant & aucune amgibuité, Brandt a été suivi par la
plupart des carcinologistes. Toutefois Mary J. Rathbun (1900 p- 303) comme
Vavait déja proposé J. E. Benedict (1896 p. 99 note *) a rejeté Eupagurus Brandt
comme étant synonyme de Pagurus Fabr. et repris Pagurus Fabr. pour les espéces
que l’on plagait, depuis Brandt, dans Eupagurus. Agissant ainsi M. J. Rathbun
n’a pas tenu compte que Vespéce type de Pagurus est Cancer latro L. Cette décision
de M. J. Rathbun avait pour conséquences que :

1° tous les Eupagurus devenaient des Pagurus

2° toutes les espéces laissées jusqu’alors dans Pagurus|l, n’ayant plus
d’espéce type devaient étre enrdlées sous un autre nom générique. Tout
@abord, M. J. Rathbun (1900 p. 302) choisit, au moins pour quelques

t D’aprés Opinion 11 (Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature. Smithsonian Institution, public. n° 1938, July 1910, p. 17—18), les espéces
désignées par Latreille en 1810 comme types des genres doivent étre acceptées. Cela obligerait
& accepter l’espéce “ Bernhardus Fabr.” comme type du genre Pagurus, si Opinion 11 ne
econcluait: “It is self-understood that this Opinion does not imply that Latreille’s (1810)
designations should take precedence over any earlier writings”. Dans le cas présent, le choix
de Vespéce Bernhardus par Latreille comme espéce type de Pagurus Latreille n’est pas a retenir
pour l’espéce type de Pagurus J. C. Fabricius. Le genre Pagurus Latreille disparait comme
atl de Pagurus J. C. Fabricius. II est évident que l’Opinion 11 s’oppose & un effet

troactif.

f Latreille (1803 p. 136) dit seulement: “Les bernard Vhermite, que Fabricius appelle
assez mal 4 propos pagures, paguri, forment le genre le plus étendu de cette famille (Famille 3:
errchs) tel est le motif de sa dénomination ”. Latreille a donc emprunté le “ genre”

‘agurus.

§ C’est & dire Daldorff (Dagobert Carl de) ; ouvrage manuscrit.

1 Il va de soi que, par P. bernhardus (Linné), il faut entendre celui de Linné 1767 p. 1049,
n° 57 (Lovisae Ulricae Reginae Museum [Stockholm] n° 454 et Fauna suecica 2032*) qui est
Vespéce & chélipéde droit plus grand que le gauche, figurée par Swammerdam Bibl. t. IL, fig. 1, 2)
et non pas le “ Bernhardus ” de 1758 p. 631, n° 40, qui est certainement une toute autre espéce,
ayant le chélipéde gauche plus grand que le droit. C'est Jacques Forest qui a attiré mon
attention sur ce point.

Eee exemple: arrosor, pectinatus, insignis, calidus, depressus, punctulatus, sculptipes,
granulimanus, ete. :

324 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

unes de celles-ci, Petrochirus W. Stimpson 1858, dont elle dut étendre
beaucoup l’acception, ensuite (1902 p. 33), elle adopta Dardanus Paulson
1875, fondé sur Pagurus depressus C. Heller 1861. Peu auparavant,
James E. Benedict (1901 p. 141) avait proposé “* Pagurias new name ”
pour les espéces ne pouvant pas étre conservées dans le méme genre que
Pespéce bernhardus et il plaga dans Pagurias le Pagurus insignis H. Saussure
1858 qui appartient au groupe arrosor pectinatus. Si l’on admet dans le
méme genre, d’une part: arrosor, pectinatus, insignis, et d’autre part:
depressus, Pagurias J. E. Benedict ne peut pas étre conservé, c’est pourquoi
M. J. Rathbun (1902 p. 33) l’a placé en synonymie de Dardanus Paulson.t

Waldo L. Schmitt (1926 p. 45) a aussi adopté Dardanus, y comprenant le groupe
arrosor-pectinatus-insignis en méme temps que granulimanus Miers.

Théodore Monod (1933 p. 480, 482) a également admis Dardanus pour arrosor
Herbst 1794, granulimanus Miers 1881 et calidus A. Risso 1826; il a conservé
Eupagurus Brandt. Beaucoup d’autres carcinologistes, tels que A. Alcock (1905
p. 26, 122, 174), Otto Pesta (1918 p. 227), H. Balss (1921 p. 43; 1927 p. 376; 1936
p. 22); José V. Yap-Chiongca (1938 p. 185), G. Melin (1939 p. 20, 29), E. L. Bouvier
(1941 p. 129), etc., ont aussi conservé Hupagurus pour les espéces du groupe
bernhardus, sans toutefois reprendre Dardanus Paulson.

Actuellement, il régne une telle confusion dans l’emploi de Pagurus que nous
demandons a la Commission Internationale de la Nomenclature Zoologique :

1° de supprimer définitivement Pagurus Fabricius et Pagurus Latreille

2° d’admettre comme nomina conservanda Hupagurus Brandt, Dardanus
O. Paulson et Birgus Leach.{

+ Pagurias pourrait étre repris comme sous-genre de Dardanus s’il devenait nécessaire de

séparer arrosor et depressus dans des sous-genres différents.

{Il ne peut pas étre question de rejeter Birgus W. E. Leach 1815 au profit de Pagurus

J. C. Fabricius 1775, comme ayant la méme espéce type: Cancer latroL. En effect Birgus est
universellement employé depuis 1815 et ne préte & aucune ambiguité.

-—

ov
we

os

CONTENTS
(continued from front wrapper)

New applications

Application for a decision regarding the status of the generic name
Pagurus Fabricius, 1775 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) and
application for the use of the Plenary Powers in regard thereto
in certain circumstances. By J. Forest (Muséum National
d Histoire Naturelle, Paris) and L. B. Holthuis ea
van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)...

Comment on the above Application

Proposition pour le rejet definitif des noms de genres Pagurus
Fabricius, 1775, et Pagurus Latreille, 1803; proposition
daccepter definitivement Hupagurus Brandt, 1851 (subgen.)
et Dardanus Paulson, 1875, comme noms de genres. Par
Robert Ph. Dollfus eo9 uséum National d Histoire Naturelle,
Paris)

Also published in the present Part

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature : Accounts for the
Year 1954 and Balance Sheet as at 31st December 1954

Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper LiiTeED, 10-24 Scrutton St,, London EC2

OO

for

Printed by Order

s/o

ee ye ae ee ee

=

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

A. The Officers of the Commission

Honorary Life President; Dr. Karl Jordan (British Musewm (Natural History), Zoological
Museum, Tring, Herts, England)

President: Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(12th August 1953)

Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953)
Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948)

B. The Members of the Commission

(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent
re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)

Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(1st January 1947)

Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948)

Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)

Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Musewm, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948)
Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)

Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)

Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950)

Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw,
Poland) (15th June 1950)

Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt
a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950)

Professor Dr. Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin,
Germany) (5th July 1950)

Senbor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (8. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President),
Professor J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953)

Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August. 1953)
( President)

Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th
' August 1953)

Professor Béla Hanké (Mezogazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)

Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th
August 1953)

Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)

Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th
August 1953)

Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra,
A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954)

Dr. Alden H. Miller (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California,
U.S.A.) (29th October 1954)

Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Prantl (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October
1954)

Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kiihnelt (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th
November 1954)

Professor F. 8. Bodenheimer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954)

Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954)

Professor Enrico Tortonese (Museo di Storia Naturale “G. Doria,’ Genova, Italy) (16th
December 1954)

hj in a
4 GF > J,

7 > cee
ae, <
SA WiSd

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 11, Part 11 (pp. 325—356) 9th May 1956

NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY

The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the
recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:51—56, 57—59), by the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 5 : 5—13, 131).

(a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published
in the “‘ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’

Noricez is hereby given that normally the International Commission will
start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of
publication in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who
may desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present
Part (Vol. 11, Part 11) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing
to the Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible and in any case, in
sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secretariat
of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above.

(b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain cases

Notice is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers is involved in
applications published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological

Nomenclature in relation to the under-mentioned names :—

(1) Turbinella Lamarck, 1799 (Class Pelecypoda), validation of (Z.N.(S.)
383) ;

(2) Terrakea Booker (F.W.), 1930, designation of type species for, in
harmony with accustomed usage, and brachythaerus Morris, 1845
(Productus), validation of (Class Brachiopoda) (Z.N.(S.) 438) ;

326 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued)
(3) Unio Philipsson, 1788 (Class Pelecypoda), designation of a type species
for, in harmony with accustomed usage (Z.N.(S.) 451) ;
(4) Elaphe Fitzinger, 1833 (Class Reptilia), validation of (Z.N.(S.) 824) ;

(5) daea Dampf, 1910 (Palaeopsylla) (Class Insecta, Order Siphonaptera),
determination of (Z.N.(S8.) 846) ;

(6) Torquesia Douvillé, 1929 (Class Gastropoda), designation of type
species for, in harmony with accustomed usage (Z.N.(S.) 1027).

2. Public Notice is given also of the proposed suppression, under the
Plenary Powers, of a pamphlet entitled Preliminary Descriptions of some new
Birds by R. B. Horniman dated “ January 1940 ” (Z.N.(S.) 782).

3. Comments received in sufficient time will be published in the Bulletin :
other comments, provided that they are received within the prescribed period
of six calendar months from the date of publication of the present Part will
be laid before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at
the time of commencement of voting on the application concerned.

4, In accordance with the procedure agreed upon at the Session held by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 56), corresponding Notices have been sent
to the serial publications Nature and Science.

FRANCIS HEMMING
Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park,

Lonpvon, N.W.1, England.

9th May 1956.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 327

PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES
IN ZOOLOGY” OF THE GENERIC NAME “CHAMA” LINNAEUS,
1758 (CLASS PELECYPODA)

By L. R. COX, Sc.D., F.R.S.
(British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 870)

When recently, at the request of the Secretary to the International Com-
mission, I investigated the question of the place in which the genus Ostrea
Linnaeus, 1758, was first made the type genus of a family-group, I found this
to have been done by Rafinesque in 1815. In the course of this investigation
I examined the Manuel de Malacologie of H. M. D. Blainville published in 1825.
In this work I found (: 541) what is, I believe, the first family-group name to
have been published for the genus Chama Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)
1: 691). I think it desirable that the name of this well-known family should
be stabilised by being placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in
Zoology, and it is the purpose of the present application to ask the International
Commission to take action in this sense.

2. In the work referred to above Blainville established a number of supra-
generic groups which he termed “ Familles ” and for each of which he cited
two names, the first, a vernacular (French) name, the second, a Latin name.
Of the nominal groups so established the majority were based upon words
which were not the names of contained genera and which therefore it is not
necessary to take into account. Among the exceptions were, as already stated,
the families established with Ostrea Linnaeus and Chama Linnaeus as type
genera respectively. In the present case the family-name bestowed was in the
incorrect form ‘“‘ caMAcEA”’, Fleming (J.), 1828 (Hist. Brit. Anim. : 408, 409)
treated Chama Linnaeus as the type genus of a family to which he applied the
name CHAMADAE. The first author to publish this family name in the correct
form CHAMIDAE was Gray (J.E.), 1840 (Synopsis Contents Brit. Mus. (ed. 42) :
137). The use of a correctly formed termination at the time of the first
publication of a family-group name is not obligatory under the rules laid down
by the Copenhagen Congress of 1953, and accordingly the present family name—
with the corrected spelling and with the prescribed termination—becomes
CHAMIDAE (correction of CAMACEA) Blainville, 1825.

8. Fleming (J.), 1818 (Suppl. to 4th, 5th and 6th eds. of Ency. Brit. 3 : 305)
said that Chama Linnaeus “ is represented by the Chama Lazarus of Linnaeus ”
but he did not use the word “‘ type’. Children (J.G.), 1823 (Quart. J. Sci. Lit.
Arts 15 : 28) definitely cited Chama lazarus Linnaeus as the type species of
Chama Linnaeus. Gray (J.E.) in 1847 also cited the above species as the type

Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 11, Part 11 (May 1956).

328 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

species of this genus. Children’s type selection was accepted as the earliest
by Kennard, Salisbury & Woodward in their paper on Children’s type-selections
(1931, Smithson. misc. Coll. 82 (No. 17) : 13). This species has been very
generally accepted by later authors as the type species of this genus.

4. It should be noted however that on the basis of a paper by Stewart
(R.B.), 1930 (Spec. Publ. 3 Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. : 33) Nicol (D.), 1952
(‘‘ Nomenclatural Review of genera and subgenera of Chamidae”’, J. Wash.
Acad. Sci. 42 : 154) has claimed that the species Chama gryphoides Linnaeus,
1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 692) was selected as the type species of Chama
Linnaeus by Schumacher in 1817 (Essai d’un nouveau Systéme des Habitations
des Vers testacés : 123). I have examined Schumacher’s work carefully, for
his so-called type selections have been rendered suspect by the decision by the
Copenhagen Congress that the selection (as was at times made by Schumacher)
of a structure exhibited by a particular specimen as the “type” of a
genus does not constitute a valid selection of that species as the type species
of that genus for the purposes of Rule (g) in Article 30 (1953, Copenhagen
Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 71, Decision 134). Reference to Schumacher’s
work shows that in the present case Chama gryphoides Linnaeus was the sole
example cited by Schumacher for the genus Chama Linnaeus but that the word
“type”? was not used. Schumacher’s action cannot therefore be accepted
as a type selection for this genus* and accordingly Children’s (1823) selection of
Chama lazarus Linnaeus is the valid selection. Quite apart from the strictly
nomenclatorial position set out above, the species Chama lazarus Linnaeus
is more satisfactory as a type species than Chama gryphoides Linnaeus would
- have been. For the identity of the species named gryphoides by Linnaeus is
not firmly established, while the authentic type specimen of lazarus Linnaeus
is preserved in the Linnean collection. No systematist has attempted to
separate C. lazarus generically from C. gryphoides and accordingly the concept
represented by the nominal genus Chama does not depend on which of the two
species is the type species.

5. There are three junior homonyms of Chama Linnaeus, 1758, which
should be placed on the Official Index when that name is placed on the Official
List. These names are :—(l1) Chama da Costa, 1778, Brit. Conch. : 230;
(2) Chama Oken, 1815, Lehrbuch Naturgesch. 3 (Zool.) : 253 ; (3) Chama Morch
(O.A.L.), 1853, Catalogus Conchyliorum quae reliquit D. Alphonso d Aguirra &
Gedea, Comes de Yoldi 2 : 33.

* It has been claimed (Stewart, loc. cit.) that, in consequence of a reference on p. 20 of the
introduction to Schumacher’s work to “les espéces, que j’ai donner [sic] pour type tant des
genres que pour leur subdivision ”, Schumacher’s citation of a species as the sole example
under any genus is equivalent to its designation as type species of that genus. This point
needs clarification by an Opinion of the Commission. The present application is that
Chama lazarus should be accepted as type species of Chama irrespective of any future decision
on this point.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 329

6. I accordingly ask the International Commission :—

(1) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology :—Chama Linnaeus, 1758 (gender : feminine) (type
species, by selection by Children (1823) : Chama lazarus Linnaeus, 1758) ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology :—lazarus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the com-
bination Chama lazarus (specific name of type species of Chama
Linnaeus, 1758) ;

(3) to place the family-group name CHAMIDAE (correction of CAMACEA)
Blainville, 1825 (type genus : Chama Linnaeus, 1758) on the Official
List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ;

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology the under-mentioned names, each of which is a junior hononym
of Chama Linnaeus, 1758 :—

(a) Chama da Costa, 1778 ;
(b) Chama Oken, 1815 ;
(c) Chama Morch (0.A.L.), 1853 ;
(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group

Names in Zoology the under-mentioned names, each of which is an
Invalid Original Spelling for cHamIDAE :—

(a) camAcEA Blainville, 1825 ;
(b) cHAMADAE Fleming, 1828.

330 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO PRESERVE THE
GENERIC NAME “ TURBINELLA’’ LAMARCK, 1799, AS THE NAME
FOR THE SACRED CHANK SHELL OF INDIA

By JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr.
(San Diego, California, U.S.A.)

(Commission’s Reference : Z.N.(S.) 383)

The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to preserve the well- _
known name T'urbinella Lamarck, 1799 (Mém. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 1799 : 73)
as the name for the Sacred Chank Shell of India.

2. The name T'urbinella Lamarck, of which the Chank Shell Voluta pyrum
Linnaeus, 1767 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(2) : 1195) is type species by monotypy,
was in uninterrupted use for well over one hundred years. It only became
invalidated in 1926 as the accidental by-product of the publication in that
year of the Commission’s Opinion 96, recognising as being available for nomen-
clatorial purposes the catalogue entitled Museum Boltenianum anonymously
published in 1798. This unfortunate work, the acceptance of which by the
Commission caused such widespread confusion and name-changing, contained
the generic name Xancus Roding, 1798 (Mus. bolten. 2: 134). The genus
Xancus so established contained a number of species from which in 1906
(J. Conch. 11 : 296) Dall, in anticipation of the recognition of the availability
of the Museum Boltenianum, had selected Voluta pyrum Linnaeus to be the
type species of this genus. Thus, as matters now stand, the historic name
Turbinella Lamarck is a junior objective synonym of Xancus Roding.

3. The names in the Museum Boltenianum were devised by Bolten but the
“ indications ”’ which provide those names with the status of availability were
supplied by Réding, to whom therefore these names should be attributed
(see Hemming, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 56—57). In coining the name
Xancus, Bolten no doubt deliberately Latinised the vernacular name “ Chank”
habitually applied to this species, by adding the termination “ -us ” and using
a different initial letter. In this case the “x” is not the Latin letter which
has the sound “ks” but the Greek letter Chi which has the same form and
on being transliterated into Latin is normally written as “ch”. Bolten’s
idea was quite ignenious but etymologically the name so formed is objectionable
because it comes from roots of several languages, the name itself being of
Cingalese origin, while the prefix is Greek and the suffix Latin.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 11, Part 11 (May 1956).

:
:
:
q

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 331

4. The fact that purists will find the name objectionable is however the
least important of the reasons for asking for it to be suppressed. The Chank
Shell is found in the Eastern seas in the area where the Indian and Pacific
Oceans come together. In this area there are important Chank Fisheries which
are of direct interest to at least three Sovereign States. Each of these States
has its own ordinances and regulations for governing these fisheries, and it is
Lamarck’s name T'urbinella which is used in all of these.

5. In addition to the legal and commercial documents in which the name
Turbinella habitually appears but in which the name Xancus is never found,
there is a great mass of archaeological and ethnological literature relating to the
religious and other uses of the Chank Shell. In Hindoo mythology the God
Vishnu underwent several incarnations and in one of these he assumed the
form of a Chank Shell in order that he might go under the waters of the ocean
to recover the Vedas which had been stolen and hidden under the sea. In all
the literature dealing with this group of subjects it is the name T'urbinella
which is used as the name for the Chank Shell and not the name Xancus. The
Chank Shell is also of importance in Hindoo religion and medicine owing to the -
practice of the Hindoo priesthood in administering medicine from reversed
(sinistral) specimens of the Chank Shell. These sinistral Chank Shells are
considered too sacred for any other use and have in consequence entered widely
into Hindoo folk lore. In this literature also it is the name T'urbinella which
has always been used for the Chank Shell.

6. The present is therefore pre-eminently one of those cases where long-
established nomenclature ought not to be overturned in compliance with
narrow technical requirements of a nomenclatorial kind. Such changes in
names are open to strong objection, even when viewed from a strictly zoological
angle, but these objections become insuperable when in addition to leading
to the disappearance of some well-known zoological name (such as T'urbinella),
such changes lead to serious confusion in fields far removed from actual zoology.
Indeed, it is such changes, when permitted in the past, which have done so
much to discredit zoological nomenclature and zoologists generally.

7. For the reasons set forth above I accordingly ask that the Commission
should validate the name TJ'urbinella Lamarck by suppressing its senior objective
synonym Xancus Réding, 1798. Even if these cogent reasons had not been
present, I should still have considered necessary the action now recommended,
for the name T'urbinella was taken as the base for a family-name TURBINELLIDAE
(Swainson, 1840, Treatise Malac. (Lardner’s Cab. Cyclop.) : 75) well over a
hundred years ago. I consider it important that this name should not be
replaced by the virtually unknown name xANcIDAE Johnson, 1934 (Proc.

Boston Soc. nat. Hist. 40(1) : 128).

332 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

8. The following are the proposals which are therefore now submitted to
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, namely that it
should :—

(1) use its Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Xancus Roding,
1798, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the
Law of Homonymy ;

(2) place the under-mentioned name on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology :—Turbinella Lamarck, 1799 (gender: feminine) (type
species, by monotypy : Voluta pyrum Linnaeus, 1767) ;

(3) place the under-mentioned name on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology :—pyrum Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination
Voluta pyrym (specific name of type species of T'urbinella Lamarck,
1799) ;

(4) place the under-mentioned name on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—Xancus Roding, 1798, as
suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1) above ;

(5) place the under-mentioned name on the Official List of Family-Group
Names in Zoology :—TURBINELLIDAE Swainson, 1840 (type genus:
Turbinella Lamarck, 1799) ;

(6) place the under-mentioned name on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :—xaNcIDAE Johnson, 1934
(type genus : Xancus Roding, 1798).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 333

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE A

TYPE SPECIES IN HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED USAGE FOR

“ TERRAKEA ” BOOKER (F.W.), 1930 (CLASS BRACHIOPODA), A

GENUS BASED UPON A MISIDENTIFIED TYPE SPECIES AND TO

VALIDATE THE NAME CURRENTLY USED FOR THE SPECIES
SO TO BE DESIGNATED

By W. G. H. MAXWELL, B.Sc., Pu.D.
(Beit Scientific Research Fellow,
Imperial College of Science and Technology, London)

(Commission’s Reference : Z.N.(S.) 438)

It is the object of this application to ask the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to suppress as a nomen
dubium the specific name brachythaerus Sowerby (G.B.), 1844, as published
in the combination Producta brachythaerus (in Darwin (C.R.), Geological Observa-
tions on the Volcanic Islands : 158), and to designate as the type species of
Terrakea Booker (F.W.), 1930 (‘‘ A Review of some of the Permo-Carboniferous
Productidae of New South Wales with a tentative reclassification’ J. Proc.
roy. Soc. N.S.W. 64 : 66), the species figured as Productus brachythaerus by
Morris in de Strzelecki (P.E.), 1845 (‘‘ Physical Description of New South
Wales and Van Diemen’s Land ” pl. 14 fig. 4c). By so doing, the genus Terrakea
Booker, 1930, and the species Produstus brachythaerus Morris, 1845, will become
available for use in their accustomed sense, and unnecessary confusion will be
avoided. The particulars of the case are given below :—

2. Sowerby (G.B.), in Darwin, 1844 (: 158) described the species Producta
brachythaerus nov., but gave no figures. He referred as follows to three speci-
mens in the description :—“. . . it is in limestone, of the ordinary grey colour
of mountain limestone. Another specimen, which I suppose to be an impression
of the inside of the flat valve, is in stone, of a light rusty-brown colour. There
is a third specimen, which I believe to be the impression of the inside of the
deeper valve, in a nearly similar stone, accompanied by other shells.” Only
the second of these specimens is now extant. It is in the British Museum
(Natural History). Buckman (R.), 1909 (in Etheridge (S.S.), Jr. and Dun (W:S.),
“Notes on the Permo-Carboniferous Producti of Eastern Australia; with
Synonymy ”’, Rec. geol. Surv. N.S.W. 8(4) : 298), Hill (D.), 1950 (‘‘ The Pro-
ductinae of the Artinskian Cracow Fauna of Queensland” Univ. Qld. Papers,
Dept. Geol. 3(2) : 19) and the present author have identified the specimen
B.19298 in the British Museum (Natural History) as probably being the second
specimen mentioned by Sowerby in 1844 (: 158). It belongs to the genus
Strophalosia King (W.), 1846, and may be conspecific with Strophalosia jukesi

Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 11, Part 11 (May 1956).

334 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Etheridge (R.), Jr., 1880. However, the specific identity of the other two
specimens is unknown and there is no evidence to suggest that they were
conspecific with specimen B.19298 discussed above.

8. Morris, 1845 (in de Strzelecki op. cit. : 284, pl. 14, figs. 4a-c) described
and figured two specimens under the name Productus brachythaerus Sowerby.
Some later authors have regarded these two specimens as belonging to separate
species, others as variants of the one species. However, those workers who have
examined both Morris’s two specimens and Sowerby’s only existing specimen
are unanimous in their conclusion that they are not conspecific or even con-
generic. Morris’s specimens belong to the genus which Booker, 1930 (op. cit.
: 66) described as Terrakea ; the only existing specimen of Sowerby’s belongs
to Strophalosia King, 1846.

4, Subsequent authors have interpreted Producta brachythaerus Sowerby
as being the same species as that shown as fig. 4c of Morris’s plate 14. These
authors include de Koninck (L.G.), 1877 (Fossiles Paléozoiques de la Nouvelle-
Galles du Sud 3 : 198, pl. 10, figs. 4, 4a (err. pro 3, 3a)) ; Etheridge, Jr., 1880
(‘‘ On a collection of fossils from the Bowen River Coalfield and the limestone
of the Fanning River, North Queensland ”’, Proc. roy. Phys. Soc. Edinb. 5(7) :
284, pl. 8, fig. 16, pl. 9, figs. 17, 18) ; Jack (R.L.) and Etheridge, 1892 (Geology
and Palaeontology of Queensland and New Guinea : 248—252, pl. 12, figs.
10—13, pl. 13, fig. 5, pl. 44, fig. 14); Etheridge and Dun, 1909 (Notes on the
Permo-Carboniferous Producti of Eastern Australia; with Synonymy. Rec.
geol. Surv. N.S.W. 8(4) : 293—300, pls. 42, 48); Booker, 1930 (op. cit. : 66).

5. Hill, 1950 (op. cit. : 18), although distinguishing Sowerby’s and Morris’s
species from one another, stated ‘“‘ I use Terrakea in Booker’s sense for species
congeneric with P. brachythaerus Morris fig. 4c non Sowerby ”’.

6. Booker, 1930 (:66) erected the genus Terrakea nov., and designated as the
type species ‘‘ Terrakea brachythaera G. B. Sowerby, 1844 (sp.)”’. Booker
had not seen Sowerby’s specimens, and, following authors subsequent to
Sowerby, 1844, he interpreted Producta brachythaerus on the species figured as
4c on plate 14 by Morris, 1845 (op. ctt.).

7. Hill, 1950 (: 18—20) reviewed the problems associated with Terrakea
and Producta brachythaerus, and concluded that under the Régles, P. brachy-
thaerus ought to be interpreted on what is probably Sowerby’s only extant
specimen, which belongs to a species of Strophalosia King, 1846. 3

8. Discussion: At this point it is necessary to note that in his description of
Producta brachythaerus Sowerby, 1844 (op cit.) referred to three specimens (see
paragraph 1 above), but under Rule (e) in Article 30, only the first would have
been eligible for selection as the lectotype, since doubt was expressed as to the
identity of the other two specimens. The first specimen is now lost, and

OO ene

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 335

Sowerby’s original description is insufficient to indicate whether its characters
were those of Strophalosia King, 1846, or those of Terrakea Booker, 1930.
Consequently, Producta brachythaerus Sowerby, 1844 is a nomen dubium.

9. The name Terrakea Booker, 1930, has become firmly established in
Australian literature and it is desirable that this usage should not be disturbed.
All the difficulties in the present case would disappear if the name brachy-
thaerus Sowerby, 1844, as published in the combination Producta brachythaerus
were to be suppressed by the Commission under its Plenary Powers and the
same name validated as from Morris, 1845 (: pl. 14, fig. 4c), the species so named
being designated by the Commission as the type species of Terrakea Booker.
A solution on these lines would moreover be in full harmony with the Directive
given to the Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Paris, 1948, under which the Commission is required to use its Plenary Powers
to secure that, where a genus is based (as was Terrakea Booker) upon a mis-
identified type species, the type species of that genus shall be the species so
intended by the original author of the generic name in question in cases where
(as in the present instance) current usage is based upon the intention of that
author and not upon the species actually cited by him when establishing the
nominal genus concerned (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 158—159). This
therefore is the action which I recommend that the Commission should take.

10. The proposal which is now submitted is that the International Com-
mission should :—

(1) use its Plenary Powers :—

(a) to suppress for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the
Law of Homonymy :—

(i) the specific name brachythaerus Sowerby (G.B.), 1844, as
published in the combination Producta brachythaerus ;

(ii) any uses of the specific name brachythaerus in combination
with the generic name Productus or its variant spelling
Producta subsequent to Sowerby, 1844, and prior to
Morris, 1845;

(b) to validate the specific name brachythaerus in the combination
Productus brachythaerus as from Morris, 1845, the species so
named to be interpreted by reference to the specimen (i)
figured by Morris as fig. 4c on plate 14 in the paper referred to
above and re-figured by Hill in 1950 (: pl. 2, fig. 1) and (ii) now
preserved in the British Museum (Natural History) under the
Registered Number BB.9466 ;

(c) under the procedure prescribed by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, for determining the species
to be accepted as the type species of a genus based upon a

336 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

misidentified species, (i) to set aside all designations or selections
of type species for the genus Terrakea Booker, 1930 (Class
Brachiopoda) made prior to the Ruling now asked for and
(ii), having done so, designate as the type species of the foregoing
genus the nominal species Productus brachythaerus Morris,
1845, as validated and defined under the Plenary Powers under
(b) above ;

(2) place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology :—Terrakea Booker, 1930 (gender : feminine) (type
species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1)(c) above :
Productus brachythaerus Morris, 1845, as validated and defined under
the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above ;

(3) place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology :—brachythaerus Morris, 1845, as published in the
combination Productus brachythaerus, as validated under the Plenary
Powers under (1)(b) above (specific name of type species of Terrakea
Booker, 1930) ;

(4) place the names and usages specified respectively in (1)(a)(i) and (1)(a)(ii)
above, as there suppressed under the Plenary Powers, on the Offici
Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

SUPPORT FOR THE VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY
POWERS OF “ BITHYNIA”’ LEACH, 1818 (CLASS GASTROPODA)

(a) By B. HUBENDICK
(Naturhistoriska Rijksmuseum, Stockholm)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 452)

(For the application in this case see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 275—278)
(Letter dated 17th April 1956)

I wish to record my strong approval of Mr. Ellis’s action in Bull. zool. Nomenel.
11(9) : 275—278.

(b) By C. O. REGTEREN ALTENA

(Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(Letter dated 18th April 1956)

Mr. A. E. Ellis was so kind as to send me a copy of his ‘‘ Proposed validation
under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Bithynia Leach, 1818 (Class
Gastropoda) ” published in the Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 11, pp. 275—278

I wholly agree with Mr. Ellis that the actions he asks to be taken on p. 278
of his paper would serve a useful purpose and prevent the confusion which would
be the result of a general use of the generic name Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, for Helix
tentaculata Linnaeus, 1758, and its near allies.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 337

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE
CURRENTLY ACCEPTED USAGE OF THE GENERIC NAME
“UNIO ’”? PHILIPSSON, 1788 (CLASS PELECYPODA)

By A. E. ELLIS
(Epsom College, Epsom, England)

(Commission’s Reference : Z.N.(S.) 451)

The object of the present application is to ask the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to validate
the currently accepted usage of the very well-known generic name Unio
Philipsson, 1788 (Class Pelecypoda). The facts of this case are set out below.

2. The following are the references for the generic names involved in the
present case :—

(a) Unio Philipsson, 1788, Dissertatio historico-naturalis sistens nova Testace-
. orum Genera : 16 (type species, by selection by Turton, 1831 (anual
| Land & Fresh-water Shells Brit. Islands : 3): Mya margaritifera
| Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 671)

Note 1: In making the above type selection Turton cited Mya
margaritifera Montagu, 1803 (Testac. brit. : 33). Montagu did not,
however, publish this as a new name, his employment of this name
being only a later usage of the name Mya margaritifera Linnaeus,

1758. -

Note 2: This genus was established in a thesis by Philipsson, working
under his master Retzius at the University of Lund. By the law
or custom then obtaining the professor was treated as the author
of all papers which a student under him defended. For this reason
the name Unio and other names in this thesis have been attributed
by some authors to Retzius. It is clear, however, from the title
page that Philipsson was the real author of this Dissertatio and the
name Unio is therefore correctly attributable to him and not to
Retzius.

(b) Limnaea Poli, 1791, Testacea utriusque Siciliae 1:31 (type species,
by selection by Ellis, 1947 (Synopsis Brit. Fauna (Linn. Soc.) No. 5 :
14) : Mya pictorum Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 671)

(c) Lymnaea (emend. of Lymnoea) Lamarck, 1799, Mém. Soc. Hist. nat.,
Paris, 1 : 75 (type species, by selection by Fleming, 1818 (Ency.
brit. Suppl. 4th-6th Eds. 3 : 313): Helix stagnalis Linnaeus, 1758,
Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 774). (For discussion of the original orthography
of this generic name see paragraph 8 below.)

Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 11, Part 11 (May T1956).

338 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(d) Lymnium Oken, 1815, Lehrb. Naturgesch. 8 (Zool.) (Abth. 1) : 236, 237
(type species, by monotypy : Mya pictorum Linnaeus, 1758)

(e) Limnium Oken, 1815, Lehrb. Naturgesch. 3 (Zool.) (Abth. 1) : viii (an
Erroneous Original Spelling for Lymnium Oken, 1815)

(f) Lymnaea Oken, 1815, Lehrb. Naturgesch. 8 (Zool.) (Abth. 1) : 236 (cited
as a synonym of Unio)

(g) Margartifera (typographical error Margaritifera) Schumacher, 1816,
Overs. K. Dansk. Vidensk. Selsk. Forh. 7 :'7 (type species, by mono-
typy: Margartifera fluviatilis Schumacher, 1816, Overs. K. Dansk.
Vidensk. Selsk. Forh. 7 :7 (a substitute name for Mya margaritifera
Linnaeus, 1758)) ;

(h) Margaritana Schumacher, 1817, Essai d’un nouveau Systeme des Habita-
tions des Vers Testacés : 41, 123 (type species, by monotypy : Margarti-
fera fluviatilis Schumacher, 1816)

(i) Mysca Turton, 1822, Conchylia Insularum britannicarum : xlv, 243
(type species, by selection by Turton, 1831 (Manual Land & Fresh-
water Shells Brit. Islands : 3): Mya ovalis Montagu, 1803, Test. brit. :
34 (a junior subjective synonym of Unio tumidus Philipsson, 1788,
Dissert. hist.-nat. nov. Test. Genera : 17))

3. The well-known genus Unio (Order Eulamellibranchiata) was established
by Philipsson in 1788 for certain freshwater mussels now classified in the
superfamily UNIONACEA or NAIADES. As so established this genus included
Unio margaritiferus (Mya margarilifera Linnaeus, 1758), Unio pictorum
(=Mya pictorum Linnaeus, 1758), Unio tumidus Philipsson, 1788 (: 17), and
other species. The first of the above species was selected as the type species
of the genus Unio by Turton in 1831. In 1847, Gray (J.E.) (Proc. zool. Soc.
Lond. 15(178) : 196), overlooking Turton’s selection of Mya margaritifera
Linnaeus, 1758, selected Mya pictorwm Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of
Unio.

4. For so long as all the species included by Philipsson in his genus Unio
continued to be regarded as congeneric, no difficulty arose, and the generic
name Unio was used by most XIXth century authors for all the European
freshwater UNIONACEA except those placed in the genus Anodonta Lamarck,
1799. During the present century, however, anatomical investigations have
shown that Mya margaritifera Linnaeus differs in so many important features
from the other species included in the genus Unio that it has been separated
from them as a distinct genus and by some authors has even been placed in a
separate family. The generic name Margaritifera (emend. of Margartifera)
Schumacher, 1816, or its junior objective synonym Margaritana Schumacher,
1817, was accordingly brought back into use for Mya margaritifera Linnaeus,
1758, and the allied species Unio auricularius Spengler, 1793 (Skriv. Nat. Hist.

oi ili die ahead

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 339

Selsk. Kobenhavn 3 (Hft. 1) : 54), and is now universally employed in this
sense. Under this arrangement the name Unio is retained for Unio pictorum
(Linnaeus) and its allies, following Gray’s type-selection of 1847.

5. In a paper published in 1941 (J. Conch. 21 : 265, 273) Kennard, relying
upon Turton’s type-selection of 1831, restored Mya margaritifera Linnaeus to
Unio and revived the obscure and long-forgotten name Lymnium Oken, 1815,
for Mya pictorum Linnaeus. Kennard ignored the earlier name Limnaea
Poli, 1791, on the ground that Poli’s ““ work has been rejected for nomen-
clatorial purposes” (Kennard & Woodward, 1926, Synonymy of the British
non-marine Mollusca : 402). Poli’s work is definitely binominal in character
and it is not clear why Kennard considered that it should be rejected. In
any case this statement that Poli’s work had already been rejected is incorrect,
for, as I am informed by Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, no Ruling rejecting this work has
been given by the Commission. Kennard pointed out (verbally) that, if the
name Lymnium Oken, as well as the name Limnaea Poli, were to be rejected,
the oldest available name for this group would be Mysca Turton, 1822, the
type species of which is Mya ovalis Montagu, 1803, which is identical with
Unio tumidus Philipsson, 1788, a species which is regarded as congeneric
with the species now known as Unio pictorum (Linnaeus).

6. In considering this matter we may fortunately set on one side the name
Lymnium Oken for, since the present application was first submitted to the
International Commission, that body has examined the question of the avail-
ability for nomenclatorial purposes of Oken’s Lehrbuch (Hemming, 1954, Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 9 : 193—207) and, as I am informed by the Secretary, has
decided that in the foregoing work Oken did not consistently apply the
principles of binominal nomenclature and therefore that new names published
in it did not thereby acquire the status of availability. I am further informed
by Mr. Hemming that the foregoing decision has been embodied by the Com-
mission in Opinion 417 (now in the press). It is therefore no longer necessary
in the present case to consider further the name Lymnium Oken and its two
variant spellings beyond noting that all of these names should now be placed
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

7. Even after the disappearance of the Oken names discussed above we
are still left with a twofold difficulty namely (1) that, so long as Turton’s
selection of Mya margaritifera Linnaeus as the type species of Unio Philipsson
remains valid, the name Unio cannot be used for the group to which it has for
so long been applied and (2) that this group would have to be known by the
particularly unsuitable name Limnaea Poli. The use of this name for this genus
could not fail to cause the greatest conceivable confusion owing to its
similarity to the name Lymnaea Lamarck, 1799, a name which has been in

340 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

continuous use for a genus of freshwater Gastropoda for over one hundred
and fifty years. There is therefore the strongest possible case for the use
by the Commission of its Plenary Powers for the purpose of preventing the

devastating confusion which would result from the application of the-normal

provisions of the Régles in this case. The action required for this purpose is
that the Commission should use its Plenary Powers to set aside all existing
type selections for the genus Unio Philipsson, 1788, and having done so, to
designate Mya pictorum Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of this genus. —
This action would remove all the difficulties in the present case, for (a) it would
restore the generic name Unio to the group of species to which that name has
always been applied and (b) would render harmless the name Limnaea Poli,
1791, which would then fall as a junior objective synonym of Unio Philipsson,
1788. Finally, under this arrangement the name Mysca Turton, 1822, would
remain in well-deserved obscurity, becoming a junior subjective synonym of
Unio Philipsson. .

8. As noted in the opening paragraph of the present application, Lamarck
when introducing the generic name Lymnaea, used the erroneous spelling
Lymnoea. This was, however, corrected to Lymnaea in the later part of
Lamarck’s paper. Accordingly, Lymnoea Lamarck is an Invalid Original
Spelling and Lymnaea is a Valid Emendation. In this connection attention
may be given to the following notes published by Kennard & Woodward in
1926 and by Winckworth in 1939 :—

(a) Kennard (A.S.) and Woodward (B.B.), 1926, Synonymy of the British
Non-Marine Mollusca : 41 :—

“* Tymnoea & Lymnaea: Lamarck, Mém. Soc. His. Nat. Paris, i, —

p. 75. The ‘oe’ was a typographical error and occurs in several
other words in the early part of the paper. This was rectified in the
latter portion of the paper and the concluding tabie.”

(b) Winckworth (R.), 1939, Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond. 23 : 315

“* Lymnaea Lamarck : The original spelling of the generic name is
Lymnoea with a digraph for oe, which is clearly a misprint for ae.
The y has been altered by Agassiz and others, since the word is pre-
sumably derived from Awvaios; Lamarck, however, consistently used
a y in both vernacular and Latin forms in 1799, in the repetition of
the generic proposal in 1801 as Lymnaea and in the Animaux sans
Vertébres.”’

9. The name Lymnaea Lamarck has suffered an exceptionally large number
of variant spellings of which no less than thirteen were listed by Kennard &
Woodward (1926, loc. cit. : 41, 42). These were as follows :-—

Limnaea Blainville, 1823, Dictionnaire des Sciences naturelles 26 : 449

Limnaeus Pfeiffer (C.), 1821, Naturgeschichte Deutscher Land- und Siisseasser-
Mollusken 1 : 14, 84

Limnea Fleming, 1828, A History of British Animals : 273

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 341

Timneus Draparnaud, 1801, Tabl. Moll. France : 47

Limnoea Gourdon, 1889, Catalogue raisonné des Mollusques de la Pique et de
ses affluents : 70

Limnoeus Shuttleworth, 1872, Hnumeration des Plantes . . . ainsi que des
Mollusques terrestres et de Veau douce de l’Ile de Corse : 28

Iymnaeus Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1817, Régne Anim. 2 : 412

LIymnea Link, 1807, Beschreibung der Naturalien-Sammlung der Universitat
zu Rostock 3 : 138

Lymneus Feérussac, 1812, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris 9 : 252

LIymnoea Suter, 1913, Man. N.Z. Mollusca: 604

Iymnoeus Michelin, 1831, Mag. Zool. 1 (Moll.) : 22

Lymnula Rafinesque, 1819, Journ. Phys. Paris 88 : 423

Iymnus Montfort, 1810, Conchyliol. syst. Classif. méth. Coquilles 2 ; 262

10. Both the genus Unio Philipsson and the genus Lymnaea Lamarck are the
type genera of universally recognised family-group taxa. The genus Lymnaea
Lamarck was first made the type genus of a family-group taxon by Rafinesque,
1815 (Analyse Nature : 144), who regarded this taxon as being of family rank.
He applied to it the defectively formed name Lymnipia. Nine years later
Gray (J.E.)(Ann. Phil. 25 : 107) also erected a family-group taxon on the
basis of this genus, calling this taxon by the defectively formed name
LYMNAEADAE. The genus Unio Philipsson was first made the basis of a name for a
family-group taxon by Fleming (J.) in 1828 (Hist. Brit. Anim. : 408, 415),
who established the family untonmpaz. Finally, a family-group name
MARGARITIFERIDAE based upon the name Margaritifera Schumacher, 1816, was
established by Haas (F.) in 1940 (Publ. Field Mus. (Zool. Ser.) 24 : 119).
This family is recognised by those workers who (as explained in paragraph 4
above) consider that its type genus (Margaritifera Schumacher) and Unio
Philipsson, as now proposed to be defined under the Plenary Powers (i.e. with
Mya pictorum Linnaeus as type species) are referable to different family-group
taxa. I have pleasure in acknowledging the help very kindly given by Dr.
L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History)) in tracing the place where the
foregoing family-group names were first published.

11. In the light of the considerations set forth above, the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is now asked :—

(1) to use its Plenary Powers (a) to set aside all selections of type species
for the genus Unio Philipsson, 1788, made prior to the Ruling now
asked for, and (b), having done so, to designate Mya pictorum
Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of the foregoing genus ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology :—
(a) Unio Philippson, 1788 (gender: masculine) (type species by
designation under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above:
Mya pictorum Linnaeus, 1758) ;

342 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(b) Margaritifera (emend. of Margartifera) Schumacher, 1816 (gender :
feminine) (type species, by monotypy: Mya margaritifera
Linnaeus, 1758) ;

(c) Lymnaea Lamarck, 1799 (gender: feminine) (type species, by
selection by Fleming (J.) (1818): Helix stagnalis Linnaeus,
1758) ;

(3) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of

Specific Names in Zoology :—

(a) pictorum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Mya
pictorum (specific name of type species of Unio Philipsson,
1788) ;

(b) margaritifera Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination
Mya margaritifera (specific name of type species of Margaritifera
(emend. of Margartifera) Schumacher, 1816) ;

(c) stagnalis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix
stagnalis (specific name of type species of Lymnaea Lamarck,
1799) ;

(d) auricularius Spengler, 1793, as published in the combination Unio
auricularius ;

(e) tumidus Philipsson, 1788, as published in the combination Unio
tumidus ;

(4) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of

Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—

(a) Limnaea Poli, 1791 (a junior objective synonym of Unio Philipsson,
1788) ;

(b) Lymnoea Lamarck, 1799 (an Invalid Original Spelling for Lymnaea
Lamarck, 1799) ; .

(c) Limnium Oken, 1815 (a name published in a work rejected for
nomenclatorial purposes; an Invalid Original Spelling for
Lymnium Oken, 1815) ;

(d) Lymnaea Oken, 1815 (a name published in a work rejected for
nomenclatorial purposes; an Invalid Original Spelling for
Lymnium Oken, 1815) ;

(e) the thirteen Erroneous Subsequent Spellings for Lymnaea Lamarck,
1799, listed in paragraph 9 of the present application ;

(f) Lymnium Oken, 1815 (a name published in a work rejected for
nomenclatorial purposes) ;

(g) Margaritana Schumacher, 1817 (a junior objective synonym of
Margaritifera (emend. of Margartifera) Schumacher, 1816) ;

(h) Margartifera Schumacher, 1816 (an Invalid Original Spelling for
Margaritifera Schumacher, 1816) ;

Sine pi oh

Se

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 343

(5) to place the under-mentioned Specific name on the Official Index of
Rejected and I nvalid Specific Names in Zoology :— fluviatilis Schumacher,
1816, as published in the combination Margartifera [sic] fluviatilis
(a junior objective synonym of margaritifera Linnaeus, 1758, as
published in the combination y@ margaritifera) ;

(6) to place the under-mentioned familv- Toup names on the Official List
Pp y-group
of Family-Group Names in Zoology : —
(a) LYMNAEIDAE (correction of LYMNIDIA) Rafinesque, 1815 (type
genus: Lymnaea Lamarck, 1799) ;

(b) UNIONIDAE Fleming (J.), 1828 (type genus: Unio Philipsson,
1788) ;

(Cc) MARGARITIFERIDAE Haas (F.), 1940 (type genus: Margaritifera
Schumacher, 1816) (for use by those workers who consider on
taxonomic grounds that the genera Margaritifera Schumacher,
1816, and Unio Philipsson, 1788 (type genus of UNIONIDAE
Fleming, 1828) are referable to different family-group taxa) ;

(7) to place the under-mentioned family-group names on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :—

(a) Lymnip1a Rafinesque, 1815 (type genus: Lymnaea Lamarck,
1799) (an Invalid Original Spelling for LYMNAEIDAE) ;

(b) LYMNAEDAE Gray (J -E.), 1824 (type genus: Lymnaea Lamarck,
1799) (an Invalid Original Spelling for LyMNAaErDAz).

344 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED SUPPRESSION FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES

UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF A PAMPHLET BY R. B.

HORNIMAN ENTITLED “ PRELIMINARY DESCRIPTIONS OF

SOME NEW BIRDS” AND BEARING THE DATE “ JANUARY
1940 ”

By CHARLES VAURIE
(The American Museum of Natural History, New York)

(Commission’s Reference : Z.N.(S.) 782)

The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to suppress
for nomenclatorial purposes a four-page pamphlet by R. B. Horniman entitled
Preliminary Descriptions of some new Birds and bearing the date “‘ January
1940”. The facts of this case are set out below. This matter is one of some
urgency from my point of view since I am at present engaged in the prepara-
tion of a Checklist of the birds of the Palaearctic Region in which it would be
necessary to take account of certain of the new names in this pamphlet if it
were to be accepted as being available for nomenclatorial purposes.

2. This pamphlet is excessively rare. So far as I have been able to
trace, there is only one copy of it in the United States and this copy
is in private hands, while in Europe the only copy known to me is one
in the library of the British Museum (Natural History). Further, this
pamphlet has not been noticed in the Zoological Record or in other
literature-recording serials known to me. In these circumstances it appears to
Dr. James P. Chapin with whom I have discussed this matter and to myself
that there is a strong presumption that this pamphlet was never duly “ pub-
lished ” within the meaning of Article 25 of the Régles and therefore that
the new names in it possess no status in zoological nomenclature. Unfortunately,
this seems to be a matter on which it is improbable that definite evidence
will be forthcoming, for it has proved impossible to communicate with Mr.
Horniman, the sole source from which authoritative evidence might have been
obtained and it is not known even whether he is still alive. Some of the birds
described in this pamphlet were stated by Horniman to be in the collection
of Mr. C. M. N. White, but White also has been unable to throw any light on the
question whether this pamphlet was duly “ published ”’.

3. Names and descriptions of fourteen allegedly new birds are given in this
pamphlet. The provenance of these birds is as follows: (1) Belgian Congo —
(various localities), four names; (2) Mwinilunga, Northern Rhodesia, four
names ; (3) Kenya-Abyssinian border, one name; (4) Scotland, five names ~

Bull. zool. Nomencel. vol. 11, Part 11 (May 1956).

tl mae > ae Ce i

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 345

(North Uist, Outer Hebrides, two names; Skye, Inner Hebrides, two names ;
Argyllshire, one name).

4. So far as I have been able to ascertain, all these names have been ignored
by later workers. For example, the five names for British birds were ignored by
the British Ornithologists’ Union in its Checklist of the Birds of Great Britain
and Ireland published in 1952, although at the time the Union was aware
of the existence of Horniman’s pamphlet. Similarly in his work The Birds
of the Belgian Congo Chapin has ignored the four names given to Congo birds.

5. I am entirely in favour of the rejection of the new names included in this
pamphlet but I consider that, in order to prevent any subsequent argument
on this subject, this should be done not by leaving these names out of account
but by obtaining a definite Ruling from the Commission rejecting this pamphlet
for nomenclatorial purposes. There are two means by which this result could
be secured. First, the Commission, if it so thought fit, could give a Ruling that
this pamphlet was not duly “ published ’’ within the meaning of the Reégles.
Second, without entering into this question, it might suppress this pamphlet
for nomenclatorial purposes under its Plenary Powers. Although I think it
virtually certain that this pamphlet was never “ published” and therefore
that the names in it possess no status of availability, I do not feel that this has
been definitely established, despite the efforts which have been made to obtain
information on this subject. I conclude therefore that the best course is that
the Commission should be asked to use its Plenary Powers to suppress this
pamphlet for nomenclatorial purposes, having regard to the fact (1) that it is
highly probable that it was never duly ‘“ published ”’, (2) that it is so excessively
rare that, if it were to be accepted, very few ornithologists would ever be able to
see it, (3) that the new names in this pamphlet have been consistently ignored by
later authors, and (4) that unnecessary name-changing would result if this
pamphlet were to be accepted as from January 1940, the date printed on it.

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked :—

(1) to use its Plenary Powers to suppress for nomenclatorial purposes the
4-page pamphlet by H. B. Horniman entitled Preliminary Descriptions
of some new Birds and bearing the date “ January 1940” ;

(2) to place the title of the pamphlet specified in (1) above, as there proposed
to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers, on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature ;

(3) to place the under-mentioned specific names included in the above
pamphlet on the pages severally specified below on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as being names
possessing no status either under the Law of Priority or under the
Law of Homonymy :—

(a) kKasat Horniman, 1940, as printed in the combination Halcyon
leucocephala kasai (: 1);

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(b) whitet Horniman, 1940, as printed in the combination Prodotiscus
whitei (: 1);

(c) mwinilunga Horniman, 1940, as printed in the combination
Cossypha heuglint mwinilunga ( : 2);

(d) hebridiwm Horniman, 1940, as printed in the combination Erithacus
rubecula hebridium ( : 2) ;

(e) limes Horniman, 1940, as printed in the combination Pycnonotus
tricolor limes ( : 2) ;

(f) hebridensis Horniman, 1940, as printed in the combination

Alauda arvensis hebridensis ( : 2) ;

(g) callewaerti Horniman, 1940, as printed in the combination
Tchagra senegala callewaerti ( : 3) ;

(h) skyensis Horniman, 1940, as printed in the combination
Troglodytes troglodytes skyensis ( : 3) ;

(i) scotica Horniman, 1940, as printed in the combination Certhia —
familiaris scotica (: 3) ;

(j) hebridium Horniman, 1940, as printed in the combination
Emberiza calandra hebridium ( : 3) ;

(k) intensus Horniman, 1940, as printed in the combination Serinus
mozambicus intensus ( : 4) ;

(1) pygmaea Horniman, 1940, as printed in the combination
Anthoscopus pygmaea ( : 4) ;

(m)anonymus Horniman, 1940, as printed in the conititadhaiad
Pogoniulus chrysoconus anonymus ( : 4) ;

(n) longipenne Horniman, 1940, as printed in the combination
Tricholaema melanocephalum longipenne ( : 4).

= mr C—~—””—”

a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 347

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO PRESERVE THE GENERIC
NAME “ ELAPHE ”’ FITZINGER, 1833 (CLASS REPTILIA)

By ROBERT MERTENS

(Natur-Museum und Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg,
Frankfurt a. Main, Germany)

(Commission’s Reference : Z.N.(S.) 824)

The object of the present application is to ask the International Com-
mission to use its Plenary Powers to prevent the well-known generic name
Elaphe Fitzinger, 1833 (Class Reptilia) from disappearing as a junior subjective
synonym of the generic name Gonyosoma Wagler, 1828. The facts of this case
are set out in the following paragraphs.

2. Attention was drawn to this problem by Malcolm Smith in 1943 (Fauna
Brit. Ind. Ceylon, Burma, Rept. & Amph. 3 : 139, 141), who, when dealing
with the Indian species of the genus Elaphe Fitzinger, 1833, wrote as follows :—
“‘T cannot find any morphological characters by which to distinguish Gonyo-
soma Wagler, 1828, type viride=oxycephala, from the species usually placed
under Elaphe Fitzinger, 1833. Gonyosoma therefore should stand as the
name of the genus’. In view, however, of the disturbance in current
practice which this change of name would have caused, Malcolm Smith retained
the generic name Elaphe Fitzinger.

3. According to current taxonomic views Elaphe parreyssiti Wagler, 1833,
the type species of Elaphe Fitzinger, 1833, by monotypy, is a junior subjective
synonym of Coluber sauromates Pallas, [1814], which is currently treated as
being a subspecies of Coluber quatuorlinearus Lacépéde, 1789, and Gonyosoma
viride Wagler, 1828, the type species, by monotypy, of Gonyosoma Wagler,
1828, is a junior subjective synonym of Coluber oxycephalas Boie, 1827. Further
it is currently considered that Coluber quatuorlineatus Lacépéde and Coluber
oxycephalus are congeneric with one another. Thus, as observed by Malcolm
Smith, the name Hlaphe Fitzinger, 1833, is a junior subjective synonym of
Gonyosoma Wagler, 1828.

4. The substitution of the name Gonyosoma for Elaphe would be very
troublesome and confusing in view of the large number of Elaphe forms,
including nine in Europe alone, thirty-three in Asia and sixteen in North and
Central America. The disturbance which would be caused by this change
in name would affect check lists and numerous taxonomic and faunistic works.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 11, Part 11 (May 1956).

348 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

5. In order to prevent the undesirable results indicated above, it is proposed
that the International Commission should use its Plenary Powers to suppress
the name Gonyosoma Wagler, thus providing the name Elaphe Fitzinger with
an unchallengeable position.

6. The following are the original references for the names cited in the
present application :—

Elaphe Fitzinger, 1833, in Wagler, Descr. Icon. Amph. (3) : expl. pl. 27

Gonyosoma Wagler, 1828, Descr. Icon. Amph. (1) : expl. pl. 9

oxycephalus, Coluber, Boie, 1827, Isis (Oken) 1827 : 537

parreyssii, Elaphe, Wagler, 1833, Descr. Icon. Amph. (3) : expl. pl. 27

quatuorlineatus, Coluber, Lacépéde, 1789, Hist. nat. Quadrup. ovip. Serpans
2 : 82

sauromates, Coluber, [1814], Zoographia rosso-asiat. 3 : 42

viride, Gonyosoma, Wagler, 1828, Descr. Icon. Amph. (3) : expl. pl. 9

7. The genus Elaphe Fitzinger is not the type genus of a taxon belonging
to any category in the family-group.

8. In the application now submitted the International Commission is
asked :—

(1) to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Gonyosoma
Wagler, 1828, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those
of the Law of Homonymy ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology :—Elaphe Fitzinger, 1833 (gender : feminine) (type
species, by monotypy : Elaphe parreyssii Wagler, 1832) ;

(3) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology :—

(a) oxycephalus Boie, 1827, as published in the combination Coluber
oxycephalus ;

(b) quatuorlineatus Lacépéde, 1789, as published in the combination
Coluber quatuorlineatus ;

(c) sawromates Pallas, 1814, as published in the combination Coluber
sauromates ;

(4) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: Gonyosoma Wagler,
1828, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1) above.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 349

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SECURE THE INTER-

PRETATION OF THE NOMINAL SPECIES “ PALAEOPSYLLA DAEA”’,

DAMPF, 1910 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER SIPHONAPTERA) IN A

MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED USE
OF THAT NAME

By G. H. E. HOPKINS, O.B.E., M.A.
(British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts)

(Commission’s Reference : Z.N.(S.) 846)

Wagner published in 1901 (usually incorrectly quoted as 1900) in Hor.
Soc. ent. ross. 35 : 26, pl. 1, figs. 3, 4, the description of a single female flea
which he named J'yphlopsylla sibirica and which is now referred to the genus
Amphipsylla. The specific name is a secondary homonym of Ctenopsylla
stbirica Wagner, 1898, which is also an Amphipsylla.

2. Dampf, 1910 (Zool. Jb. Suppl. 12 : 633, figs. Q, R, S, T, U, V) described
and figured very fully both sexes of a species which he named Palaeopsylla
daea, and which is also an Amphipsylla. Unfortunately he proposed this name
in the form “ Palaeopsylla daea nom. nov. (=Palaeopsylla sibirica Wagner,
1900, nec. P. sibirica (Wagner, 1898))”. Some of Dampf’s original material is
in the British Museum collection of fleas at Tring and none survives in the
Breslau Zoological Museum, whence his specimens were obtained.

3. Wagner, 1913 (Rev. russe Ent. 12 : 577, usually quoted under the wrong
date, 1912) points out differences between his T'yphlopsylla sibirica and Dampf’s
material. He evidently doubts their being the same and clearly regards the
name daea as applying to Dampf’s specimens if the two should prove different.

4. Ioff and Tiflov, 1939 (Rev. Microbiol., Saratov 16 : 407) record having
examined the holotype of ““Amphipsylla sibirica W. 1900 (nec 1898 !) ” and state
that they consider it to be the same as Amphipsylla aspalacis Jordan, 1929
(Novit. zool. 35 : 161, pl. 8, figs. 22, 24) and different from A.daea Dampf, 1910.
They clearly regard the name daea as applying to the specimens described by
Dampf (not to Wagner’s holotype of T'yphlopsylla sibirica), and all subsequent
writers on fleas have applied the name in the same way.

5. As originally used, therefore, the name Amphipsylla daea (Dampf), 1910
applies to two species, the one which Dampf actually had before him and which
he described, and the one which he erroneously thought he was redescribing.
His application of the name to the latter element has page precedence, but no
subsequent author who has recognized the distinctness of the two elements has
applied the name daea to anything but the material Dampf actually described.

_ Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 11, Part 11 (May 1956).

350 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

6. Until quite recently the question of which element included by Dampf
under the name daea should continue to bear that name after the discovery
that the two elements were not the same would have been open to doubt,
for already in 1948 the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris,
had given notice that the general question involved would be considered as a
special problem by the next (Copenhagen) Congress in 1953, and had invited
specialists to submit statements of their views as to the nature of the decision
which it was desirable should be taken (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 499—
502 ; Hemming, 1952, ibid.7 : 119—130). Thus, up to 1953 the Régles contained
no clear guidance as to the course which should be followed in a case of this
kind. On the one hand it would have been possible to apply the “ First
Reviser ’’ Principle, which would have ensured the retention of the name
daea for the species which Dampf actually had before him. On the other hand,
it would have been possible to take the view either that this case should be
dealt with in accordance with the Page Precedence Principle or that, as the
name in question had been expressly published as a substitute name, it must
be held to adhere to the species to which the name so replaced was applicable.
In either of these cases the name daea would have applied to the species described
by Wagner in 1901 and not to the species to which Dampf intended it to apply.
Applying presumably the First Reviser Principle, all authors have used the
name daea for the species which Dampf had before him when he published that
name.

7. The question of principle underlying this case was settled by the
Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, when it
decided that in cases of the present kind “ the species to which the new name
applies is in all circumstances that to which the previously published name is
applicable ” (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 75—76, Decision 142).
Under this decision the name Amphipsylla daca (Dampf), 1910, must (if the
normal priorities of the Régles are to be applied) be transferred from the species
which has always borne it (which will be left nameless) to the species which has
always been known as Amphipsylla aspalacis Jordan, 1929. Further aggrava-
tions of the situation are (a) that the holotype of Amphipsylla sibirica (Wagner),
1901 (and therefore of A. daea (Dampf), 1910, under strict application of the
Régles) is a female, that females in the genus Amphipsylla are extremely
difficult to determine, and that in consequence the subjective identification of
aspalacis with sibirica Wagner, 1901 (nec 1898) will always remain arguable,
and (b) that the Soviet entomologists (in whose territory all the fleas mentioned
in this application occur) will certainly continue to use the name daea for the
species which Dampf actually had before him and which has always borne the
name.

8. If nothing is done to remedy the foregoing situation, we are liable to find

ourselves faced with-a completely farcical state of affairs, in which East — |

European authors will use the name daea for one species, West European authors
will use it for another, while in the case of a German author it will be necessary

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 351

to know his place of residence before one could guess to which species he was
applying the name. The extreme confusion which would result from the
application of the normal provisions of the Régles in this case is self-evident.
This is therefore, in my opinion, pre-eminently a case calling for the use by the
International Commission of its Plenary Powers. As regards the form of that
action, the course which I recommend is that the Commission should direct
that the nominal species Palaecopsylla daea Dampf, 1910, is not to be treated
as being objectively identical with the nominal species T'yphlopsylla sibirica
Wagner, 1901, but is to be interpreted by reference to the specimens described
and figured by Dampf in 1910 when he first published the specific name daea.
The adoption of this course will provide a firm legal basis for the interpretation
of the nominal species Palaeopsylla daca Dampf in a manner consistent with the
universal usage of subsequent authors.

9. Dampf himself did not designate a holotype for this species and accord-
ingly the material on which he based his description of this species in 1910
will all become syntypes under the decision now asked for. That material
contains only one male specimen and that specimen I now select as the lectotype
of the above species. This specimen (together with some females from the
Dampf series) is in the British Museum (Natural History) collection of fleas
now housed at the Zoological Museum, Tring. The terminalia of this specimen
agree with those shown by Dampf in figure T in his paper of 1910 (: 639). Up
till now this specimen has borne on its labels the following particulars: (1)
“ Palaeopsylla daea Dampf, 1910”; (2) ‘‘ ? Transbaikalien ” ; (3) ‘‘ Arctomys
bobac”’; (4) “ Dybowski, received from Breslau Zoological Museum ”’ ;
(5) C. Rothschild Coll. Brit. Mus. 1923. 615”. To these particulars has now
been added :—“ Lectotype of Palaeopsylla daea Dampf, 1910, Zool. Jahrb.,
Suppl. 12 : 633, selected by G. H. E. Hopkins, 1956”. I ask that in completion
of the action asked for in the present application, the Commission should make
‘express reference to this lectotype selection, when placing on the Official List
of Specific Names in Zoology, the specific name daea Dampf, 1910, as published
in the combination Palaeopsylla daea, and as defined under the Plenary Powers
in the manner recommended in paragraph 8 above.

10. The proposal now submitted is therefore that the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature should :—

(1) use its Plenary Powers to direct that, notwithstanding the fact that the
name Palaeopsylla daea Dampf, 1910, was stated by its author to be
a substitute for the invalid name T'yphlopsylla sibirica Wagner, 1901,
the nominal species so named by Dampf is to be interpreted by refer-
ence to the specimens described and figured by that author at the time
when he published the name Palaeopsylla daea ;

352 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(2) place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology :—

(a) daea Dampf, 1910, as published in the combination Palaeopsylla
daea and as defined by the lectotype selected by Hopkins
(G.H.E.) in paragraph 9 of the present application from among
the specimens which, under the action under the Plenary
Powers, recommended in (1) above, will become the syntypes
of the species so named ;

(3) place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :—sibirica Wagner, 1901, as
published in the combination Typhlopsylla sibirica (invalid in the genus
Amphipsylla Wagner, 1909, as a junior secondary homonym of
sibirica Wagner, 1898, as published in the combination Ctenopsylla
sibirica).

SUPPORT FOR DR. CHARLES VAURIE’S PROPOSAL FOR THE REJECTION
OF THE SO-CALLED “ HORNIMAN PAMPHLET ”’

By DEAN AMADON
(The American Museum of Natural History, New York)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 782)

(For the proposal submitted see pp. 344—346 of the present volume.)
(Letter dated 18th October 1955)

Dr. Charles Vaurie has shown me an application he has made to the International
Commission to have the names published in an obscure pamphlet by R. B. Horniman
declared unavailable. I am thoroughly in accord with this proposal. Apparently
this pamphlet was prepared and issued by Horniman in an irregular way, and ex-
tremely few copies of it were ever distributed. The only one in this country is
perhaps the one we have here, which is the property of Dr. James P. Chapin.
Chapin, who is now in Africa, never used or mentioned any of Horniman’s names,
and I am confident that he would be entirely in favour of any action to have the
names in this pamphlet declared officially unavailable.

pis, re

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 353

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE A
TYPE SPECIES FOR THE GENUS “ TORQUESIA ” DOUVILLE, 1929
(CLASS GASTROPODA)

By J. MARWICK
(Geological Survey of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand)

(Commission’s Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1027)

The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to designate a type
species for the genus Torquesia Douvillé, 1929 (Mem. geol. Surv. India, Pal.
Ind. (n.s.) 10 (Mem. 3, Fasc. 2): 55) (Class Gastropoda) for the purpose of putting
a stop to the confusion which has already begun to develop in consequence of
the difficulties encountered in interpreting Douvillé’s original description of
this genus. The facts of this case are set out in the following paragraphs.

2. The generic name Torquesia was introduced by Douvillé for a group of
Cretaceous TURRITELLIDAE (Class Gastropoda) in the following passage :—

Ces formes sont encore comprises par Cossmann dans son genre Haustator,
elles en différent nettement par leur ornementation et par leur répartition dans
le temps; leur developpement est certainement plus ancien que celui des
Haustator (sensu stricto) ; je proposerai de les distinguer sous le nom de Torquesia,
en prenant pour type 7’. granulosa de Blackdown.

In his accompanying discussion Douvillé used the same phrase to denote
this species, “‘ 7’. granulosa de Blackdown’. Nowhere in his paper did he cite
the name of the author of the name granulosa.

3. We may consider first whether the species which Douvillé here referred
to was Turritella granulosa Deshayes, 1832 (Descr. Cog. foss. Paris 2 : 275).
This is a species from the Middle Eocene of the Paris Basin. It does not occur
in the Cretaceous or at Blackdown. On the other hand there is a species named
Turritella granulata Sowerby (J. de C.), 1827 (Min. Conch. 6 : 125), which is
a Cretaceous species which occurs in the south-east of England and of which
Blackdown is the type locality. It seems clear that Douvillé by some lapse
wrote the name “ granulosa’ by mistake for the word “ granulata”’ and that
it was Sowerby’s species of this name which he intended to make the type
species of his genus Torquesia. That this is so is shown both by his repeated
association of his species with the locality Blackdown and also by the emphasis
which he placed on the importance of geological time in taxonomy. Moreover,
he stated that the species which he grouped in the genus J'orquesia were classed
by Cossmann under Haustator. This is true of T'urritella granulata Sowerby,
but it is not true of T'wrritella granulosa Deshayes, which Cossmann in 1912
(: 120) placed in the genus Peyrotia established by him on that occasion.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 11, Part 11 (May 1956).

354 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

4. Up to the present time the name Torquesia has been little used. This is
probably because (1) this name apparently escaped the notice of some of the
most prominent of the revisers of the TURRITELLIDAE (e.g. Wenz, 1939;
Merriam, 1941) ; (2) many authors are chary of subdividing the genus Turritella
Lamarck owing to the considerable amount of confusion which has prevailed in
applying such divisions as have already been proposed. So far as I am aware,
only three palaeontologists have used or cited the name Torquesia Douvillé.
These are :—(a) Serra (1937 : 309) who placed in it two Upper Cretaceous
species and a variety of one of these, from Tripoli, (b) Guaitani (1946 : 15),
who identified two of Serra’s forms in the Libyan Upper Cretaceous but did not
discuss the taxonomic status of Torquesia ; (3) Bowles (1939 : 268) who listed
Torquesia in the synonymy of Turritella Lamarck, 1799, and gave the type
species as “‘ T'urritella granulosa Deshayes. Eocene of the Paris Basin ”’.

5. The genus Twrritella Lamarck contains over one thousand named species
and subspecies, ranging in age from the Lower Cretaceous to Recent, and it is
likely that the future will see a growing tendency to divide this group genus into
separate genera and subgenera. It is very desirable therefore that the potential
source of confusion represented by the present doubt as to what is the type
species of Torguesia Douvillé should be cleared up as soon as possible. The
Commission is accordingly asked to settle this matter by applying to the fore-
going name the procedure prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress
of Zoology, Paris, 1948, for determining the species to be accepted as the type
species of a genus established on the basis of a misidentified type species (1950,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 158—159), and therefore to give a ruling that in
accordance with the original intention of Douvillé the nominal species T'urritella
granulata Sowerby be treated as the type species of the genus Torquesia
Douvillé.

6. The International Commission is accordingly asked :—

(1) under the procedure prescribed for determining the species to be accepted
as the type species of a genus based upon a misidentified type species,
to use its Plenary Powers (a) to set aside all designations or selections
of type species for the genus Torquesia Douvillé, 1929, made prior
to the Ruling now asked for, and, having done so, to designate
Turritella granulata Sowerby (J. de C.), 1827, to be the type species
of the foregoing genus ;

(2) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology :—Torquesia Douvillé, 1929 (gender: feminine)
(type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b)
above : Turritella granulata Sowerby (J. de C.), 1827) ;

ial we al.

OOO nity i nl BS i iS

Ee |

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 355

(3) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology :—

~ (a) granulata Sowerby (J. de C.), 1827, as published in the combination
Turritella granulata (specific name of type species of Torquesia
Douvillé, 1929) ;

(b) granulosa Deshayes, 1832, as published in the combination Turritella
granulosa.

References

Bowles, E., 1939. J. Paleont. 13(3) : 267—336

Cossmann, M., 1912. Essais Paleont. comp. 9 : 106—130
Guaitani, F., 1946, Riv. ital. Paleont. 52(3) : 1—23

Merriam, C. W., 1941, Bull. Dep. Geol. Univ. Calif. 26(1) : 1—129
Serra, G., 1937. Boll. Soc. geol. ital. 56(3) : 303—315

Wenz, W., 1939, Handbuch d. Paldozool. 6(1), Lief. 4 : 650—660.

SUPPORT FOR H. B. WHITTINGTON’S PROPOSAL
TO SUPPRESS “PHILLIPSELLA’? OCKLERT IN
FAVOUR OF “ PHILLIPSINELLA”’ NOVAK, 1886
(CLASS TRILOBITA)

By C. J. STUBBLEFIELD, D.Sc., F.R.S.
(Geological Survey & Museum, London)

(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 757)

For Dr. Whittington’s proposal see pp. 283—284 of the present volume)
(Letter dated 28th November 1955)

I gladly support this application; the generic name Phillipsinella is much

used in Ordovician stratigraphical geology work for a trilobite having considerable
geographical distribution in Europe. To replace this name by Phillipsella would
not promote stability in nomenclature.

356 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

COMMENT ON THE FOREST/HOLTHUIS PROPOSALS RELATING
TO “ PAGURUS ”’ FABRICIUS, 1775 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER
DECAPODA)

(a) By

J. D. MACDONALD
(British Museum (Natural History), London)
R. B. PIKE
(Marine Station, Millport, Isle of Cumbrae, Scotland)
and
D. I. WILLIAMSON
(Marine Biological Station, Port Erin, Isle of Man)
(Commission’s reference : Z.N.(S.) 859)
(For the application in this case see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 307—321)
(Letter dated 23rd March, 1956)

We enclose a joint comment on the status of the generic name Pagurus and
related matters.

Of the three possible solutions to the Pagurus problem set out by Drs. Forest
and Holthuis we favour the adoption of Solution 1. No ruling of the Commission
can alter the fact that the name Pagurus has been and is being used for two different
genera. The adoption of any of the suggested solutions would prevent ambiguity
in future references to either of these genera. Let us, then, adopt the solution
which does not involve use of the Plenary Powers.

We are unconvinced by the respective arguments of both Dr. Dollfus and
Dr. Forest for the suppression of the name Pagurus. Should, however, the Com-
mission decide to suppress this name we wish to stress that no obstacle should be
placed to the raising to-family rank of the two subfamilies known under Solution 1
as PAGURINAE and DARDANINAE (=DIOGENINAE). Such an obstacle would occur
if the names Pagurus and PAGURINAE were suppressed but the family name PAGURIDAE
retained, as proposed by Dr. Forest. That the two subfamilies pacuRINAE and
DARDANINAE should be raised to family rank was implied by J. F. L. Hart (1937)
(Canad. J. Res. (D) 15 : 179—220) and is proposed by us in a paper on the larvae
of the British Paguridea (in preparation).

(b) By JOHN S. GARTH
(University of Southern California, Los Angeles)
(Letter dated 6th April 1956)

I should like to register with the Commission my support of the discussion
and proposal of L. B. Holthuis regarding his joint application with J. Forest for
a decision regarding the status of the generic name Pagurus Fabricius, 1775 (Class
Crustacea, Order Decapoda) (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 307-321, 1955).

In view of the facts presented in Part 1 of the proposal, with which both authors
are in agreement, it would seem evident that Solution 1, as argued by Dr. Holthuis,
is the more acceptable. That this solution may be attained without recourse by —
the Commission to its Plenary Powers to suppress the rules makes it the preferred
one to carcinologists who would like to see the rules largely self operative. Further-—
more, this solution would tend to support action already taken by the Commission —
in rendering Opinion 11, rejection of which on the part of certain workers is largely _ ‘
responsible for the present state of confusion, according to Walton and Stevens —
(1955, Bull. S. Calif. Acad. Sci. 54 : 40-42). y.

That Pagurus is the oldest name in the group, the type genus of the subfamily, —
family, and section, the source of many vernacular derivations, and the root of
most hermit crab genera are to me cogent reasons for its retention. The suppression

of the name at the generis level and the retention of its higher level derivatives —
PAGURINAE, PAGURIDAE, and PAGURIDEA, as proposed by Dr. Forest, I find illogical. —
The little more than one page of actions required by the Commission to implement
Solution 1, as compared to the two and a half pages of actions required to imple- —
ment Solution 111, fairly demonstrates the relative simplicity of the Holthuis —
over the Forest solution, and to the former, therefore, I give unhesitating support.

pies ee

as fae ;

f type sp: ioe io eee ae ee
u ; i ie validation of (Class
(Ww. G. iH Max Maxwell) ; eee ac wee see

Tsp" (Class ‘PelseppodaySeoptecd donaunn ae
ary owe ee for, in harmony with

Pd oa . Sts t stor ned 1 d usage (A . E. be see see aoe see
ees Ree a B. a Prelim Deserk m7) se
rane Said ek = Homan 8) : 1, on 22 “the Pears ibe Powers for
+ Sea “hie S ; F ‘homenelatorial ‘purposes (C. Vaurie ase Pr Poe oh

ad Serge Fi) pe 1833 (Class Reptilia ), proposed. validation of
oe a eh ge se y Powers (R. Mertens)... ase

) (Class Insecta, Onder $i ona
a roe age Seoiy vere =

as eal, Is1s (Clas Gaukigpolial:
ick and (b) c.0 - Regteren Altena ...

A ae eee st Cea
tate +4h y T-! 4 bit ae DAT : a ra:
A ie

‘ 7 i es vi “omment q y c. set

posals | Bama Fabricius 1775 (Clase
ecapoda) o4 Paprs by (a) J. D. Macdonald,
Re S. so ea BT

: addition tothe

sed validation
lena pai 2 iy). (ae
= | oe designation mat the pee

po: = ame “ Homiman Pamphlet af hn

hi ee nla Novi, 1886 (Class :

327

337

356

the possibl
1 Ni

logical

eas

on

a4

f

: e 2] ‘ i ,
: oolo No at set hl “
m* « . § ra :
a 2 3 7 ‘ne
the In rational ¢
z

jonal Trust at its P

44, Queen’s

“4

»

talieer

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 11, Part 12 (pp. 357—464, T.P—XXVII]I) 30th November 1956

NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY

The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the
recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56, 57-59), by the Thirteenth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomenel.
5 : 5-13, 131).

(a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of Voting on applications published
in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’

Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will
start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of
publication in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who
may desire to comment upon the application published in the present
Part (Vol. 11, Part 12) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing,
and in duplicate, to the Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible
and in any case, in sufficient time to enable the communication in question
to reach the Secretariat of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month
period referred to above.

(b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in two cases.

i Notice is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers is involved in

A

358 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued)

the following applications published in the present Part of the Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature in relation to the under-mentioned names :—

(1) Ptychopyge Angelin, 1854, designation of a type species for, in harmony
with accustomed usage (Class Trilobita) (Z.N.(S.) 997) ;

(2) convera de Haan, [1835] (Ocypode (Chasmagnathus)), validation of
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) (Z.N.(S.) 984).

2. Comments received in sufficient time will be published in the Bulletin,
other comments, provided that they are received within the prescribed period
of six calendar months from the date of publication of the present Part will
be laid before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at
the time of commencement of voting on the application concerned.

3. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon at the Session held by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 56), corresponding Notices have been sent
to the serial publications Nature and Science.

FRANCIS HEMMING

Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park,
Lonpon, N.W.1, England.

30th November 1956.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 359

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE A TYPE
SPECIES IN HARMONY WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED USAGE FOR THE
GENUS “ PTYCHOPYGE”’ ANGELIN, 1854 (CLASS TRILOBITA)

By VALDAR JAANUSSON
(Paleontologiska Institutionen, Uppsala Universitet, Sweden)

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 997)

The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to designate as the type
species of the genus Ptychopyge Angelin, 1854 (Class Trilobita) the species
generally accepted as such, thereby avoiding the serious confusion which would
inevitably result from the application of the normal provisions of the Régles
in this case. The generic name Ptychopyge was proposed in 1854 (: 51) by Angelin
who included a number of species in this genus.

2. Brogger (1886 : 32) gave the first comprehensive discussion of Ptychopyge
after Angelin, and stated that “als typische Art dieser Formengruppe
[= Ptychopyge] . . . diirfte Pt. angustifrons, Dalm. gelten konnen”’. The genus
was treated monographically by Fr. Schmidt (1904 : 30-31) who also regarded
Piychopyge angustifrons (Dalm.) as ‘“‘ typische Art der Gattung”’. The same
species was given as the type species of Ptychopyge by Reed (1930 : 290) and
Skjeseth (1952 : 165). The latter writer attributed the selection of the type
species of Ptychopyge to Brégger (1886) but the wording in Brégger’s paper
as cited above can scarcely be regarded as constituting a definite selection of the
type species.

3. The nominal species Ptychopyge appanata [Sic !] Angelin was designated
as the type species of the genus Ptychopyge by Vogdes (1890: 84). This
selection by Vogdes was purely formal, given in a list of genera and their
type species, and Ptychopyge applanata was probably chosen by him because
it was the first species of the genus mentioned by Angelin (1854: 51). Vogdes
had no first-hand knowledge either of this genus or of related European genera.
In a later list of Trilobite genera Vogdes (1925 : 111) recorded Ptychopyge
glabrata Angelin, 1854, as the type species of Ptychopyge, without giving any
explanation as to the reason of the change of the type species.

4. The original material of Ptychopyge applanata Angelin, 1854, cannot be

_ traced in the State Museum of Natural History (Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet)

in Stockholm, nor has any other specimen resembling Angelin’s figure been

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 12. November 1956.

360 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

obtained from the type region (Kinnekulle, Vastergétland, Sweden). Only
the pygidium was figured and very briefly described by Angelin (1854 : 51,
Pl. XXVII, fig. 6). The figure is, moreover, too roughly drawn (ornamenta-
tion being omitted) to allow the identification of the species with certainty.
Thus, the name Ptychopyge applanata must at present for all practical purposes
be regarded as a nomen dubium. The genus Ptychopyge as defined by Angelin
was since then subdivided into several genera and a further subdivision is very
likely. The attribution of Ptychopyge applanata to any of the genera which
show a similar type of pygidium cannot be safely established if based only on
the figure of Angelin (1854). If the normal provisions of the Régles were
strictly applied in this case, the well-known generic name Ptychopyge would,
therefore, have to be regarded as a nomen dubium.

5. In actual fact all workers but Vogdes on the genus Ptychopyge and
related genera have regarded Asaphus angustifrons Dalman, [1827] (: 239),
as the type species of Ptychopyge. Also for Angelin (1854) this species was
more completely known than any other species referred by him to Ptychopyge.

6. The generic name Ptychopyge Angelin, 1854, has not been taken as the
base for a family-group name, Angelin’s genus being currently referred to the
family ASAPHIDAE.

7. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I ask that the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should :—

(1) use its Plenary Powers :—

(a) to set aside all type selections for the genus Ptychopyge Angelin,
1854, made prior to the decision now proposed to be given ;

(b) to designate Asaphus angustifrons Dalman, [1827], to be the type
species of the foregoing genus ;

(2) place the generic name Ptychopyge Angelin, 1854 (gender: feminine)
(type species, by designation, as proposed under (1)(b) above, under ©
the Plenary Powers: Asaphus angustifrons Dalman, [1827]) on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ;

(3) place the specific name angustifrons Dalman, [1827], as published in the
combination Asaphus angustifrons (specific name of type species of
Ptychopyge Angelin, 1854) on the Official List of Specific Names in -
Zoology.

8. A decision on the question dealt with in the present application is
urgently required in connection with the preparation of the forthcoming
Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology and for this reason it is particularly hoped
that it will be possible for the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature to settle this question as quickly as possible.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 361
References

Angelin, N. P., 1854. Palaeontologia Scandinavica, P. I, Crustacea Formationis
Transitionis, Lipsiae (Lundae)

Brégger, W. C., 1886. Ueber die Ausbildung des Hypostomes bei einigen
skandinavischen Asaphiden. Bihang K. sv. Vet.-Akad. Handl., Bd. 11,
No. 3; Sver. Geol. Unders., Ser. C, No. 82, Stockholm

Dalman, J. W., [1827]. Om Palaeaderna eller de s& kallade trilobiterna.
Kongl. Vetensk.-Akad. Handlingar for ar 1826, No. 2, Stockholm

Reed, F. R. C., 1930. A Review of the Asaphidae. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist.,
Ser. 10, Vol. V, London

Schmidt, Fr., 1904. Revision der ostbaltischen silurischen Trilobiten, Abt. V,

Lief. III, Mém. de l’ Acad. Imp. Sci. St.-Pétersbourg, Ser. VIII, Vol. XIV,
No. 10, St.-Pétersbourg

Skjeseth, S., 1952. On the Lower Didymograptus Zone (3B) at Ringsiker,

and contemporaneous Deposits in Scandinavia. Norsk Geologisk
Tidsskrift 30, Oslo

Vogdes, A. W., 1890. A Bibliography of Palaeozoic Crustacea from 1698
to 1889, including a list of North American species and a systematic
arrangement of genera. Bull. U.S. Geol. Survey, No. 63, Washington

—, 1925. Palaeozoic Crustacea. Part II—A List of the Genera and Sub-

genera of the Trilobita. Transact. San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist., Vol. IV,
San Diego, Calif

SUPPORT FOR C. POULSEN’S PROPOSAL TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC
NAME “SAO”? BARRANDE, 1846 (CLASS TRILOBITA)

By H. B. WHITTINGTON
(Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, U.S.A.)

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 666)
(For the proposal in this case see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 12 : 131-135)
(Letter dated 28th September 1956)

I heartily support the application made by Professor C. Poulsen regarding
the name Sao Barrande, 1846 (Class Trilobita) and related matters. -

362 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE
SPECIFIC NAME “ CONVEXA” DE HAAN, [1835], AS PUBLISHED
IN THE COMBINATION ‘“ OCYPODE (CHASMAGNATHUS) CON-
VEXA’”’, THE NAME OF THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS
“ CHASMAGNATHUS ” DE HAAN, [1835] (CLASS CRUSTACEA,
ORDER DECAPODA), PLACED ON THE “OFFICIAL LIST OF
GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY’? BY THE RULING GIVEN IN
* OPINION ”’ 85

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 984)

The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to validate the specific
name currently used for the type species of the genus Chasmagnathus de Haan,
[1835] (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), which was placed on the Official
Inst of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 85 (1925,
Smithson. misc. Coll. 74(No. 3) : 13-18).

2. The existence of the present problem came to light in the early part of
1955 when proposals were being formulated for submission to the International
Commission for the addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology
of the specific names of the type species of the genera of Decapoda, the names
of which had been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
in the pre-Lisbon (1935) period. The facts of this case are set out in the follow-
ing paragraphs.

8. The name Chasmagnathus was introduced by de Haan in the Crustacea
Section of von Siebold’s Fauna japonica for use as the name of a subgenus
of Ocypode Fabricius, 1798. This name occurs twice in the Crustacea Section,
first on page 5 and later on page 27. These pages were published in Parts 1 and 2
respectively, the first appearing in 1833, the second in 1835. On page 5 the
name Chasmagnathus was given only in a key without any cited nominal
species ; on page 27 the subgenus was more fully diagnosed and one species,
the new species Ocypode (Chasmagnathus) convexa, was cited as belonging to it.
This species is therefore the type species of Chasmagnathus de Haan by
monotypy.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 11, Part 12. November 1956.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 363

4. Reference to Sherborn’s Index Animalium (Pars secund. (7) : 1505)
disclosed the existence of the name Ocypode convexus Qouy & Gaimard, 1825
(Voy. “‘ Uranie’”’ (Zool.) : 525). Since for the purpose of determining whether
any two specific names are homonyms of one another the only relevant con-
sideration is whether the generic name and the specific name employed is the
same for each case the name convexa de Haan, [1835], as published in the com-
bination Ocypode (Chasmagnathus) convexa, is a junior primary homonym of
Ocypode converus Quoy & Gaimard, 1825, and is therefore invalid.

5. Clearly the first matter to be investigated was the present status of the
name Ocypode convexus Quoy & Gaimard, a name which had apparently
escaped the sharp eye of the late Miss Mary Rathbun when she drew up the
application upon which the Crustacea section of the Ruling given in Opinion 85
was based. On this subject I first applied to Dr. Isobel Gordon (British
Museum (Natural History), London) who, after checking the literature, informed
me that the foregoing name did not appear to have been used by any authors
since Quoy & Gaimard. I thereupon extended my inquiries by seeking the
advice of the following specialists :—(i) Dr. Fenner A. Chace, Jr. (Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) ; (ii) Dr. John 8. Garth (Allan Hancock
Foundation, San Diego, California, U.S.A.) ; (iii) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijks-
museum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) ; (iv) Dr. M. W. F.
Tweedie (Director, Raffles Museum and Library, Singapore).

6. The advice received from the foregoing consultants showed a high
degree of agreement. Dr. Fenner Chace replied that the name convexus
Quoy & Gaimard did not appear to have been in use, specialists regarding it
as a nomen dubium, but that the name convexa de Haan was in use for the species
concerned and that there was no other name available for that species.
Dr. Garth replied that the name convexus Quoy & Gaimard had appeared
sporadically in the literature, various authors synonymising it with other
species such as Ocypode kuhlii de Haan, [1835], Ocypode cordimana Desmarest,
1825, and Ocypode pygoides Ortmann, 1894. Dr. Holthuis took the same line
as Dr. Chace, stating that, so far as he knew no attempt had ever been made to
replace the name convexa de Haan. He added that he himself had little doubt
that converus Quoy & Gaimard represented the same species as pygoides
Ortmann but that no modern author had attempted to substitute Quoy &
Gaimard’s name for that of Ortmann. Dr. Tweedie, after discussing Ortmann’s
tentative identification of converus Quoy & Gaimard with his own later pygoides,
stated that the name convexus Quoy & Gaimard was not in use and had
disappeared in the literature not as a junior synonym [of pygoides] but as a
nomen dubium.

7. In view (a) of the unanimity of the Decapod specialists consulted that
the name convexus Quoy & Gaimard is a nomen dubium and (b) of the fact that
the later name convexa de Haan is in use for the species concerned and that that
species possesses no other name, I recommend that the Commission should

364 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

validate the action taken at the time when the name Chasmagnathus de Haan
was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by :—

(1) using its Plenary Powers to suppress the specific name converus Quoy &
Gaimard, 1825, as published in the combination Ocypode convexus,
for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of
Homonyny ;

(2) placing the under-mentioned specific name, as validated under the
Plenary Powers under (1) above on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology :—convexa de Haan, [1835], as published in the combination
Ocypode (Chasmagnathus) convexa (specific name of type species of
Chasmagnathus de Haan, [1833)]) ;

(3) placing on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the specific name specified in (1) above as there suppressed
under the Plenary Powers.

SUPPORT FOR DR. JAANUSSON’S PROPOSAL REGARDING THE
GENERIC NAME “ PTYCHOPYGE ”’ ANGELIN, 1854
(CLASS TRILOBITA)

By GUNNAR HENNINGSMOEN
(Paleontological Museum, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway)

and

LEIF STORMER
(Paleontological Institute, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway)

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 997)
(For the application in this case see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 359-361)
(Letter dated 7th October 1955)

We are aware that Brégger (1886) unfortunately did not definitely state that
Ptychopyge angustifrons was the type species of Ptychopyge, and that the first legal
designation of a type species was that of Vogdes (1890), who selected Pt. app(l)anata
as type species.

As pointed out by V. Jaanusson, it would be most unfortunate if Pt. applanata,
apparently a nomen dubium, should be regarded as type species. We strongly
support Jaanusson’s proposal to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature of recognizing Pt. angustifrons as the type species of the genus

Ptychopyge.

page 19.
page 19.
page 20.

page 28.

page 32.

page 48.

page 67.

page 68.

page 69.
page 75.
page 79.
page 81.
page 89.

page 90.

page 119.
page 134.
page 134.
page 135.
page 152.
page 158.
page 159.

page 159.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 65

CORRIGENDA

First paragraph, last line: substitute “ 35-37’ for ‘ 21-27”
Paragraph 2, line 2: substitute “‘ conditionally ’”’ for ‘‘ provisionally ”

Eighth line from end: substitute ‘ (1) ”’ for “(i)”

Last line of title: insert “CLASS INSECTA,”’’ before “ ORDER
HYMENOPTERA”’

Point (4)(b), line 1: substitute ‘‘ Breistroffer ’’ for ‘“‘ Breistoffer ”’

Point (7)(c), last line but one : insert ‘‘ taxon ”’ between “ family-group ”
and ‘‘ NEANURINAE ”

Paragraph 4, Point (2), first line: substitute ‘‘name’”’ for “‘ names”

Paragraph 2, line 2: substitute ‘‘allgem. schweiz. Ges. Naturw.”’ for
“‘Allgem. schweiz. Ges.”

Paragraph 7, first line: substitute ‘‘ Nicolet’ for “‘ Bourlet ”
Paragraph 2, line 3: insert “‘ Naturw.” after the word “ Ges.”
Third line from end: substitute “‘ Caract.” for ‘ caract.”

Fourth line from end: substitute “1796” for “‘ 1897”

Eleventh line from end : insert “ gammarus’’ after “‘ name ”’
Paragraph 3, line 1: substitute “‘ [1850] ” for “ 1850 ”

Line 7 : substitute ‘‘ Specific ’’ for “‘ Generic ”

Paragraph 3, last line but one: substitute “1844” for “1944”

Last line from end: substitute “‘ Scolopendra”’ for ‘“‘ Scopolendra”’
Paragraph 5, line 13: substitute ‘‘ Lithobiomorpha ”’ for ‘‘ Lithiomorpha ”’
Last line but one: substitute “‘ cited’ for “‘ cites”

Paragraph 2, line 4: substitute “‘ Hauterivian ”’ for “‘ Hauterrivian ”’
Paragraph 3 (i), line 11: substitute ‘‘ Daqué’s”’ for ‘ Daque’s”

Paragraph 3(i), last line but one: substitute ‘“ Bemmelen’s ” for
‘** Bemelen’s ”’

366

page 160.
page 160.
page 163.
page 163.
page 164.
page 164.
page 164.
page 165.
page 182.

page 185.

Page 211.

Page 220.
page 224.
page 224.

page 224.

page 226.
page 226.
page 237.
page 242.

page 341.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Corrigenda continued :

Paragraph 7, line 3: substitute “‘ Donovan”’ for “‘ Donavan”
Paragraph 7, line 5: substitute ‘‘ Mayne”’ for ‘‘ Mayng”
Point (1), last line: substitute ‘‘ Homonymy ”’ for “‘ Priority ”
Eighth line from end: substitute ‘Cox, L. A.” for Cox, M. A.”
Second line: substitute ‘‘ Traill’’ for “‘ Trail”
Line 9: substitute ‘‘ Ostréngland ”’ for “‘ Ostrongland ”
Lines 19 and 22: substitute “‘ Ismay, R. W.” for “ Ismay, W. R.”
Line 7: substitute ‘“‘Aucelles ”’ for “‘Acuelles”’
Fourth line from end: substitute “‘[1816]” for “1817”
Point (1)(a), line 2: substitute “‘ 1821” for “1814”

Ninth line from bottom : substitute “ paronai (emend. of paronae)” for
** paronae ”’

Second line from bottom, column 2: substitute “paronae”’ for ““paronas”
Point (4)(a): substitute “5” for “4”
Point (4)(b): substitute “6” for “5”

Last line but one: delete ‘‘A’? from between ‘‘ Gonatonotus” and
“Milne ”’

Second line: substitute ‘‘ Schmitt, 1926)” for “‘ Schmitt) 1926,”
Point (1): substitute “‘ Rhynchocinetes”’ for “‘ RHYNCHOCINETES ”
Line 20: substitute ‘“‘ 1921” for “‘ 1951”

Last line: substitute ‘‘ 1823” for “‘ 1923”

Last line but two: substitute ‘‘ Philipsson ’’ for ‘‘ Philippson ””

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 367

; INDEX
TO AUTHORS OF APPLICATIONS AND OF COMMENTS
ON APPLICATIONS

Page
..7-18

Almasov, A.
Altena, C. O. van Regteren .. 336
Amadon, D. Py ape .. 352

Arkell, W. J. 28-32, 199-200,

299-931, 272, 297-298

Baily, J. L., Jr. 59-60, 94, 96,
117-119, 188, 279-280,

330-332

Baker, H. B. 231, 272
Balfour-Browne, J. 49-55
Ball, G. E. a he os AO)
Ball, H. W. 66-67
Bassler, R. S. 90-92
Bell, E. L. 289-294
Bischoff, H. ry ae .« 205
Boettger, C. R. .. nb .. 249
Boltovskoy, E. .. ..7-18
Bonet, F. 7 a a ik
Boyle, W. W. .. oe eee
Brown, D. A. 153-154

Causey, Nell B. Pe .. 268

Page

Cazier, M. A. .. 269
Christiansen, K. A. 266-267
Clay, Theresa .. a .. 300
Cloudsley-Thompson, J. L. .. 269
Cox, L. R. 21-27, 58, 239-245,
303-304, 327-329

Crabill, R. E., Jr. 134-136
Curran,C.H. .. me .. 269
de Beer, Sir G. .. 171-172, 301
Delany, M.J. .. oe .. 300
Dinely, D. L. .. se .. 266
Dollfus, R. Ph. 322-324
Donovan, D. T. = .. 298
Dos Passos, C. F. 289-294

Duncan, Helen .. 90-92, 155-157

Dwyer, J. D. 269-270
Ellis, A. E. .. 275-278, 337-343
Evans, W.H. .. ws .. 294
Forcart, L. zis ot .. 264
Forest, J. 307-321

368 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
Fritz, Madeleine L. 265, 303
Garth,J.S. _.. ae .. 356
Gertsch, W. J. .. uh .. 269
Gisin, H. 38-48, 68-70, 75-77

Goodnight, C. J. sg) ara ke DES

Hemming, F.
4-7, 19-20, 35-37, 56-57,
79-81, 83-85, 86-89, 99-
102, 107-111, 112-113, 114-
116, 122-123, 124-131, 146-
152, 173-175, 179-180, 181-
182, 196-198, 235-238, 246—
249, 250-251, 256-259, 260-
262, 263-264, 281-282, 299-

300, 362-364
Henningsmoen, G. .. 364
Hering, E.M. .. ne .. 280
Holthuis, L. B. 204-228, 301-302,

307-321
Hopkins, G. H. E. 349-352
Hottes, F. C. 97-98
Hubendick, B. .. eh .. 336
Huxley, J.S. .. | .. 232
Illg, P. L. 252-255
Jaanusson, V. 359-361
Jaczewski, T. .. ee .. 304
Jeletzky, J. A. .. 158-166

Page
Keen, A. Myra .. 61-65
Kraus, O. 270, 296
Laing, F... 71, 78
Loeblich, A. R.., Jr. 155-157
Macdonald, J. C. ~ .. 356
Martin, J.C... be ae
Marwick, J. 353-355
Maxwell, W. G. H. 333-336
Meinertzhagen, R. 103-104

Mertens, R. .. 132-133, 139-141,
302, 347-348

Mills, H. B. ..70, 77, 102

Moore, R. C. 155-157

Morrison-Scott, T. C. S.
95-96, 167-168, 168,
183-185, 186-188,
189-190, 191-195

Muir-Wood, Helen... is 12D
Paclt, J... 38 Bis .. 265
Palmén, E. * 7 ame) |
Palmer, Katherine V.W. 268-269
Palmer, Miriam A. bes .. 267
Pike, R. B. 2: 4 .. 356

— RT en p<,
i

Rindge, F. H.

Sabrosky, C. W...

Salmon, J. T.
Salomonsen, F.
Smith, Allyn G.
Spilman, T. J.
Stallings, D. B.
Stone, A...

Stormer, L.

Stubblefield, C. J.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page

.. 269

ery (|

~- 72, 78,232
. 301

. 267

. 270
295-296

82

. 364

. 355

Tate,G.H.H. ..

Tottenham, C. E.

Tucker, D. W.

Turner, J. R.
Vaurie, C.

White, E. I.

Whittington, H. B.

Williamson, D. I.

Wills, L. V.

Biencr: Fi fal

369

Page
Apne 3!

176-178
285-288, 302

295-296
93-94, 344-346

66-67
283-284, 361
-. 356

. 266

142-145

ty tae ’
+9) 16-88, wear eae

ae ae a

WG, Lied

oot... ESS de epiaadtte

Chl, Rey PR

OE. tenetim eet, 2 BRIS

ek at ee, $i. i, 0

aagenga 200, Bde T LenS

Eencdoamtar, Gy. a Bee

Hincig. Wx PA toh baits:

‘Hebi. 18, sol-te, pact Ny
: PIA

sere ca
Wain. 8. © a ee

IGO- PLY
«

WLaarisor- marty Tr ~S #

| eS
J }

ia a
papbels ARs 9. oll

Wardanads, 7. C,

gt).
Sri, J uv a ES

Rai, Wid, BS
WH rei:

Hae, Ret

Mita tt &

Minas, Th,

——— |

itt 20 767s

Mage tent, Sledge a

Padindn, ae «il et
;

so

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 371

SUBJECT INDEX

Page
Achoreutes Templeton, 1843, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling of Achorutes
Templeton, 1835, proposed addition of, to the loti Index of FEE
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 5 A 47
Achorutes Templeton, 1835 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), proposed
suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of
Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy swe wd .-. 38-46
advertisement of the above proposal vite oy Pee sof ae 34
comments on the above proposal a ae ae sai .-. 102, 232, 265
proposed addition of, to the “erga Index ef ese and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology... 47
ACHORUTINAE Borner, 1906, proposed addition of, to the oiiee 4 Index a
Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology nae 48
ACHORUTINI Bérner, 1901, proposed addition of, to the Ree, f Index af
Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology aoe 48
Acinacea Bory de St. Vincent, 1804 (Class Pisces), proposed suppression of,
under the Plenary Powers, for the PUP of the Law of acai ities but not
for those of the Law of Homonymy .. . 285-287
proposed addition of, to the ee Index eS Bacon and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology as SAlee eee 288
ACINACEIDAE Berg, 1940, proposed addition of, to the i asi Index iar
and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology .. ae 288
Acinaces (emend. of Acinacea) Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1846 (Class Pisces), pro-
posed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the
Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy... as 285-287
proposed addition of, to the Cilletae hs Index of ia naan and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology Sate 288
acuta Davidson, 1863, as published in the combination Spirifera acuta (Class
Brachiopoda), interpreted by reference to the specimen preserved in the
Davidson Collection in the British Museum selected to be the lectotype of
species by Muir-Wood in 1951, pba addition of, to the oa List of
Specific Names in Zoology Sty =A 124-131

372 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

acutus Martin, 1809, as published in the combination Conchyliolithus
Anomites acutus, a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes, proposed addition of, to the an Index oF nea nr and

Invalid Specific Names in Zoology Ka xe 124-131

acutus Fleming, 1828, as published in the combination Spirifer acutus, a
junior objective synonym of minimus Sowerby (J.), 1816, as published in
the combination Spirifer minimus, proposed addition of, to the Official

Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ... ive 125-131

aeneus DeGeer, 1774, as published in the combination Hydrophilus aeneus,
proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the sit ices both
of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy ite

proposed addition of, to the ae Index of saeco and Invalid sepia:
Names in Zoology

aeneus Dejean, 1821, as published in the combination Hydrophilus aeneus
(a nomen nudum), proposed addition of, to the cial Index of pbc
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology...

aeneus Germar, 1824, as published in the combination Hydrophilus aeneus
(Class Insecta, Order ey asian ass validation of, under the
Plenary Powers . se

advertisement of the above proposal

proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology

aethiopicus Pallas, 1766, as published in the combination Aper aethtopicus
(Class Mammalia), i ca addition of, to the serial List ss ei
Names in Zoology : és

agassizi Coutiére, 1901, as published in the combination Coralliocaris agassizt
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), ees addition of, to the sds
List of Specific Names in Zoology a

agulhasensis Bate, 1888, as published in the combination Merhippolyte agul-
hasensis (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), PEAPpOR addition of, to the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology wg

alberti Lenz, 1910, as published in the combination Limnocaridina alberti
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), ee addition of, to the = cae
List of Specific Names in Zoology cee ;

Alope White, 1847 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of,
to the Official List of Generic Names in pean ie with pong —, White,
1847, as type species... oes

gender of name ...

. 50-54

55

55

53
34
55

194

218

218

218

208
208

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 373

Page
alpestris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Alauda alpestris
(Class Aves), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology ae A se ie a ver oes xa .. 104
Alpheopsis Coutiére, 1897 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), question of the
gender of Sis See ae Bes ch: Hs: iets “fe 217-218
amethysteus Risso, 1826, as published in the combination Alpheus
amethysteus (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ... a ct. ? 223, 224
Ammonoidea Zittel, 1884, proposed designation of Arietites Waagen, 1869,
to be the type genus of Order ... aa a of Lee sind 199-200
support for the above proposal De me sa Das oes -. 298
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Names in the Order Class-
Group in Zoology “ee ake 2% ig bs “eis ay -. 200
Anacaena Thomson, 1859 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Hydro-
philus globulus Paykull (G. von), [1798], as type species ... ae ... 49-54
gender of name ... Be re a ee ste eas she aan 54
Anchistioides Paulson, 1875 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with
Anchistioides compressus Paulson, 1875, as type species... ecb -. 208
gender of name ... 3 a “Oe aes se Ae or -. 208
Anchistus Borradaile, 1898 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with
Harpilius miersi De Man, 1888, as type species ae en ae -.. 208
gender of name ... ae oe a0 ae ee a “Ke -. 208

anglicus Sowerby (J.), 1818, as published in the combination Trochus
anglicus (Class Gastropoda), proposed designation of, under the Pl.
Powers, to be the type species of Pleurotomaria Sowerby (J.), 1821 ... 21-26

designation of a neotype for ... oes Bs SHE AY ae --- 26-27

proposed interpretation of, by reference to the neotype designated by
applicant “he oo ae aoe ae ee ses See ey 25

proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology tein, 26

374 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page

angustifrons Dalman, [1827], Asaphus (Class Trilobita), proposed designation
of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Ptychopyge
Angelin, 1854 - a5 Ned Bsc ee a! vse 359-361

advertisement of the above proposal 352

proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ... 360

annulatus Desmarest, 1822, as published in the combination Sciurus annulatus
(Class Mammalia), proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers,
for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of

Homonymy Bee = 186-187

proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific

Names in Zoology... as 188

annulatus Desmoulins, 1824, as published in the combination Sciurus annul-
atus, a junior primary homonym of annulatus Desmarest, 1822, as
published in the combination Sciurus annulatus, proposed addition of,
to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology «2, LSS

anonymus Horniman, 1940, as printed in the combination Pogoniulus
chrysoconus anonymus, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as possessing no status either
under the Law of Priority or under the Law of Homonymy... . 345-346

us Kollar, 1848, as published in the combination Palaemon
anophthalmus (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology We ar Me 223, 224

a

Anoura Gervais, 1843, a junior homonym of Anoura Gray (J.E.), 1838,
proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic

Names in Zoology =~ oe 47

antarcticus Pfeffer, 1887, as published in the combination Crangon antarcticus
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the Official

List of Specific Names in Zoology we! 218

antarticus Kerr, 1792, as published in the combination Canis antarticus
(Class Mammalia), proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers,
for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of

Homonymy

proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific
Names in Zoology see at, a a F wet su 6e

121

121

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 375
Page
Anura Agassiz, 1846, a junior homonym of Anura Hodgson, 1841, proposed
addition of, to the huts Index of siesta and Invalid Generic Names
in Zoology 47
ANUROPHORINAE Borner, 1901 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Family-Group Names in hae! with
Anurophorus Nicolet, [1842], as type genus . : 70
Anurophorus Nicolet. [1842] (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), proposed
setting aside, under the Plenary Powers, of all previous type selections for,
and As eae of : ets laricis Nicolet, "ig es to be the type
species of ; . 68-69
advertisement of the above proposal 34
comments on the above proposal oe fs Be wee 70, 71, 266, 267
gender of name ... 69
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 69
Aper Pallas, 1766 (Class Mammalia), proposed suppression of, under the
Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of i poate but not for those of
the Law of Homonymy oe Ac 191-194
proposed addition of, to the i cag Index of coy en and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology A 194
Archaeoteuthis Roemer, 1855, proposed suppression of, under the Plenary
Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the
Law of Homonymy sy ral rk : .. 66-67
proposed addition of, to the Official sd of Pigfecton and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology ae - 67
Arete Stimpson, 1860 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition
of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ee with Arete dorsalis
Stimpson, 1860, as type species d 208
gender of name . 208
Argis Kroyer, 1842 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of,
to the Official List of Generic Names in et a with he OR he lar <a
1839, as type species 208
gender of name ... 208

376 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
Arietites Waagen, 1869 (Class Ammonoidea), BROROReE Seema of, to be
the type genus of the Order Ammonoidea ... “ 199-200
aryxna Dyar, 1905, as published in the combination Megathymus aryxna
(Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), proposed definition of, and ruling
on the specimen to be accepted as the lecto-type of... Sons ws 289-293
comments on the above proposal cee “ee Ae ane ace 294-296
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ... 293
Asthenognathus Stimpson, 1858 (Class Sree mc proposed determination,
under the Plenary Powers, of the gender of .. ae oe wes 260-262
advertisement of the above proposal oe sie se oe -. 234
Aterogatopsis Milne Edwards (A.), 1862 (Class Crustacea), proposed deter- .
mination, under the Plenary Powers, of the gender of _.... aaa 260-262
advertisement of the above proposal See eae “is nas sea) feo
Athanas Leach, 1814 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition
of, to the Official List of Generic Names in selina with Palaemon nitescens
Leach, 1814, as type species... Sale ... 208
a of name . 208
atlantica Calman, 1896, as published in the combination Bresilia atlantica
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), dst addition of, to the eon
List of Specific Names in Zoology ane 218
ATTIDAE Yu, 1936, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for aryipaE De Haan,
1849, proposed addition of, to the aaa Index ss ae and Invalid
Family- Group Names in Zoology 227
Atya Leach, 1816 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of,
to the Official List of Generic Names in oaks with ou scaber Leach, 1815,
as type species 208
208

gender of name ...

ATYADEA De Haan, 1849, an Invalid Original Spelling for aryipaz De Haan, |
1849, proposed addition of, to the deed Index et Bev dese and Invalid

Family-Group Names in Zoology ais 227

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 377

Page
Atyella Calman, 1906 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition
of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Atyella brevirostris
Calman, 1906, as type species ... io ae Sf oes as -. 209
gender of name “io Bee cue ste ue sis nec -- 209

ATYIDAE (correction by Dana (1852) of ATYADEA) De Haan, 1849 (Class
Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of
Family-Group Names in Zoology, with Atya Leach, 1816, as type genus... 225

Atys Leach, 1815, a junior homonym of Atys de Montfort, 1810, proposed
addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in

Zoology ... ne 224
Aucella Keyserling, 1846 (Class Lamellibranchiata), proposed validation of,
under the Plenary Powers aos ae aes Be is 158-162
advertisement of the above proposal ... rE ne ee, a anes
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with
Avicula mosquensis von Buch, 1844, as type species ape -- 163
gender of name ... ta Sag <3 na eS : ae se --» 163
Aulacorhynchus Gould, 1834 (Class Aves), proposed determination, under the
Plenary Powers, of the gender of We Ae ee ase Oo: 260-262
advertisement of the above proposal 50¢ wae ABE sek -- 234
auricularius Spengler, 1793, as published in the combination Unio auricularius
(Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology i..3 oe ies Ss Sct aa wag co ae
australis Kerr, 1792, as published in the combination Canis australis (Class
Mammalia), proposed acceptance of ... aa Stic oe 122-123
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ... 123
Automate De Man, 1888 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition
. Of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Automate dolicho-
gnatha De Man, 1888, as type species... aie 288 ser a --. 209
gender of name ... ih ie ods a8 ime ap) aad ... 209
Balssia Kemp, 1922 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition
of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Amphipalaemon
gastt Balss, 1921, as type species hate a3 Bae oe Soiniooe aut 200

gender of name ... sae #: se ses Ae Sas asd -» 209

378 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Balssiola Strand, 1922, a substitute name for Calmania Bouvier, 1909, pro-
posed addition of, to the Paige Index of icici and Invalid Generic

Names in Zoology

Barbouria Rathbun, 1912 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in a pais with
Barbouria poeyi Rathbun, 1912, as type species

gender of name ...

Bartram (W.), Philadelphia, 1791, London and Dublin, 1792, Travels through
North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida, the Cherokee
Country, the extensive territorities of the Muscogulges or Creek Confederacy,
and the Country of the Chactaws, proposed rejection of, for nomenclatorial
purposes, on the ground that in this work the gape of binominal

Page

224

- 209

209

nomenclature were not applied... Aoi : .- 98-102

proposed addition of title of, to the sone Index - ee and Invalid
Works in Zoological Nomenclature .

Bathypalaemonella Balss, 1914 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), pro-
posed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in sia with
Bathypalaemonella zimmeri Balss, 1914, as type species

gender of name ...

bet Ridgway, 1874, as published in the combination Hremophila alpestris
var. bei (Class Aves), proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers,
for the purposes of the Law of or ie, but not for those of the Law of

102

209

209

Homonymy = : ‘ ; a at g

advertisement of the above proposal

proposed addition of, to the caer Index a Seieries and Invalid SPN
Names in Zoology awe

benedicti Smith (S.I.), 1885, as published in the combination Ephyrina
benedicti (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), pcan addition of, to the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology x

Beringius Dall, 1879 (Class Gastropoda), proposed suppression of, and
addition of, to the he an Index iss aia and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology ... ;
alternatively, proposed validation of, under the Plenary Powers ..

proposed addition of, if so validated, to the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology, with Chrysodomus crebricostatus Dall, 1877, as type species..

gender of name ...

74

104

218

. 63-65

65

65
65

tens eee et

ee oe ee ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 379

Page
Beringius Dall, 1886 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Chrysodomus crebricostatus
Dall, 1877, as type species ee side oe td's wis at 64
gender of name ... aS aay ae oe 8 a: Sac ae 64
alternatively, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, as a junior homonym of Beringius
Dall, 1879 hie sis hy Be we Sas ire sas Rea 65
bernhardus Linnaeus, 1758, Cancer (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda),
proposed interpretation of, by the lectotype selected by Forest & Holthuis
as figured by Swammerdam (1737, Bybel der Natuure) ... 311-312, 315, 320

proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 316, 320

Bernhardus Dana, 1851 (Nov.-Dec.), a junior objective synonym of
Eupagurus Brandt, 1851, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ve ee 315, 320

Betaeus Dana, 1852 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of,
to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Betaeus truncatus Dana,

1852, as type species... re 209
gender of name ... aes — f.. ee on oe aoe asses OD
bicornis Kemp, 1925, as published in the combination Paralatreutes bicornis
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology its se ue ee vee sich 21S
Biloba Stach, 1949, a junior objective synonym of Neanura MacGillivray,
1893, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology me Be: ai “ie das mee Anis 47
BILOBIDAE Stach, 1951, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Family-Growp Names in Zoology he ae sels — 48
Birgusa Leach, 1815 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed validation
of .* Sr Ase tie seat bee sce aes iP 2 322-324
Birulia Brashnikov, 1903 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Birulia
sachalinensis Brashnikov, 1903, as type species... ae — --+ 209

gender of name .., aa a8 a” iN its us iit «- 209

380 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
Bithinia Gray (J.E.), 1829, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling of Bithynia
Leach, 1818, proposed addition of, to the Scie Index _ ee and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : 278
Bithynia Leach, 1818 eri ede oe Poe validation of, under the
Plenary Powers ... é se 275-278
advertisement of the above proposal 273
gender of name ... 278
support for the above proposal Wipe ae wt 7: ... 279-280, 336
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in gecpin: with
Helix tentaculata Linnaeus, 1758, as type species .. 278
BITHYNIADAE Gray (J.E.), 1857, an Invalid Original Spelling for BrrHyNIIDAE,
proposed addition of, to the OBleiah Is Index of, Teiected and Invalid fluids
Group Names in Zoology Bue 278
BITHYNIDAE (correction of BITHYNIADAE) Gray (J.E.), 1857 (Class Gastro-
poda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Family- free Names in
Zoology, with Bithynia Leach, 1818, as type genus ... i 278
biunguiculatus Lucas, 1849, as published in the combination Palaemon
biunguiculatus (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), pane addition of,
to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology a : Be 2 222, 224
blainvillei (correction of blainvillii) Leach, 1821, as published in the com-
bination Mormoops blainvillit (Class Mammalia), sible addition of,
to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : . 185

blainvillii Leach, 1821, as published in the combination Mormoops blainvillii,
(Class Mammalia), proposed acceptance of selection of, by Dobson (1878),
to the exclusion of the specific name cuviert Leach, 1821, as published in the
combination Aéllo cuvieri, for use by specialists who consider on taxonomic

grounds that these are no more than different names for the same species 183-185

proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid ais

Names in Zoology, as an Invalid Original Spelling of blainvillez.. 185
Bombina Oken, 1816 (Class Amphibia, Order Anura), proposed conservation
of, under the peer ici with Rana bombina hecepeaucgh 1761, as
species... ; me 3 132-133
advertisement of the above proposal 106
gender of name .. 133
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 133

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 381

Page
bombina Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the combination Rana bombina
(Class Amphibia, Order Anura), proposed addition of, to the Official List

of Specific Names in Zoology 133

bonniert Caullery, 1896, as published in the combination Dichelopandalus
bonniert (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the

Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 218

boreas Phipps, 1774, as published in the combination Cancer boreas (Class
Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List

of Specific Names in Zoology 218

Boreopithecus Friedrichs, 1932, proposed rejection of, as a name based on a
hypothetical form oe see ae oi ao Bae 171-172

proposed addition of, to the Oficial Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic

Names in Zoology 172

Bourletia Macgillivray, 1893, a junior objective synonym of Anurophorus
Nicolet, [1842], proposed addition of, to the Oficial Index of Rejected and

Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 70

BOURLETIINI Borner, 1932, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology ae sae --- 69-70

bouviert Sollaud, 1911, as published in the combination Pseudopalaemon
bouviert (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the

Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 219

Brachycarpus Bate, 1888 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Brachy-
carpus savignyi Bate, 1888, as type species ... oie deg sein -. 209

gender of name ... nok ee ee 5; aay ne sea .. 209

brachythaerus Sowerby (G.B.), 1844, as published in the combination
Producta brachythaerus (Class Brachiopoda), proposed suppression of,
under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes both of the Law of Priority
and of the Law of Homonymy... aoe 5 nee Ae 333-335

proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific

Names in Zoology 336

brachythaerus, any uses of, in combination with the generic name Productus
or the variant Producta subsequent to Sowerby, 1844, and prior to Morris,
1845, proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes
both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy... a 333-335

proposed addition of, to the Oficial Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific

Names in Zoology 336

382 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
brachythaerus as from Morris, 1845, in the combination Productus brachy-
thaerus (Class Brachiopoda), proposed validation of, under the Plenary
Powers, to be interpreted by reference to the specimen figured by Morris 334-335

proposed designation of, under the eer! Bk aad to be the pea species
of Terrakea Booker, 1930 ... - 335-336

advertisement of the above proposals... “Se we a oe = B25
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ... 336

branchialis Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Lernaea
branchialis (Class Crustacea, Order eed ip addition of, to the

Official List of Specific Names in Zoology j w= - 255
brandti Dresser, 1874, as published in the combination Otocorys brandti (Class

Aves), proposed validation of, under the Plenary Powers ... %2 103-104

proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ... 104

Bresilia Calman, 1896 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition
of, to the Official List of Generic Names in gs ides with Bresilia atlantica
Calman, 1896, as type species 209

gender of name ... oo = ae i Ste Mes ae ser me

BRESILIDAE Kemp, 1910, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for BRESILIIDAE
Calman, 1896, proposed addition of, to the peaiaeree Index eF seine and
Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology ae 227

BRESILUDAE Calman, 1896 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
- addition of, to the Official List of Family- aula! Names in Ridin x with
Bresilia Calman, 1896, as type genus 225

brevirostris Rathke, 1843, as published in the combination Pandalus brevi-
rostris (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), a ns addition of, to the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ie 219

brevirostris Calman, 1906, as published in the combination Atyella brevirostris
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), Po. addition of, to the €
List of Specific Names in Zoology ae 219

Buchia Rouillier, 1845 (Class Lamellibranchiata), proposed suppression of,
under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of i liaditied but
not for those of the Law of Homonymy ewe - 158-163

proposed addition of, to the yt Index of kno and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology 163

ernie

a _

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 383

Page
Bulimus Scopoli, 1777 (Class Gastropoda), proposed suppression of, under
the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of ena but not for
those of the Law of Homonymy eat sg 275-278

proposed addition of, to the ee Index me Rejected and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology... 278

Bulimus Bruguiére, 1789, a junior homonym of Bulimus Scopoli, 1777,
proposed addition of, to the stim Index of er and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology : 278

Bythinia MacGillivray (W.), 1843, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling of
Bithynia Leach, 1818, proposed addition of, to the bs asim Index is
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ate 278

Bythocaris Sars (G.O.), 1870 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ceeieiiak with mire
simplicirostris Sars (G.O.), 1870, as type species... «. 209

gender of name ... age tise se ber er Rec Soc -.. 209

Bytinia Millet de la Turtaudiére (P.A.), 1870, an Erroneous Subsequent
Spelling of Bithynia Leach, 1818, proposed addition of, to the wa
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology... , 278

Calandra Bartram, 1791, a name published in a work rejected for nomen-
clatorial purposes, proposed addition of, to the ie dieny Index a Reset
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology... cos 102

californiana (Koch MS.) Kiister, [1844], T'erebratula (Class Brachiopoda),
proposed acceptance of, as the type species of Laqueus Dall, 1870 .... 117-119

comment on the above proposal ane aR: wal ace ree .. 120

proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology... 118

californica Sowerby (G.B.), 1846, as published in the combination Terebratula
californica, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for californiana (Koch MS.)
Kiister, [1844], as published in the combination Terebratula californiana,
proposed addition of, to the ai Index of eaisanns and Invalid Se
Names in Zoology : 119

384 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

californica Dall, 1870, as published in the combination Terebratwla californica,
an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for californiana (Koch MS.) Kister,
[1844], as published in the combination Terebratula californiana, pro-
posed addition of, to the yoleangs Index : ee and Invalid raph 4 Names
in Zoology

callewaerti Horniman, 1940, as printed in the combination T'chagra senegala
callewaerti, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as possessing no status either under

Page

118

the Law of Priority or under the Law of Homonymy... Bec ... 945-346

Calmania Bouvier, 1909, a junior homonym of Calmania Laurie, 1906,
proposed addition of, to the bce Index of Paes and Invalid Generte
Names in Zoology

CAMACEA Blainville, 1825, an Invalid Original Spelling for cHammDaE, proposed
addition of, to the Official Index of ee and Invalid fice. phd
Names in Zoology ;

CAMPYLONOTIDAE Sollaud, 1913 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Family-Group Names in peg with
Campylonotus Bate, 1888, as type genus

Campylonotus Bate, 1888 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoolagite with
Campylonotus semistriatus Bate, 1888, as type species

gender of name ..

Caridella Calman, 1906 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition
of, to the Official List of Generic Names in FON, 8 with Caridella
cunningtoni Calman, 1906, as type species

gender of name .

Caridina Milne Edwards (H.), 1837 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda),
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in himiiti ia with
Caridina typus Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, as type species .

gender of name ..

Caridinopsis Bouvier, 1912 sigur peaincnrasty ai Order Leg eins srs of
the gender of

Caridion Goés, 1863 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition
of, to the Official List of Generic Names in per te with Fags a eigen
Bate, 1858, as type species

gender of name ...

224

329

225

209
209

210

210

210
210

217-218

210
210

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 385

Page
Carinifex og Oe 1865 soya ee ieee for the Lele cant valida-
tion of ... 272

Cebus Eberhard, 1768, a name published in a work rejected for nomen-
clatorial purposes, proposed addition of, to the CA Index of me
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology... ee 96

ceratophthalma Balss, 1913, as published in the combination Hymenocera (?)
ceratophthalma (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of,
to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ae ana Aee Nee) | SLO

Chama Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the
Official List of Generic Names in ae with Chama lazarus Linnaeus,
1758, as type species... oe be noe te one oe 327-329

gender of name ... Pa te pa “ee ne «ts ae e- ooe

Chama da Costa, 1778, a junior homonym of Chama Linnaeus, 1758, pro-
posed addition of, to the Meee Index of hain and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology was ads 328, 329

Chama Oken, 1815, a junior homonym of Chama Linnaeus, 1758, proposed
addition of, to the 2 iota Index aged Resend and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology... ite Shc Ae 328, 329

Chama Mérch (0.A.L.), 1853, a junior homonym of Chama Linnaeus, 1758,
proposed addition of, to the sania Index of neath and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology ne oe 328, 329

CHAMADAE Fleming, 1828, an Invalid Original Spelling for cHamipaz, pro-
posed addition of, to the Official Index she Pel and Invalid ha
Group Names in Zoology ae 329

CHAMIDAE (correction of cAMACEA) Blainville, 1825 (Class Pelecypoda),
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Family- Srey Names in niet
with Chama Linnaeus, 1758, as type genus ... 329

Chasmagnathus de Haan, [1835] (Class er ata Pet, lak erorae
under the Plenary Powers, of the gender of .. sic 260-262

advertisement of the above proposal ... Reb AG ae as « «=. 234

386 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
Chlorocurtis Kemp, 1925 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in eh Se with Chloro-
curtis miser Kemp, 1925, as type species . 210
gender of name .. 210
Chlorodopsis Milne Edwards (A.), 1873 (Class Crustacea), ona erie deter-
mination, under the Plenary Powers, of the gender of x - 260-262
advertisement of the above proposal 234
Chlorotocella Balss, 1914 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition
of, to the Official List of Generic Nanes in each with Chlorotocella asec
Balss, 1914, as type species 210
gender of name ... 210
Chlorotocoides Kemp, 1925 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in eta dae with Chlorotocus
spinicauda De Man, 1902, as type species 210
gender of name ... 210
Chlorotocus Milne Edwards (A.), 1882 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda),
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with
Chlorotocus gracilipes Milne Edwards (A.), 1882, as type species .. 210
gender of name ... 210
Chorismus Bate, 1888 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition
of, to the Official List of Generic Names in paagidees with Chorismus tuber-
culatus Bate, 1888, as type species eee)
gender of name ... 210
ciliata Pallas, 1766, as published in the combination Eschara ciliata (Class
Ectoprocta), en G addition of, to the 5 ee Last of Peau Names
an Zoology Sh : 153-154
Collocalia Gray (G.R.), 1840 (Class Aves), proposed addition of, to the
Official Inst of Generic Names in sie see with Hirundo esculenta Linnaeus,
1758, as type species... te 144-145
gender of name ... dee des oe Sein otk a skis -. 145

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 387

Page
comatularum Haswell, 1882, as published in the combination Alpheus
comatularum (Class Crustacea, Order Cimacn ¢ oh fe ite addition of, to
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology .. ( i 223, 224
commensalis Nobili, 1906, as published in the combination Stegopontonia
commensalis (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of,
to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology oes Ae a cau hee
Commission, International, on Zoological Nomenclature
(a) Membership of :
Tortonese, E. (Italy), election of, to nats hs es ae 3
(b) Staff of:
Grensted, Professor the Rev. L. W., - eeeb “yas of, as Con-
sulting Classical Adviser ane -- 203
Watkins, Mrs. S. C., retirement of, as Administrative Officer ... 203
(c) Report on the work of the Office of, in the period from the close of the
Fourteenth International Congress of "Aenltey, Capenkae=t, 1953,
to 3lst December, 1954 sha ; 107-113
compressa De Haan, 1841, as published in the combination Ephyra com-
pressa (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), paepaged addition of, to the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ms : : be 219
compressus Paulson, 1875, as published in the combination Anchistioides
compressus (Class Crustacea, Order = epoca), eee B addition of, to
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology .. bas : aici ol
convera de Haan, [1835], as published in the combination Ocypode
(Chasmagnathus) convexa, proposed validation of, under the Plenary Powers
362-364
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ... 364
convexus Quoy & Gaimard, 1825, as published in the combination Ocypode con-
vexrus, proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes
both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy... ee 362-364
advertisement of the above proposal ... scm ae ade Ae .. 352
proposed addition of, to the eee Index of ee and Invalid ee
Names in Zoology Sale 364
Coralliocaris Stimpson, 1860 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Sito with Pitas
superbus Dana, 1852, as type species . ee 210

gender of name ... ot oe are “ke Be oo tic ee

388 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
Coutierea Nobili, 1901 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in senseeaeenhe’ with Coralliocaris
agassizi Coutéire, 1901, as type species 63 210

gender of name ... Ae ee bee “ye pes a in wo», on

crassicornis Costa, 1871, as published in the combination Pandalus crassi-
cornis (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), iad addition of, to the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology i: a4 223, 224

crasssus Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, as published in the combination Gonato-
notus crassus (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), ky a addition of,
to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology by. . 219

crebricostatus Dall, 1877, as published in the combination Chrysodomus
crebricostatus (Class Gastropoda), sae addition of, to the Aa ag
List of Specific Names in Zoology = -.. 64, 65

Crenephilus Wickham, 1895, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for Creni-
philus (emend. of Cryniphilus) Motschulsky, 1845, proposed addition of,
to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology... 55

Creniphilus (emend. of Cryniphilus) Motschulsky, 1845, proposed suppression
of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of ee but
not for those of the Law of Homonymy Hoe : --. 49-54

proposed addition of, to the eiglas Index a Sea and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology... 55

Crenitis Bedel, 1881 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), proposed addition of,
to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with ie rant eT
striatus Letzner, [1841], as type species ae 54

gender of name ... Eat ais sae ae aie nS aos <= 54

Crenophilus Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1846, proposed suppression of, under the
Plenary Powers, for the be ite both of the Law of panes and of the
Law of Homonymy .... -.. 560-54

proposed addition of, to the —* Index of ‘tages and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology... nae 55

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 389

Page
Crenophilus Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1848, proposed suppression of, under the
Plenary Powers, for the “nara both of the Law of remithy. and of the
Law of Homonymy a . 50-54

proposed addition of, to the ee Index of ere and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology ie 55

Crenophilus, any uses of, subsequent to Agassiz (1848) and prior to
d’Orchymont (1942), proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers,
for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy 49-54

proposed addition of, to the eee tan Index 7 stare and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology... 55

Crenophilus, as from d’Orchymont, 1942 (Class Insecta, Order mn Coleen;
proposed validation of, under the Plenary Powers . . 49-54

advertisement of the above proposal ee 53: Bc By os 34

proposed designation, under the Plenary Powers, of peeves grains

Horn, 1873, to be the type species of aoe .-- 51-54
gender of name ... Aan oe or e. i& ae BY ae 54
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology... 54

Cryniphilus Motschulsky, 1845, an Invalid Original Spelling for Creniphilus,
proposed addition of, to the Opteial 1 Index of aan and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology ser 55

Cryptocheles Sars (G.O.), 1870 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Felony, with en
cheles pygmaea Sars (G.O.), 1870, as type species... 211

gender of name ... wre “ie as bed oF ats ve Sead Oh

cubensis Von Martens, 1872, as published in the combination Hippolyte
cubensis (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), i igs addition of, to the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ase aie 222, 224

Cubiceps Lowe (R.T.), 1843 (Class Actinopterygii), proposed addition of, to
the Official List of Generic Names in beaten with Seriola i ieee Lowe,
1843, as type species... at's 181-182

gender of name ... Hoe os be ae ead eat Li vais 82

Cc

390 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
cunningtoni Calman, 1906, as published iu the combination Caridella
cunningtoni (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to

the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ... 219

cursor Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, as published in the combination Nemato-
carcinus cursor (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of,
to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology te ack Ae ~~ 29

cuvieri Smith (W.), 1816, as published in the combination Inoceramus
cuvieri, a junior primary homonym of cuvierti Sowerby (J.), 1814, as
published in the combination Inoceramus cuvierii, proposed addition of,
to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology 245

cuvieri Mantell, 1822 [May], as published in the combination Inoceramus
cuvieri, a junior primary homonym of cuvierii Sowerby (J.), 1814, as
published in the combination Inoceramus cuvierii, proposed addition of,
to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ... 245

cuvierii Sowerby (J.), 1814, as published in the combination Inoceramus
cuvierii (Class Pelecypoda) and as defined by lectotype selection by Cox,
proposed acceptance of, as the type species of Inoceramus Sowerby (J.),
1814 cx oe ave S =e oe a¥s a ibe 239-244

proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ... 244

cuvierii Sowerby (J.), [1822 post Oct.], as published in the combination
Inoceramus cuvierii, a junior primary homonym of, and a junior objective
synonym of, cuvierit Sowerby (J.), 1814, as published in the combination
Inoceramus cuvierii, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected

and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology oss nae 245

cyprinacea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Lernaea cypri-
nacea (Class Crustacea, Order Copepoda), proposed addition of, to the

Official List of Specific Names in Zoology... + 255

Cyrillic alphabets, transliteration of words from, into the Latin alphabet,
proposed schedule relating to, to be provided in the revised Régles... 4-7, 7-18

advertisement of the above proposal os “ae He ie gee 2

Cyrillic characters, Declaration relating to the transliteration of words
normally written in, proposed adoption of .. ena bos ae 4-7, 7-12

advertisement of the above proposal fs ahs ets oh a8 2

—————e——— er —S—(C‘CSSPC™;~;h.!~™~”

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 391

Page
daea Dampf, 1910, Palaeopsylla (Class Insecta, Order Siphonaptera), pro-
posed determination of, under the Plenary Powers, by reference to the
lectotype selected by Hopkins ae ore aes St He 349-352
advertisement of the above proposal ... “oe a sos ie -. 326
proposed addition of, to the Officzal List of Specific Names in Zoology ... 352
danae Paulson, 1875, as published in the combination Nikoides danae (Class
Crustacea, Order Decapoda), rea addition of, to the ae List of
Specific Names in Zoology : : 219
DARDANINAE Schmitt, 1926 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
Ruling giving precedence to, under the Plenary Powers, over DIOGENINAE
Ortmann, 1892, by workers who consider on taxonomic grounds that the
type genera of these nominal a, oe taxa are referable to the same
family-group taxon Be see see aes 313, 315
advertisement of the above proposal Sse Ane ck ae -. 305
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology,
subject to addition of Bees endorsement with Dardanus kati
1875, as type genus ... ae 36 316
Dardanus Paulson, 1875 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in spite with Dardanus
hellerit Paulson, 1875, as type species.. “ Soe 315, 320
gender of name ... Ff oe oe sais Be 25 Se .» 315
support for the proposed acceptance of is ug aoa as 322-324
Dasycaris Kemp, 1922 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition
of, to the Official List of Generic Names in nore with epee rb
Kemp, 1922, as type species... 211
gender of name ... Ree ee Ace 42 aa BAe ie scat

dawsont Woodward, 1913, as published in the combination Hoanthropus
dawsoni, proposed rejection of, as a name based on a hypothetical form 171-172

proposed addition of, to the ob Index a ep eb and Invalid he
Names in Zoology “Ee 172

dawsoni Boule, 1915, as published in the combinations Homo dawsoni and
Troglodytes dawsoni PERSO: proposed rejection of, as a name based on
ahypothetical form ... <a Bec aaa ate Ane 171-172

proposed addition of, to the slg Index is sere and Invalid sj ohh
Names in Zoology das 172

392 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
dawsoni Friedrichs, 1932, as published in the combination Boreopithecus
dawsoni, proposed rejection of, as a name based on a hypothetical form 171-172

proposed addition of, to the setae Index of Piya and Invalid wet sehr
Namesin Zoology... 173

Declarations containing interpretations of provisions in the Régles, proposed
adoption of, see Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique.

Degeeria Nicolet, 1841, a nomen nudum, proposed addition of, to the Dea
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology... e 76

Degeeria Nicolet, [1842], a junior homonym of Degeeria Meigen, 1838, pro-
posed addition of, to the ig isa Index of Bete and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology me 76

DEGEERIADAE Lubbock, 1873, proposed addition of, to the Official aid
of Rejected and Invalid Family-Growp Names in Zoology ... Be 76

DEGEERIDAE Tullberg, 1876, correction of DEGEERIADAE Lubbock, 1873,
the name of a taxon, the name of the type genus of which is invalid as a
junior homonym of an older generic name, proposed addition of, to the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology ... 77

Desmocaris Sollaud, 1911 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addi-
tion of, to the Official List of Generic Names in sar ae with Palaemonetes
trispinosus Aurivillius, 1898, as type species tS 211

gender of name ... a aA a ie on hos ey. eee |

Desmognathus Baird, 1850 (Class Amphibia), gue asi gilibads so under

the Plenary Powers, of the gender of... oie 8 260-262
advertisement of the above proposal eis “e he oak ass) ne
support for the above proposal ne an ate he = seni 302

Dichelopandalus Caullery, 1896 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in pected with Dichelo-
pandalus bonniert Caullery, 1896, as type species... 2 2in

gender of name ... Se as i sar ae Rae Sas cet ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

393

Page
dingo Meyer, 1793, as published in the combination Canis dingo pa
Mammalia), proposed validation of, under the Plenary Powers . 121
advertisement of the above proposal 106
support for the above proposal 168
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 121
Dinochoerus Gloger, [1841], a junior objective synonym of Phacochoerus
Cuvier (F.), 1826, proposed addition of, to the i ey Index of abate
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 195
Diogenes Dana, 1851 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of,
to the Official List of Generic Names in nei with Diicets miles
Fabricius, 1787, as type species 320
DIOGENINAE Ortmann, 1892 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed use
of the Plenary Powers to prevent use of, in preference to the name
DARDANINAE Schmitt, 1926, by workers who consider that the type genera
of these nominal vernon taxa are referable to the same whogeen eon
taxon oN aus 2ue ae 313, 315
advertisement of the above proposal ... 305
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Family-Growp Names in
Zoology, subject to addition of Beare endorsement, with Diogenes
Dana, 1851, as type genus ... “ie 316, 320
dolichognatha De Man, 1888, as published in the combination Automate
dolichognatha (Class Crustacea, Order viet gael ae aa addition of, to
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology .. 219
DOLICHOPIDAE (correction of DOLICHOPIDES) Latreille, 1807 (Class Insecta,
Order Diptera), proposed addition of, to the Official List of ee
Names in Zoology, with Dolichopus Latreille, 1796, as type genus.. 81
DOLICHOPIDES Latreille, 1807, an Invalid Original Spelling for DoLICHOPIDAE,
proposed addition of, to the eae Index a paler and Invalid ive.
Group Names in Zoology : 81
Doltchopus Latreille, 1796, (Class Insecta, Order pinters), Ergpoped @ addition
of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology .. “Gc 81
gender of name . 81
Dolichopus Van der Hoeven, [1856], a junior homonym of Dolichopus
Latreille, 1796, proposed addition of, to the since Index ’ eer ge and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology... 81

394 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOLYCHOPODAE Samouelle, 1819, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for
DOLICHOPIDAE, proposed addition of, to the nates Index ti ws, huis and
Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology

Dorodotes Bate, 1888 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition
of, to the Official List of Generic Names in og with Dorodotes dere e
Bate, 1888, as type species

gender of name .

dorsalis Stimpson, 1860, as published in the combination Arete dorsalis (Class

Crustacea, Order Decapoda), ne addition of, to the » Oe List bi

Specific Names in Zoology

Doryphorus Norman, 1861, a junior homonym of Doryphorus Cuvier, 1829,
proposed addition of, to the es Index ms Seog and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology

Drimo Risso, 1826, a junior objective synonym of Gnathophyllum Latreille;
1819, proposed addition of, to the pata Index x are and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology ,

DRIMOIDAE Ortmann, 1896, proposed addition of, to the eta i Index .
Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology x

Drury (D.), 1770-1782, Illustrations of Natural History, determination of the

Page

211

211

219

224

224

227

dates to be attributed to the names published in the volumes of .. 250-251

proposed addition of the title of, to the Official List Be Works ae
as Available for Zoological Nomenclature

Dugastella Bouvier, 1912 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in etree with rea
marocana Bouvier, 1912, as type species

gender of name .

dumerili Risso (A.), 1810, as published in the combination Caranx dumerili
(Class Actinopterygii), aig addition of, to the Ais daanate List - esl
Names in Zoology

dunensis Roemer, 1855, as published in the combination Palaeoteuthis
dunensis (Class Ostracodermi), a addition of, to the ba List
of Specific Names in Zoology ‘

251

211

21}

182

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 395

Page
Eberhard (J.P.), 1768, Versuch eines neuen Entwurfs der Thiergeschichte,
proposed rejection of, for nomenclatorial purposes, as being a, work in which
the author did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature --. 95-96
proposed addition of title of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Works in Zoology das re ase are Bae oe ree re 96
echinatus Dana, 1852, as published in the combination Paracrangon echinatus
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology ast Ve ie nt oP, .. =) 219

Elaphe Fitzinger, 1833 (Class Reptilia), proposed validation of _... 347-348
advertisement of the above proposal tes 4, 2 58 ate -. 326

proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology,
with Elaphe parreyssii Wagler, 1832, as type species a --. 348

gender of name ... 4a 5%. ae “ick ae ane cine -.- 348

elegans Risso, 1816, as published in the combination Alpheus elegans (Class
Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of

Specific Names in Zoology 219

elongatus Guérin-Ménéville, 1856, as published in the combination Hippolyte
elongatus (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the

Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 219

Ena Turton, 1831 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Bulimus montanus Draparnaud,

[1801], as type species ... 278

gender of name ... ate sais sas ws wae Ses aaa eens dS

ensifer Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, as published in the combination Hetero-
carpus ensifer (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of,

to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 219

ensiferus Risso, 1816, as published in the combination Palaemon ensiferus
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology are Ace on oes 223, 224

ensis Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, as published in the combination Acanthephyra
ensis (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology v ape ote 223, 224

396 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
Entomobrya Rondani, 1861 (Class Insecta, Order eae Leia
validation of, under the Plenary Powers Bh . 75-76
advertisement of the above proposal ... 53: oH ae oe nee 74
support for the above proposal noe arts va? a 77, 78, 266-267
gender of name ... re we ne ae ed ie sag ear 76
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in sees with
Degeeria muscorum Nicolet, [1842], as type species mae 76
ENTOMOBRYIDAE Schiffer, 1896 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Family-Group Names in OPO with
Entomobrya Rondani, 1861, as type genus ... 16
Eoanthropus Woodward, 1913, ei ai se lai of, as a name based on &
hypothetical form... ee 17 1-172
proposed addition of, to the etna, Index of Phisinrgs and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology... 172
eperlanus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Salmo eperlanus
(Class Actinopterygii), Le addition of, to the a List of scagicie
Names in Zoology 282
Ephyrina Smith (S.1.), 1885 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in clase with ita
benedicti Smith (S.1.), 1885, as type species ... : 211
gender of name ... ~~ pa as ar oe a sia sengpell
Escharina Milne Edwards (H.), 1836 (Class Ectoprocta), proposed addition of,
to the Official List of Generic Names in fe ti with Eschara Ree Moll,
1803, as type species... 154
gender of name ... ah Bp oa a oes Ss Ants mee pani a
esculenta Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Hirundo esculenta
(Class Aves), age age addition of, to the ease List sh sree Names
in Zoology 143-145
Eucratopsis Smith (S.I.), 1869 (Class Crustacea), a hapichle ea
under the Plenary Powers, of the gender of ak 260-262

advertisement of the above proposal of ah at ye .. 243

alte tate

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

EUGONATONOTIDAE Chace, 1937 (Class Crustacea, Order ee Lao
posed validation of, under the Plenary Powers -

advertisement of the above proposal

proposed addition of, to the Official List of Family-Group Names in
Zoology, with Eugonatonotus Schmitt, 1926, as type genus

Eugonatonotus Schmitt, 1926 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology w with Gonatonotus
crassus Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, as type species ...

gender of name .

EUPAGURIDAE (elevation of EUPAGURINAE) Ortmann, 1892, proposed addition
of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology...

EUPAGURINAE Ortmann, 1892 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, with
Eupagurus Brandt, 1851, as type genus ; as the name for taxa belonging

397

Page
207

202

226

211

211

317

to any category within the family-group below the category of family 316, 317

proposed addition of, to the Official Index gs ae ae and Invalid Be

Group Names in Zoology 321
Eupagurus Brandt, 1851 (30th Sept.) (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda),
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in nea with
Cancer bernhardus Linnaeus, 1758, as type species ... 315
gender of name ... 315
proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic
Names in iia as a et Shee Cisne of Pagurus Fabricius,
1775 ‘ bie ao < ae <a 320
support for the proposed validation of See ve wea zi 322-324
europaeus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Scorpio europaeus
(Class Arachnida), proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers,
for the purposes of the Law of era but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy ne : : Bat 173-175
advertisement of the above proposal 169
proposed addition of, to the ecwearin Index of sii and Invalid ech
- Names in Zoology 175

398 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
Eureodon Fischer de Waldheim, 1817 (Class Mammalia), proposed suppression
of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of ee but
not for those of the Law of Homonymy see : es 192-194
proposed addition of, to the asi Index . tape and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology ‘oe 194
Eurynorhynchus Nilsson, 1821 (Class oe saad caller ze under
the Plenary Powers, of the gender of .. ae 260-262
advertisement of the above proposal Ay A 5 bn Ay: PP se
ferus Schreber, [1775], as published in the combination Felis catus Linn.
ferus (Class Mammalia), proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers,
for the purposes of the Law of NET aR | but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy 3 ‘ ; off .. 189-190
proposed addition of, to the aceite Index av pa igi and Invalid + Sea
Names in Zoology... 190
ferus Erxleben, 1777, as published in the combination Felis catus var. ferus,
a junior homonym of Felis catus Linn. ferus Schreber, [1775], proposed
addition of, to the ge Index ae nich oe and Invalid Ree kf Names
in Zoology = 190
Fistulipora Rafinesque, 1831, proposed suppression of, under the Plenary
Powers, for the RUFROPS, both of the Law of fh erany and of the Law of
Homonymy “=F : : ¥ 155-157
proposed addition of, to the SS serepdes Index of Se ieNR and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology... 157
Fistulipora McCoy, 1849 Vat rhe ans validation of, under the
Plenary Powers ... oe 155-157
advertisement of the above proposal He coi pa a ioe kee
support for the above proposal oe osc sist ag ee .. 303
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in het
with Fistulipora minor McCoy, 1849, as type species... 157
gender of name ... Pe ee des toe = ae ine ace Om

FISTULIPORIDAE Ulrich, 1882 (Class Bryozoa), proposed addition of, to the
Official List of Family- ning Names in aaa: with } cee vorttand
1849, as type genus a 157

pee) ae

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 399

Page
floridanus Kingsley, 1878, as published in the combination Thor floridanus
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), prsaes addition of, to the ea
Liat of Specific Names in Zoology ate 3 ‘ 219

forficata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Scolopendra
forficata (Class Myriapoda), Peers 2 addition of, to the ian List be
Specific Names in Zoology RB 136

fragilis Wood Mason & Alcock, 1893, as published in the combination
Psathyrocaris fragilis (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition
of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ... ste as can eo

fucorum Fabricius, 1798, as published in the combination Palaemon fucorum
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), Liege addition of, to the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology aa ay 223, 224

galilea Calman, 1909, as published in the combination Typhlocaris galilea
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), ae a addition of, to the es
List of Specific Names in Zoology i 219

gambianus Ogilby, 1835, Sciurus (Class Mammalia), proposed designation of,
under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Heliosciurus
Trouessart, 1880 bse ies tes a Be a ae 186-187

advertisement of the above proposal ae ae sai ne: wea TO

proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology... 187

gammarus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cancer gammarus
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), Drapery 3 addition of, to the Oficiat List
of Specific Names in Zoology ... 116

ganteri Hay, 1901, as published in the combination Palaemonias ganteri
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), BEEP REO addition of, to the © A
List of Specific Names in Zoology ue 219

gasti Balss, 1921, as published in the combination Amphipalaemon gasti
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), ger addition of, to the thot:
List of Specific Names in Zoology ef 219

Gelastocaris Kemp, 1914 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in sae with Latreutes
paronae Nobili, 1905, as type species . ; 211

gender of name ... web Ba = a Pes ar i Sey BUY

400 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
GEMPYLINAE Goode & Bean, 1895 (Class Pisces), proposed addition of, to the
Official List of Family-Group Names in sneer with eit gi <3 Cuvier
(G.L.C.F.D.), 1829, as type genus _.... 288
Gempylus Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1829 Seg nel pret validation of,
under the Plenary Powers ae — 285-287
advertisement of the above proposal “ee Gee ati es oo. «=. B74
gender of name ... a sad ach ae ne git see soa) 288
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with
Gempylus serpens Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1829, as type species... 288
generic name in the Class Aves, having the termination -rhynchus, proposed
determination, under the Plenary Powers, of the gender of... ae 260-261
advertisement of the above proposal aoe aoe Nae ar -» «=: 234
support for the above proposal be a “py ise ms .. 301
generic name, belonging to the Order Decapoda of the Class Crustacea,
having the termination -opsis or ce proposed determination, under
the Plenary Powers, of the gender of .. uy er ate Hs 260-261
advertisement of the above proposal aoe eee wis 338 . 234
support for the above proposal ot se = oes Ba Sco eee
generic name, published conditionally, request for a Declaration panes the
status of, under Article 25 of the Régles coe 58 .. 19-20
advertisement of the above proposal st ae 43 see Ae 2
gibbosus Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, as published in the combination Notosto-
mus gibbosus (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), oh go addition of, to
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 219
Gigantorhynchus Hamaan, 1892 (Class Acanthocephala), PERSE deter-
mination, under the Plenary Powers, of the gender of am ..- 260-262
advertisement of the above proposal So sh ae sth oo.

glacialis Buchholz, 1874, as published in the combination Pasiphaé glacialis
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), aeRO addition of, to the si, oe
List of Specific Names in Zoology ne 220

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

globulus Paykull (G. von), [1798], as published in the combination Hydro-
philus globulus (Class Insecta, Order rc antag revtcnacg vk addition of, to
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology .. a

Glyphocrangon Milne Edwards (A.), 1881 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda),
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology,
with Glyphocrangon spinicauda Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, as type species...

gender of name ...

GLYPHOCRANGONIDAE Smith, 1884 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda),
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Family-Group Names in SEB
with Glyphocrangon Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, as type genus

GNATHOPHYLLINAE Dana, 1852 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Family-Group Names in easton with
Gnathophyllum Latreille, 1819, as type genus :

Gnathophyllum (emend. of Gnatophyllum) Latreille, 1849 (Class Crustacea,

401
Page

55

211

211

226

226

Order Decapoda), proposed validation of, under the Plenary Powers 206, 223

advertisement of the above proposal 202
gender of name .. 211
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ee with
Alpheus elegans Risso, 1816, as type species Sis re 211, 224
Gnatophyllum Latreille, 1819, an Invalid Original Spelling of Gnathophyllum,
proposed addition of, to the ates Index us hia and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology 224
GOMPHONOTIDAE Chace, 1936 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of
Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy... ay nolo, 224
proposed addition of, to the Official Index o nace and Invalid site
Group Names in Zoology 227
Gomphonotus Chace, 1936, a substitute name for Gonatonotus Milne Edwards
(A.), 1881, proposed addition of, to the lara Index of nea and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology 224
GONATONOTIDAE Gurney, 1941, proposed addition of, to the ee Index a
Rejected and Invalid Family- Group Names in Zoology am 227

402 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
Gonatonotus Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, a junior homonym of Gonatonotus
Adams & White, 1847, proposed addition of, to the vo Ry Index Ax
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology hi 225

Gonyosoma Wagler, 1828 (Class Reptilia), proposed suppression of, under the
Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of sede sch but not for those
of the Law of Homonymy ES. , = 347-348

proposed addition of, to the Cian B Index a fejocted and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology oes 348

gordoni Bate, 1858, as published in the combination Hippolyte gordoni (Class
Crustacea, Order Decapoda), Pgs addition of, to the » SER List a
Specific Names in Zoology : 220

gracilis Lowe, 1843, as published in the combination Seriola gracilis (Class
Actinopterygii), Lprpaipetics addition of, to the be etii'i List of Ei ag int Names
in Zoology... 182

gracilis Stimpson, 1860, as published in the combination Leptochela gracilis
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), Peete, addition of, to the sas List
of Specific Names in Zoology ... 220

gracilis Balss, 1914, as published in the combination Chlorotocella gracilis
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), aes addition of, to the Neils
List of Specific Names in Zoology ve 220

granulata Sowerby (J. de C.), 1827, as published in the combination Turritella
granulata (Class Gastropoda), proposed designation of, under the Plenary
Powers, to be the type species of Torquesia Douvillé, 1929.. oa 352-354

advertisement of the above proposal ao abe “Ee Bee . 326

proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ... 355

granulosa Deshayes, 1832, as published in the combination Twurritella granulosa
(Class Gastropoda), ing tem addition of, to the is ne: List se oe
Names in Zoology ‘ 355

Grensted, L. W., see Commission, International, on Zoological Nomenclature,
Staff of.

hachisukae Ripley, 1952, as published in the combination Hrithacus hachi-
sukae, a junior objective synonym of obscura Berezowsky & Bianchi, 1891,
as published in the combination Larvivora obscura, proposed addition of, to
the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology a 94

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 403

Page
HATTERIIDAE Cope, 1864 (Class Reptilia), proposed suppression of, under the
Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of tyra but not for those of
the Law of Homonyny... ace ar 140-141

proposed adition of, to the Official Index of wee and Invalid Fel
Group Names in Zoology... 141

hebridensis Horniman, 1940, as printed in the combination Alauda arvensis
hebridensis, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Specific Names in Zoology as possessing no status either under the Law of
Priority or under the Law of Homonymy _.... nee ak nid 345-346

hebridium Horniman, 1940, as printed in the combination Emberiza calandra
hebridium, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as possessing no status either under the
Law of Priority or under the Law of Homonymy ... Pe vss 345-346

hebridium Horniman, 1940, as printed in the combination Hrithacus rubecula
hebridium, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Specific Names in Zoology as possessing no status either under the Law of
Priority or under the Law of Homonymy .... ioe ore re 345-346

Helicella Férussac, 1821 Cas HIS th stra g comments on the prpposed
preservationof ... “ - 231, 249

Heliosciurus Trouessart, 1880 (Class Mammalia), proposed setting aside,
under the Plenary Powers, of all previous type selections for, and designa-
tion of Sciwrus gambianus Ogilby, 1835, to be the type species ... 186-187

advertisement of the above proposal 3 ae ate ac Taal i
gender of name ... ack a “50 Hee aoe aa oe owe feih

proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology... 187

Hemiprocne, as from Nitzsch, 1829 (Class Aves), proposed validation of,
under the Plenary Powers, as an emendation of the form Hemiprocnes 142-144

advertisement of the above proposal nas wae Boe an oe
gender of name ... as Bau ad. tm ih aes ara sonrel44

proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ORR with
Hirundo longipennis Rafinesque, 1802, as type species ... 144

Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1833, a junior homonym of Hemiprocne (emend. of
Hemiprocnes) Nitzsch, 1829, proposed addition of, to the gee Index i
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology e : 145

404 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Hemiprocne Riemann, 1838, a junior homonym of Hemiprocne (emend. of
Hemiprocnes) Nitzsch, 1829, proposed addition of, to the tnt Index
of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology =

Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1840, a junior homonym of Hemiprocne (emend. of
Hemiprocnes) Nitzsch, 1829, proposed addition of, to the gibt Index
of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology

Hemiprocnes Nitzsch, 1829, an Invalid Original Spelling of Hemiprocne,
proposed addition of, to the oe Index of i is and Invalid Generic

Page

145

145

Names in Zoology be auf 142-145

HEMIPROCNIDAE Oberholser, 1906 (Class Aves), proposed addition of, to the
Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, with H. erenroene keene of
Hemiprocnes) Nitzsch, 1829, as type genus ..

Heptacarpus Holmes, 1900 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in iia with H Hippel
palpator Owen, 1839, as type species . .

gender of name ...

Heterocarpoides De Man, 1917 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ible with Dorodotes
levicarina Bate, 1888, as type species

gender of name ..

heterocarpoides Nobili, 1903, as published in the combination Mimocaris
heterocarpoides (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), ee addition of,
to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology a aN

Heterocarpus Milne Edwards (A.), 1881 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda),
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with
Heterocarpus ensifer Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, as type species

gender of name ...

HIPPOLYIDAE Yu, 1935, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for HIPPOLYTIDAE
Bate, 1888, proposed addition of, to the eer Index ie si and
Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology

Hippolysmata Stimpson, 1860 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in pi with pel
lysmata vittata Stimpson, 1860, as type species oF

gender of name ...

145

212

212

212

212

220

212

212

227

212

212

.
P
q
4
:
:
J
{
.
|
j

eS

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 405

Page
Hippolyte Leach, 1814 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition
of, to the Official List of Generic Names in mre with H ippolyte varians
Leach, 1814, as type species... ie 206, 212
gender of name ... Ae a =a: sis - = i eer dp
HIPPOLYTIDAE Bate, 1888 (Class Crustacea, Order pie eh proposed
validation of, under the Plenary Powers vs ae ... 207-208, 223-224
advertisement of the above proposal eis ae fe ive Pe sly
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Family- en Names in nae
with Hippolyte Leach, 1814, as type genus & 226
Homalaspis Reinhard, 1860 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), proposed
suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the ie a both of the
Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy “ei .. 83-84
proposed addition of, to the aay Index of ia ge and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology... 85
Homalaspis Milne Edwards (A.), 1863 (Class Crustacea, Order Pecapode),
proposed validation of, under the Plenary Powers ... . 83-84
advertisement of the above proposal a ie aa ne Pe 74
gender of name ... me soe ay ade oa ace de = S 85
proposed amendment of cong pre to, on the ea List ry Generic
Names in Zoology... ... 84, 85
Homalaspis Brunner v. Wattenwyl, 1895, a junior homonym of H
Milne Edwards (A.), 1863, proposed addition of, to the eens Index a
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology sot 85
Homalaspis Kiaer, 1932, a junior homonym of Homalaspis Milne Edwards
(A.), 1863, proposed addition of, to the Raeetue Index uf snipe and.

Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 183 85

Homarus Weber, 1795 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed revision
of the entry concerning, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 114-116

Homarus Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, a junior homonym of Homarus Weber,
1795, proposed addition of, to the Ke Index of oe and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology tai 4 116

D

406 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Page
Homarus Broun, 1881, a junior homonym of Homarus Weber, 1795, proposed
addition of, to the naan Index head sianleiniaada and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology 116
HOPLOPHORIDAE Faxon, 1895, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for
OPLOPHORIDAE Dana, 1852, proposed addition of, to the S lele Index
Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology : Ne 227
Hoplophorus Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1846, an Invalid Emendation of Oplophorus
Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, proposed addition of, to the alae Index "
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : 225
Horniman (HL B.), 1940, Preliminary Descriptions of some new Birds, pro-
posed suppression of, for nomenclatorial pipe under the Plenary
Powers... cate ae ine ase SG sec 344-345
advertisement of the above proposal ... 326
support for the above proposal 352
proposed addition of title of, to the se aga Index of is and Invalid
Works in Zoological Nomenclature ... 345
humuli Schrank, 1801, as published in the combination Aphis humuli (Class
Insecta, Order Hemiptera), sisi addition of, to the pea List (!
Specific Names in Zoology "Be : .-98, 267
huzleyi Wood Mason & Alcock, 1892, as published in the combination
Psalidopus hexleyi (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), pened addition of,
to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology AGE 220
Hymenodora Sars (G.O.), 1877 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in HONOR oN with canwhaeg
glacialis Buchholz, 1874, as type species 212
gender of name ... 212
Hypogastrura Bourlet, 1839 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), proposed
setting aside, under the Plenary Powers, of all previous type selections for,
and sai dialidie of Achorutes viaticus Pat ey 1872, to be the type a rk
of . 38-46
advertisement of the above proposal ... 34
support for the above proposal see sh C: --. 102, 232, 266-267
gender of name .. 46
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 46

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 407

Page
HYPOGASTRURINAE Borner, 1906 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Family-Group Names in slew with
Hypogastrura Bourlet, 1839, as type genus ... . 46-47
HYPPOLITIDAE Dohrn, 1950, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for HIPPo-
LYTIDAE Bate, 1888, proposed addition of, to the sabi DM Index Bs Sieyeat:
and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology... = 227
INOCERAMINAE Zittel, 1881 (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the
Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, for use by specialists who
place the genus IJnoceramus Sowerby ina id A rien taxon not possessing
an oldername ... sis +50 aac AD ee ve «= - 245
Inoceramus Sowerby (J. ds 1814 (Class Pelecypoda), proposed determination
of Inoceramus cuvierii Sowerby (J.), 1814, to be the a species of, as
defined by lectotype selection by Cox oa nu 4 wea 239-244
gender of name ... tee hoe aes he wa ve Poe .. 244
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology .. 244
intensus Horniman, 1940, as printed in the combination Serinus mozambicus
intensus, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Specific Names in Zoology as possessing no status either under the Law of
Priority or under the Law of Homonymy .... aie a ae 345-346
involutus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1828, as published in the combination Inoceramus
involutus (Class Pelecypoda), prenees addition of, to the a ee List of
Specific Names in Zoology . 245
Iphis Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), proposed suppression of,
under the Plenary Powers, for the Reeves both of the Law of Pokus
and of the Law of Homonymy... --. 79-80
objection to the above proposal a“ ate ome eae ee see 82
proposed addition of, to the <i ae Index 3) er and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology a0 81
Iphis Leach, 1817 (Class Crustacea, Order See Peper validation of,
under the Plenary Powers bate . 79-80
advertisement of the above proposal ns aes “ob Se a 74

objection to the above proposal aa “68 os sae oe ~ 82

408 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
gender of name ... Aes ats wu sf te sd es ne 80

proposed amendment of entry relating to, on the Official List of Generic
Names in aku with Cancer sea snap ones ania 1787, as bt
species : 80

Iphis Koch, 1835, a junior homonym of Iphis Leach, 1817, proposed addition
of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology... 81

Iphis Laporte, 1836, a junior homonym of Jphis Leach, 1817, proposed
addition of, to the Santa we Index eh vi gh agh and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology : 81

jactans Nobili, 1904, as published in the combination Virbius (?) jactans
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), een addition of, to the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology noe fee 223, 224

Jumala Friele, 1882 (Class Gastropoda), proposed suppression of, as a name
likely to give offence on religious grounds, for the purposes of the Law
of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ... ...59-60, 61-65

support for the above proposal pa AN: is ie a me

proposed addition of, to the cena Index of sa and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology... 65

kasai Horniman, 1940, as printed in the combination Halcyon leucocephala
kasai, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Specific Names in Zoology as possessing no status either under the Law of
Priority or under the Law of Homonymy .... ays aes ae 345-346

lalandeanus d’Orbigny, 1848, as published in the combination Ammonites
lalandeanus (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), ee aa addition of,
to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology on 31

Lalandeites Breistroffer, 1947 (a junior objective synonym of Pachyceras
Bayle, 1878), proposed addition of, to the Chea A Index of hse and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ee : 32

lamarckit Parkinson, 1819, as published in the combination Inoceramus
lamarckii (Class Pelecypoda), a addition of, to the eae List ot
Specific Names in Zoology aw 245

_— ee ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 409

Page
lanceocaudata Bate, 1888, as published in the combination Systellaspis
lanceocaudata (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), age ip addition of,
to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology a 220
Laqueus Dall, 1870 (Class Brachiopoda), proposed Ruling that Terebratula
californiana (Koch MS.) Kiister, [1844], is the type species of __..... 117-119
gender of name ... Ae we oh at M23 aes an Atlee 5
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology <1 18
dar Owen, 1839, as published in the combination Crangon lar (Class Crustacea,
Order ah igtalaiaa Rrepgeed addition of, to the Cie List of Spaeilie Names
in Zoology 220
Jaricis Nicolet, [1842], Anurophorus (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), pro-
posed designation of, under the Plenary ey, to be the os eae
of Anurophorus Nicolet, [1842] Ree . 68-69
advertisement of the above proposal ... dv3 = ad one oh 34
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ... 70
Latreutes Stimpson, 1860 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in at with ee
ensiferus Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, as type species.. 3 212
gender of name ... Ese aa ote Ste a SF Ae Bor ere be
lazarus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Chama lazarus (Class
Pelecypoda), oe addition of, to the is List wo ome Names
in Zoology é 329
Leontocaris Stebbing, 1905 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in peng with Leontocaris
paulsoni Stebbing, 1905, as type species See 212
gender of name ... = el ae Ae si Ar ane Hey aed

Lepisma Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Thysanura), pepe
determination, under the Plenary Powers, of the gender of name.. 299-300

advertisement of the above proposal a sis ae = Seen XC!

support for the above proposal he hs Bry aa an ... 300

410 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
Leptochela Stimpson, 1860 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in peur tee with —
gracilis Stimpson, 1860, as type species bee 212
gender of name ... ets a0 ark ABA ae Bee sre oo Sh2
Lernaea Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Crustacea, Order Copepoda), proposed addition
of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Boole with Lernaea qunninona
Linnaeus, 1758, as type species ae 3 ne 254
gender of name ... eis ape ee wa aa ASS ig .. «=. 254
Lernaeocera Blainville, 1822 (Class Crustacea, Order Copepoda), proposed
validation, under the Plenary Powers, of emendation to, from Lerneo-
cera 56 abe He Ac aoe ate oe ae Aer 252-254
proposed setting aside, under the Plenary Powers, of all previous type
selections for, and designation of Lernaea branchialis Linnaeus, 1767,
to the the type species nore =06 sae Re 4c 28 252-254
advertisement of the above proposals... any cic ae ite «- 233
gender of name ... Bae Rete Be ee ois ae ee . «©6254
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology .. 254
Lerneocera Blainville, 1822 (Class Crustacea, Order Copepoda), proposed
validation, under the Plenary se sii of emendation of name to Lernaeo-
cera “56 SoC ee Sue ae aes He ity eae 252-254
advertisement of the above proposal ee ve ior ser .- «=: 288
levicarina Bate, 1888, as published in the combination Dorodotes levicarina
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), propose addition of, to the eats
List of Specific Names in Zoology ia 220
Ligur Sarato, 1885 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of,
to the Official List of Generic Names in apie Ae with anes edwardsit ST aocat
1885, as type species... 212
gender of name ... era ae asi8 siete me at a ves ae
limes Horniman, 1940, as printed in the combination Pycnonotus tricolor
limes, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Specific Names in Zoology as possessing no status either under the law of
Priority or under the Law of Homonymy ... aan as mee 345-346

Limnaea Poli, 1791, a junior objective synonym of Unio Philipsson, 1788,
proposed addition of, to the ae Index of y's and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology ae 343

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Limnaea Blainville, 1823, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for Lymnaea
Lamarck, 1799, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology are yes aoe rae: iy as

Limnaeus Pfeiffer (C.), 1821, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for Lymnaea
Lamarck, 1799, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology es ae Ser me eae —

Limnea Fleming, 1828, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for Lymnaea
Lamarck, 1799, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ... Sie Sec se A mS

Limneus Draparnaud, [1801], an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for Lymnaea
Lamarck, 1799, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology Ste Aue sae Bae ot ane

LIimnium Oken, 1815, a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes and an Invalid Original Spelling for Lymniuwm Oken, 1815, pro-
posed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected und Invalid Generic Names
in Zoology Jog 58: tas Sas 506 Soe ane Nas 4h

Limnocaridella Bouvier, 1913 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Limno-
caridina alberti Lenz, 1910, as type species ae at oan sce

gender of name .

Limnocaridina Calman, 1899 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Limno-
caridina tanganyikae Calman, 1899, as type species BY yee Kae

gender of name ...

Limnoea Gourdon, 1889, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for Lymnaea
Lamarck, 1799, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology... ae ae so =y ae

Limnoeus Shuttleworth, 1872, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for Lymnaea
Lamarck, 1799, proposed addition of, to the ficial Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology... om zh. wer ste eae

LITHOBIIDAE Newport, 1844 (Class Myriapoda), proposed addition of, to the
Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, with Lithobius Leach,
1814, as type genus me aie ~ ng ii Bes oa ae

41]

Page

342

342

342

342

342

212

212

213

213

342

342

136

412 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
Lathobius Leach, 1814 (Class Myriapoda), proposed addition of, to the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Scolopendra forficata Linnaeus, 1758,

as type species ... 135

gender of name ... a2 ba ais ve bss as ae . 136

longipenne Horniman, 1940, as printed in the combination Tricholaema
melanocephalum longipenne, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as possessing no status either
under the Law of Priority or under the Law of Homonymy... oid 345-346

longipennis Rafinesque, 1802, as published in the combination Hirundo
longipennis (Class Aves), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology oe * Sere iss ace a: nad 142-145

lucidus Dana, 1852, as published in the combination Regulus lucidus (Class
Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List

of Specific Names in Zoology 220

Lucoscombrus Van der Hoeven, 1858, a junior objective synonym of Gempylus
Cuvier, 1829, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and

Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 288

Lymnaea Lamarck, 1799 (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Helix stagnalis Linnaeus, 1758,

as type species .. 342

gender of name ... ee ae fer =e Mee ner bre -- 342

Lymnaea Oken, 1815, a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes, and an Invalid Original Spelling for Lymnium Oken, 1815,
proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic

Names in Zoology Ad ar 342

LYMNAEDAE Gray (J.E.), 1824, an Invalid Original Spelling for LyMNAEIDAE,
proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-

Group Names in Zoology ve ae9 343

LYMNAEIDAE (correction of LymntpIA) Rafinesque, 1815 (Class Pelecypoda),
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Family-Growp Names in

Zoology, with Lymnaea Lamarck, 1799, as type genus 343

Lymnaeus Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1817, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for
Lymnaea Lamarck, 1799, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology nee mY ace ... «3842

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Lymnea Link, 1807, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for Lymnaea
Lamarck, 1799, proposed addition of, to the Piers Index on ange
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology .. a

Tymneus Férussac, 1812, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for Lymnaea
Lamarck, 1799, proposed addition of, to the vailiet a Index 19h faired and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology

LYMNIDIA Rafinesque, 1815, an Invalid Original Spelling for LyMNAEIDAE,
proposed addition of, to the aia Index of: Reveed, and Invalid ) As
Group Names in Zoology fe

Lymnium Oken, 1815, a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
_ purposes, proposed addition of, to the nies Index Sh biiihigs and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology

Lymnoea Lamarck, 1799, an Invalid Original Spelling for Lymnaea Lamarck,
1799, proposed addition of, to the Og ictal Index e Feist and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology :

Lymnoea Suter, 1913, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for Lymnaea
Lamarck, 1799, proposed addition of, to the bic icial Index i: wince and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology

Lymnoeus Michelin, 1831, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for Lymnaea
Lamarck, 1799, proposed addition of, to the fe gadis Index at a and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology

Lymnula Rafinesque, 1819, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for Lymnaea
Lamarck, 1799, proposed addition of, to the init Index di ike and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology

Lymnus Montfort, 1810, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for Lymnaea
Lamarck, 1799, proposed addition of, to the Caienal Index oh nasal
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology

LYSMATINAE Dana, 1852 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed direc-
tion, under the Plenary Powers, that HIPPOLYTIDAE Bate, 1888, is not to
be rejected in favour of, by workers who regard Lysmata Risso, 1816, and

413

Page

342

342

343

342

342

342

342

342

342

Hippolyte Leach, 1814, as belonging to the same family-group taxon 207-208, 223

Macrocephalus Frisch, 1775, a name published in a work rejected for nomen-
clatorial purposes, proposed addition of, to the iy Index ei posi
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology oe

195

414 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
Macrocephalus Palmer, 1904, a junior objective synonym of Phacochoerus
Cuvier (F.), 1826, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected

and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ace = 195

Macropteryx Swainson, [1831], a junior objective synonym of Hemiprocne
(emend. of Hemiprocnes) Nitzch, 1829, proposed addition of, to the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology... sak 142-145

maldivensis Borradaile, 1915, as published in the combination Pontonia
maldivensis (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to

the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology... oe a2 220

mammulata d’Orbigny, [January 1850], Monticulipora (Class Bryozoa), pro-
posed designation of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species

of Monticulipora d’Orbigny, Oct. 1849 aa ; 90-92

proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ... 92

Margaritana Schumacher, 1817, a junior objective synonym of Margaritifera
(emend. of Margartifera) Schumacher, 1816, proposed addition of, to the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology... «.. 342

Margaritifera (emend. of Margartifera) Schumacher, 1816 (Class Pelecypoda),
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with
Mya margaritifera Linnaeus, 1758, as type species ... ee Se pete)

gender of name ... ots chy ses PS ¥: oat are ... 342

margaritifera Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Mya margariti-
fera (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific

Names in Zoology ns re 8-342

MARGARITIFERIDAE Haas (F.), 1940 (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of,
to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, with Margaritifera
Schumacher, 1816, as type genus, for use by those workers who consider on
taxonomic grounds that the above-named genus and Unio Philipsson,
1788, are referable to different family-group taxa ... a3 aes 341, 343

Margartifera Schumacher, 1816, an Invalid Original Spelling for Margaritifera
Schumacher, 1816, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected

and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 342
marinus Fabricius, 1775, as published in the combination Astacus marinus

a junior objective synonym of gammarus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the

combination Cancer gammarus, proposed addition of, to the Official Index

of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology... ave mS Lt. Doe

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 415

Page
marionis Bate, 1888, as published in the combination Nauticaris marionis
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), pie ovo addition of, to the of we
List of Specific Names in Zoology . es 220

marmoratus Olivier, 1811, as published in the combination Palaemon
marmoratus (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), 3 ge addition of, to the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 3A 5 ape oe 223, 224

marocana Bouvier, 1912, as published in the combination Dugastella marocana
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), eames addition of, to the vibe
Lust of Specific Names in Zoology :. 220

maurus Linnaeus, 1758, Scorpio (Class Arachnida), proposed designation of,
under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Scorpio Linnaeus, 1758 173-175

advertisement of the above proposal ... Aer =.= ook ac ae ¥) 169
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ... 175

maya Sowerby (J. de C.), 1840, as published in the combination Ammonites
maya (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), Sat tte addition of,
to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology a 231

Mayaites Spath, 1924 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in me Br with Ammonites
maya Sowerby (J. de C.), 1840, as type species aK 231

gender of name ... ae ies Ss yas ar aa mye e231

MAYAITIDAE Spath, 1928 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), pro-
posed validation of, under the Plenary Powers, for use by any worker who
may consider that the respective type genera of this taxon and of GRAYI-
CERATIDAE should be referred to the same family-group taxon... 229-231

advertisement of the above proposal dae as sie ace aye Atp-

proposed addition of, to the Official List of Family-Group Names in eos ss
with Mayaites Spath (L.F.), 1928, as type genus ... , 231

Merguia Kemp, 1914 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition
of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ri gl with H hinkciais nacainia
De Man, 1888, as type species : 213

gender of name ... ast ae és Bee are its Mole eae ie
Merhippolyte Bate, 1888 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed

addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ape with Mer-
hippolyte agulhasensis Bate, 1888, as type species... 213

416 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
Micratya Bouvier, 1913 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Atya poeys
Guérin-Ménévillé, 1856, as type species sf she be civ eee
gender of name ... 213
Microporella Hincks, 1877 (Class Ectoprocta), proposed addition of, to the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Eschara ciliata Pallas, 1766,
as type species Res nen Sa Hee Bot Sor ate . 154
gender of name ... 154
mierst De Man, 1888, as published in the combination Harpilius miersi (Class
Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology are Abt wae A os ae cae re 2)
miles Fabricius, 1787, as published in the combination Pagurus miles (Class
Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology ae Ab: Me As a: ete ... 93820
Mimocaris Nobili, 1903 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition
of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Mimocaris
heterocarpoides Nobili, 1903, as type species ee aie ae we «= 218
gender of name ... 213
minimus Sowerby (J.), 1816, as published in the combination Spirifer minimus
(Class Brachiopoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology ae Sac fete S06 wnt noe bee 125-131
minor McCoy, 1849, as published in the combination Fistulipora minor (Class
Bryozoa), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology ... ae oat not Sit ae abo here: 50 ace) LOT
montanus Draparnaud, [1801], as published in the combination Bulimus
montanus (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology nb Sat Hee st aH ms mec Lee
Monticulipora d’Orbigny, Oct. 1849 (Class Bryozoa), proposed setting aside,
under the Plenary Powers, of all previous type selections for, and proposed
designation of Monticulipora mammulata d’Orbigny, [January 1850]
(Ordovician), to be the type species of ie: < an ead .-. 90-92
advertisement of the above proposal 74
gender of name .. 92
support for the above proposal 265
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 92

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 417
Page
Monticuliporella Bassler, 1934, a junior objective synonym of Monticulipora
d’Orbigny, Oct. 1849, proposed addition of, to the i raat Index of ties
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology... 92
MONTICULIPORIDAE Nicholson, 1881 (Class Bryozoa), proposed addition of,
to the Official List of Family-Group Names in nBeeiaas with M orsticadlimoe
d’Orbigny, Oct. 1849, as type genus . : 92
Mormoops Leach, 1821 (Class Mammalia), proposed acceptance of selection
of, by Dobson (1878), to the exclusion of the generic name Aéllo Leach,
1814, for use by specialists who consider on taxonomic grounds that these
are no more than different names for the same genus “he noe 183-185
gender of name ... 185
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with
vein blainvillet oF meng of Cia ae Leach, 1821, as me
species . : 185
‘Mormops Cuvier (F.), 1829, an Invalid Emendation of Mormoops Leach,
1821, proposed addition of, to the a Index of canes and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology as : 185
morsiians Linnaeus, 1758, MScolopendra (Class Myriapoda), proposed
designation of, under the Plenary aang as cig’ Kaeueee of meets
Linnaeus, 1758 ... ae a 134-135
advertisement of the above proposal 106
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 136
mosquensis von Buch, 1844, as published in the combination Avicula
mosquensis, as defined by the lectotype selected by Pavlow (1907) (Class
Lamellibranchiata), Brees 2 addition of, to the On ictal List al medianer
Names in Zoology 163
Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815 (Class Mammalia), a ota validation of, under
the Plenary Powers ie se ses : Ace aes ante 167-168
advertisement of the above proposal 138
proposed designation, under the Plenary Plwers, of Cervus muntjak
Zimmermann, 1780, to be the type species of 5 168
gender of name ... 168
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 168

418 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
muntjak Zimmerman, 1780, Cervus (Class Mammalia), proposed designation
of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Muntiacus
Rafinesque, 1815 : ae. ea Jas ay a 168
advertisement of the above proposal ... 138
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 168
murorum Bourlet, 1843, as published in the combination Hypogastrura
murorum, proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the
purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy 39-46
proposed addition of, to the ace Index a cab sii and Invalid aoc
Names in Zoology... 47
muscorum Templeton, 1835, Achorutes (Class Insecta, Order Collembola),
proposed designation of, under the Plenary ieasnasanls to be the iiss neo
for Neanura MacGillivray, 1893 : . 38-46
advertisement of the above proposal 34
support for the above proposal 102
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 47
muscorum Nicolet, [1842], as published in the combination Degeeria muscorum
(Class Insecta, Order Collembola), eee addition of, to the ave List 3
Specific Names in Zoology ae . 75-76
Museum Boltenianum, [anon.], 1798, proposed meager the that the stase gears of
be attributed to Peter Friedrich Réding ise : . 56-57
comment on the above proposal 58
proposed addition of, to the oe List abe Works Siriaas as Available
for Zoological Nomenclature .. 57
mwinilunga Horniman, 1940, as printed in the combination Cossypha
heuglint mwinilunga, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as possessing no status either under
the Law of Priority or under the Law of Homonymy ar Bn 345-346
MYDONIIDAE Salmon, 1945, a name based on a generic name proposed to be
suppressed under the Plenary Powers, proposed addition of, to the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology ae 17

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Mydonius Gistl, 1848 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola) proposed suppression
of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purpose of the Law of agi but
not for that of the Law of Homonymy 4

support for the above proposal

proposed addition of, to the i) oon Index of iain and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology

Nauticaris Bate, 1888 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition
of, to the Official List of Generic Names in es with Nauticaris marionis
Bate, 1888, as type species : Ras So

gender of name ... ne nit sine

Neanura MacGillivray, 1893 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), proposed
setting aside, under the Plenary Powers, of all previous type selections
for, and designation of Achorutes muscorum ai gi 1835, to be the
type species of aaa sar aoe fhe Shc oe

advertisement of the above proposal
support for the above proposal
gender of name .

proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology

NEANURINAE Borner, June 1901 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Family-Group Names in pa dees with
Neanura MacGillivray, 1893, as type genus ...

NEANURINI Borner, October 1901, proposed addition of, to the ex Index
of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology .

Nectocrangon Brandt, 1851, a junior objective synonym of Argis Kréyer, 1842,
proposed addition of, to the ir Index ef Beas and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology

NEMATOCARCININAE Smith, 1884 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), pro-
posed addition of, to the Official List of Family-Grouwp Names in Savor
with Nematocarcinus Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, as type genus

Nematocarcinus Milne Edwards (A.), 1881 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda),
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in sane with
Nematocarcinus cursor Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, as type species..

gender of name ...

419

Page

. 75-76

mei Ay k:)

76

213

213

. 38-47

34

102

47

47

. 46-47

48

225

226

213
213

420 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
Neogastrura Stach, 1949, a junior objective synonym of Hypogastrura
Bourlet, 1839, proposed addition of, to the Giieles Index ps ie Ng and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 47
NEOGASTRURIDAE Stach, 1949, proposed addition of, to the etree Index of
Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology : 48
Neohypogastrura Paclt, 1944 dbsiveis spits Order ie sainiwigh te discussion of
validity of . 42-43
Nephrops [Leach], [1814] (Class io epis “ycaaea tid pepe under
the Plenary Powers, of the gender of.. ede 260-262
advertisement of the above proposal 234
support for the above proposal 301
neumoegent Edwards, 1882, as published in the combination Megathymus
neumoegent (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), i via addition of, to the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ve 293
niger Hartig, 1840, as published in the combination Figites niger (Class
Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), ae addition of, to the yg List of
Specific Names in Zoology : 85
Nikoides Paulson, 1875 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition
of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Cee, with Nikoides danae
Paulson, 1875, as type species.. . 213
gender of name 213
nitescens Leach, 1814, as published in the combination Palaemon nitescens
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), anaes addition of, to the be ga
List of Specific Names in Zoology . 220
notha Bory de St. Vincent, 1804, as published in the combination Acinacea
notha (Class Pisces), proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers,
for the purposes of the Law of iidovied but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy i. os ; =i mae 285-288
proposed addition of, to the et Index of rang! and Invalid ei
Names in Zoology : 288

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Notocrangon Coutiére, 1900 (Class Crustacea, Orcer Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ee with Babbin
antarcticus Pfeffer, 1887, as type species

gender of name ...

Notostomus Milne Edwards (A.), 1881 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda),
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with
Notostomus gibbosus Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, as type species

gender of name ...

Notropis Rafinesque, 1818 (Class Cevhiby rh support for PROPOSES
acceptance of gender for

obscura Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix obscura
(Class Gastropoda), cabiecbiaale addition of, to the end List of ae ky
Names in Zoology

obscura Brehm (C.L.), 1831, as published in the combination Cyanecula
obscura (Class Aves), proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers,
for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy

proposed addition of, to the las Index om Hehetesh and Invalid sii
Names in Zoology Xe

obscura Berezowsky & Bianchi, 1891, as published in the combination Larvi-
vora obscura (Class Aves), proposed validation of, under the Plenary Powers

advertisement of the above proposal

proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology

Odobenus Brisson, 1762 (Class Mammalia), proposed validation of, under the

42)

Page

213

213

213

213

188

278

93-94

94

93-94
74

94

Plenary Powers, with Phoca rosmarus Linnaeus, 1758, as type species 196-198

advertisement of the above proposal
gender of name ...

proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology

Oedipus Dana, 1852, a junior homonym of Oedipus Berthold, 1827, proposed
addition of, to the Meas Index me} eet and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology :

E

170

198

198

226

422 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Growp Names in Zoology, names
proposed to be added to:

Page
ACHORUTINAE Borner, 1906 __..... woe aS aes de a3 see 48
ACHORUTINI Borner, 1901 aoe Siete ee cee ae “iC toe 48
ACINACEIDAE Berg, 1940 Ae ape see see ip ss -.. =. 288
ATTIDAE Yu, 1936 ca eas Ais eas aa bee zee sive, Me
ATYADEA De Haan, 1849 Pais na ais ibe oh cae nae 227
BILOBIDAE Stach, 1951 ... ue ae cae dé de sid avr 48
BITHYNIADAE Gray (J.E.), 1857 e. see wake hike aes eqn 78
BOURLETIINI Borner, 1932 bad ah ae Ee es dis ae 70
BRESILIDAE Kemp, 1910 ek 560 a Bor Ave AN sae eae
CAMACEA Blainville, 1825 Ae wee wie Bee san wae Pri pes P|
CHAMADAE Fleming, 1828 “ry eiate Sot state at Ae . «= 29
DEGEERIADAE Lubbock, 1873 ... Bae is sae tas Kee ce 76
DEGEERIIDAE Tullberg, 1876 ... igs aad tae sie Sie ay 77
DOLICHOPIDES Latreille, 1807 ... ane oe ine sw nee ase 81
DOLYCHOPODAE Samouelle, 1819 E,3 wan Es br big Sey 81
DRIMOIDAE Ortmann, 1896 nee 227
EUPAGURIDAE (elevation of BUPAGUEINAS) ‘Ortmann, 1892 (only as ”
name for a family or 5 aan Pete inte ats ste 317
EUPAGURINAE Ortmann, 1892 . ee ue nas Per wes Peres >|
GOMPHONOTIDAE Chace, 1936 ... as ae aie <a aes ee 227
GONATONOTIDAE Gurney, 1941... ei wes Bee ee ae Pee |
HATTERIIDAE Cope, 1864 DAC Sais a0 she eae aos .. 141
HIPPOLYIDAE Yu, 1935 Re ite ASP ane ay se woe! haere
HOPLOPHORIDAE Faxon, 1895 ... ae rite we ap oe eee 7!
HYPPOLITIDAE Dohrn, 1950 __... a wo ee ae aca sic pie eee
LYMNAEDAE Gray (J.E.), 1824 Sis bene ae Sd. oe .. «= 48
LYMNIDIA Rafinesque, 1815... use Se an sigs ate re)
MYDONIIDAE Salmon, 1945 oe ae ree ay ats mel aa 77
NEANURINI Borner, October 1901 sere sie eae ae ane Kee 48
NEOGASTRURIDAE Stach, 1949 . ata ted ae set aan ee 48
OPLOPHAIDAE Guiler, 1952 ies ast uae ass side ante ieee
oxyPopaTEs Mulsant & Ray, 1874 ... nor oie be sia‘e agai, Sues
pacurit Latreille, [1802-1803] Mi ide cae tee
PAGURINAE (correction of PAGURII) Latrelle, [1802-1803] a noe EN
PAGURISTINEN Boas, 1924 ae 7 oe Aye a oi 321
PASIPHAKIDAE Barnard, 1950 ... ae ae ny nse te en e087
PASIPHAEIIDAE Faxon, 1893... Ae zae eee ots se ay 228
PASIPHAIDAE Smith, 1884 ie _ A oe sins <ustiWAgee
PASIPHAIDAE Wood Mason & Alcock, 1893 diss ane ve Gee ow. 628
PASIPHEIDAE De Miranda y Rivera, 1933... awe aos Aa os | 28
PLEUROTOMARIAE Swainson (W.), 1840 was tts aa ain en 26
RHINOCOCYNETIDAE Sharp, 1893 ase ete ane ae is --- 228
RHYNCHOCEPHALIDAE Hoffmann, 1881 x ibe sis ae ae 141
RHYNCHOCYNETIDAE Borradaile, 1907 ae A oe at gee 228
RYNCHOCINETIDAE Gurney, 1939 es ale ans ae oe owe ee
SEGUENZICERATIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1924 eae tee a bee “- 298
THALASSOCARIDAE Bate, 1888 ... eae vee Hee awe as De 228
XANCIDAE Johnson, 1934 4 — Se ee Bp ae Ae 332

Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, names pro-
posed to be added to :

Achoreutes Templeton, 1843... Fie ae ee a as ale 47
Achorutes Templeton, 1835... stele oe meld es ape ete 47

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 423

Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, names proposed
to be added to (continued) :

Page
Acinacea Bory de St. Vincent, 1804 ... aA at -. 288
Acinaces (emend. of Acinacea) cla a L. R. R, 1846 “2 ze seal, 288
Anoura Gervais, 1843 ... a ba iE 47
Anura Agassiz, 1846... sor are ae oe sad add e4 47
Aper Pallas, 1766 ‘ sis eae or “a Ae Se Jor \QhOe
Archaeoteuthis Roemer, 1855 He ope wt ae a ah 4 AE 67
Atys Leach, 1815 a ope sus oa Bt ade Sak soon 224
Balssiola Strand, 1922 ... ne ae va $42 aoe 38 Jerry B24
Beringius Dall, 1879... See ore eee ats ee ait --- 63-65
Beringius Dall, 1886... Bee ae = a6 = 65
Bernhardus Dana, 1851 (Nov. Dee. ‘oe ne pb ae vas 315, 320
Biloba Stach, 1949 Pe Ae ates ies eal ec alsa eee 47
Bithinia Gray (J.E.), 1829 oer ies sie 59) ald aa ore Q78:
Boreopithecus Friedrichs, 1932 aot ar Sad Beh bay wommly2

Bourletia Macgillivray, 1893... a as ape ade ase Sr 70
Buchia Rouillier, 1845 ... Sista aes wes ts x02 bas os¥ 163
Bulimus Scopoli, 1777 ... sac aes ae we okt Bc eas
Bulimus Bruguiére, 1789 see en ae ae is $06 -.. 278

Bythinia MacGillivray (W.), 1843 ais &. “ea ws onyZ7 8,
Bytinia Millet de la Turtaudiére (P.A. ms 1870 ee ie ie Soen7s
Calandra Bartram, 1791 Ries : see iF 4e3 sosreny lO?
Calmania Bouvier, 1909 sig ee aes vee od Ha soi yeZee

Cebus Eberhard, 1768 ... A ae Hae Sa vor :# Pre see 96
‘Chama da Costa, 1778 ... =e noe des a Bi ist 328, 329
Chama Oken, 1815 ae ie re ns ee Bea Ste 328, 329
Chama Morch (0.A.L.), 1853... ange 2S ae. Pa 134 328, 329

Crenephilus Wickham, 1895 ... ae bes 3 55
Creniphilus (emend. of Cryniphilus) Motachulsky, 1 1845... 5 we 55
Crenophilus Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1846... eas 208 he 55
Crenophilus Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1848... 55
Crenophilus, all uses of, aaa to ) Agassiz, 1848 and prior to d’ d'Orehy-

mont, 1942... 55
Cryniphilus Motschulsky, 1845. 7 ae a os Aa 508 55

Degeeria Nicolet, 1841 ... ay + aoe wet Se ave ae 76
Degeeria Nicolet, [1842]... amis Mae ae a aia Je yet 76
Dinochoerus Gloger, [1841]... dea ae aad “as ded an EOS
Dolichopus Van der Hoeven, [1856] ... eg Ss a8 oes ae 81
Doryphorus Norman, 1861 ad “ee vale Are oa «fi wo. 224

Drimo Risso, 1826 $e aA Pre ee wae oN sobre 24
Hoanthropus Woodward, 1913 . se vars A yas ae voce 2
Eupagurus Brandt, 1851 - : aia x23 af a3 ... 320
Eureodon Fischer de Waldheim, ‘1817 ses Sa Ph ft Js alee

Fisiulipora Rafinesque, 1831 ... oe Se ae Re fed Seno
Gnatophyllum Latreille, 1819 ... ae sae Bes th ed; oar

Gomphonotus Chace, 1936 ; aaa Pele See zoe w= 224
Gonatonotus Milne Edwards (A. i. 1881. ‘fos 3 § Ady ay. sos 225
Gonyosoma Wagler, 1828 Ane 2 — a 18 55 ... 348
Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1833 teh ses aa be i ta .. = 145
Hemiprocne Riemann, 1838 ... oe Ber 3 ot 3.3 we = «145
Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1840 aia ia ay e% ee had we Ob.
Hemiprocnes Nitzsch, 1829 __..... ae re wale Hc Li 142-145
Homalaspis Reinhard, 1860... Se ad ae aa os 85

Homalaspis Brunner v. Wattenwyl, 1895... ws es ee bu 85
Homalaspis Kiaer, 1932 ie Bae is 3a de oe 85

44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, names proposed
to be added to (continued) :

Homarus Milne Edwards (H.), 1837 ... Ag 33 dt £3 see 6
Homarus Broun, 1881 ... ah a33 eal mS oS See ILS
Hoplophorus Agassiz (J.L.R. He 1846 See ane “ef wee mt --- )) 225
Iphis Meigen, 1800 ies ne Bas oe di wide oat 81
Iphis Koch, 1835 wee sae ORE Ave Bae We qe oe 81
Iphis Laporte, 1836__.... said eas ce sed ai Fae at 81
Jumala Friele, 1882__... ase ae aS ape one sie =e 65
Lalandeites Breistroffer, 1947 ... se ama mea Sie oy jee 32
Limnaea Poli, 1791 ae “si aaa ee pe At see .. 342
Limnaea Blainville, 1823 ane Ae? gee aes BS . je Jcewg42
Limnaeus Pfeiffer (C.), 1821 ... eee re sau eh ua oe = AD
Limnea Fleming, 1828 ... so ae see See ac wat -. 342
Limneus Draparnaud, [1801] ... a Sa: aan sts ee «= 842
Limnium Oken, 1815... ifs eee she gt rt a Seoong42
LTimnoea Gourdon, 1889 se ee bee ER a ue .. 342
Limnoeus Shuttleworth, 1872 . si ese sus 1% aly a. = 4D
Lucoscombrus Van der Hoeven, 1858 ae oa x ude . =. 288
Lymnaea Oken, 1815... ae see eae bee ree wee 4D
Lymnaeus Cuvier (GLCED.),1 1817 vet i. des doy scien ge?
Iymnea Link, 1807 ae :< ay de we x -- 342
Lymneus Férussac, 1812 eon sak ane aoe ig gy -» «= 342
Lymnium Oken, 1815 ... mes Ba oe Ree 43 ee .» = 842
Lymnoea Lamarck, 1799 ie se we won x33 sey w. «= B42.
Lymnoea Suter, 1913... use ac sac Soe a8 ou .. = B42
Lymnoeus Michelin, 1831 ses a xe ee au a «. «342
Iymnula Rafinesque, 1819 ve nie Be os ol. uit .. 342
Lymnus Montfort, 1810 ext aes a xe zig od. Lys
Macrocephalus Frisch, 1775... wet eit aoe xs 2) = «=: 195
Macrocephalus Palmer, 1904 ... ne Ree at +4 Lh. tgs 195
Macropteryx Swainson, [1831] ... aos a poke a8 73 -. 145
Margaritana Schumacher, 1817 a4 tes ache Lae A -. 342
Margartifera Schumacher, 1816 nee sae ea i ade .. 342
Monticuliporella Bassler, 1934 ... ee 2 a4. dt: . oy 92
Mormops Cuvier (F.), 1829... aa af +E Jt ae soe YEBS
Mydonius Gistl, 1848 ... <i Aon aaa Eas bk, Ses me 76
Nectocrangon Brandt, 1851 tad “a aas vee es “33 wwe 225
Neogastrura Stach, 1949 ee a 1a: fat - = ut a 47
Oedipus Dana, 1852 oe “A> kee aoe ae wall 14 won TUB
Ogyris Stimpson, 1860 ... Wes ~ oe A oe = w- 225
Pachyceras Ratzeburg, 1844 ... yes a iz me uy. an 32
Pagurus Fabricius, 1775 nad oes abs be is eat POURS
Pagurus Berthold, 1827 es at ms a iz ine 315, 320
Palaeoteuthis Roemer, 1855... =s si ik tf Sk 33 67
Pasiphae Kréyer, 1845 . sais ase aa et: ie & stab
Pasiphaeia Faxon, 1895 + Bs a ee ec Ee 43 Jos hitieeo
Phacochaeres Gray (J.E.), 1821 see 3. 8 a I, sy
Phacocherus Fleming, 1822 aus ane tes see ee =a i8s 194
Phacochoerus Cuvier (G.), [1816] ; des “ee or a we) «194
Phacochoerus Fischer de Waldheim, 1817 fe <a i ies ... 195
Phacochoerus, all uses of, prior to Cuvier, 1826 i - eae ite tS
Phascochaeres Cretzschmar, 1828 see ‘ oe on “a 03 194
Phascochaerus Desmarest, 1822 oak fe me des oe .. 194
Phascochoeres Ranzani, 1820 ... ae AN Eve ser 1: aera!)
Phascochoerus Ranzani, 1820 a. uae ai ue we J ore

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 425

Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, names proposed
to be added to (continued) :

Page
Phillipsella Oehlert, 1886 Fey SMe ast ony 8 és S 284
Phillipsinella Novék, 1885 ON Oe hy My big 353 yews
Pleurotemaria Carpenter, 1861 +8 ot = Son as oe 26
Pleurotomaria Férussac, 1822 ... sete 235 ok a5. ake we 26
Pleurotomaria Defrance, 1826 ‘a 43 ef te Pe yee 26
Rathumoutes Templeton, 1843 ... ne By aA +4 eke So 47
Regulus Dana, 1852... Was dine se wt «et aes vePIS 226
Rosmarus Briinnich, 1771 at sist ond be Pe es aye 198
Seriola Topsent, 1892... wa ae ie ots one wot S eeeLSS
Sphaenodon Gray (J.E.), 1831 Phe bey — BR eee nha
Spirifera Murray, 1831 A ee m. a ots ve AMO SE
Spiriferus Blainville, 1827 aE Bee Yas dey Lu AAP 83 131
Tridacnocaris Nobili, 1899 ale a atk ak Ae a Siar 225
Xancus (Réding], 1798 ... sa ce x, Led qe Big Srnisas
Xiphocaridina Bouvier, 1909 ... Bes He x3 eee 3 wes 225

Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, names
proposed to be added to :

acutus Martin, 1809, Conchyliolithus Anomites = ry she soc) oe
acutus Fleming, 1828, Spirifer ... ber Ace ae att ta Be are 131
aeneus DeGeer, 1774, Hydrophilus —... es “Se #32 4 “as 55
aeneus Dejean, 1821, Hydrophilus _.... aoe ade So aR, er 55

annulatus Desmarest, 1822, Sciurus ... Pe fais awe se ia 188
annulatus Desmoulins, 1824, Sciurus whe aii a a te 188
anonymus Horniman, 1940, Pogoniulus chrysoconus... Pea ive noch Oe
antarticus Kerr, 1792, Canis .. bee Hee AAS ia Ae REE 121
bet Ridgway, 1874, Eremophila alpestris var. a oe ae sae:
blainvillii Leach, 1821, Mormoops eg “inp ale nd me 33 185
brachythaerus Sowerby (G.B.), 1844, Producta : 336

brachythaerus, any uses of, in combination with Productus or Producta,
subsequent to Sowerby, 1844, and prior to Morris, 1845... is --- 336

californica Sowerby (G.B.), 1846, Terebratula a wae eae ass 119
californica Dall, 1870, Terebratula .... Pre 20) nee jae sie | LES
callewaerti Horniman, 1940, Tchagra senegala aEA mit ee --- 346
converus Quoy & Gaimard, 1825, Ocypode ... see oa wae scary oot
cuviert Smith (W.), 1816, Inoceramus ewe ‘he we i supre2 240
cuviert Mantell, 1822 [May], Inoceramus Hat a ig 33 apeeee45
cuviertt Sowerby (J.), [1822 post Oct.], Inoceramus ak a5 ewer 4245
dawsoni Woodward, 1913, Zoanthro ba 172

dawsoni Boule, 1915, Homo... a ee ae ins ve ny 172
dawsoni Boule, 1915, Troglodytes bs wc wes we ae wmorkl2

dawsoni Friedrichs, 1932, Boreopithecus ax hed ae Sete wer tod 72
europaeus Linnaeus, 1758, Scorpio... aaa fs ahs a sore 76
ferus Schreber, [1775], Felis catus Linn. ae aa e9: rT «. 190
ferus Erxleben, 1777, Felis catus var. ud are eet ch --- 190
hachisukae Ripley, 1952, Erithacus ... a ee - i+ Bes 94
hebridensis Horniman, 1940, Alauda arvensis 13; ke sites -» 3846

hebridium Horniman, 1940, Emberiza calandra 2 : 3 <a. no46
hebridium Horniman, 1940, Hrithacus rubecula oe oe ws snr o46
éntensus Horniman, 1940, Serinus mozambicus 2a ot Fats serie
kasai Horniman, 1940, Halcyon leucocephala owt i. awe -. 346

426 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, names proposed
to be added to (continued) :

Page

limes Horniman, 1940, Pycnonotus tricolor ... ~E -- 346

longipenne Horniman, 1940, T'richolaema melanocephalum .. an --- 346

marinus Fabricius, 1775, Astacus aie Bs ais Sa 116

murorum Bourlet, 1843, Hypogastrura ae. = sxe ae 47

mwuinilunga Horniman, 1940, Cossypha heuglini are Was bee 345-346

notha Bory de St. Vincent, 1804, Acinacea ... “a5 edi Dae sisinl288

obscura Brehm (C.L.), 1831, Cyanecula re adie Ba D6 sels 94

pilidownensis Keith, 1931, Homo ata Sod wed otf oa ey) Wh

prunt Scopoli, 1763, Aphis... or dg ag ert ae 98

pygmaea Horniman, 1940, Anthoscopus aa aS ly BD .. 846

scotica Horniman, 1940, Certhia familiaris ... de &f nae -.. 346

sibirica Wagner, 1901, Typhlopsylla 4 a8 oe id -. 352

similis Sowerby (J.), 1817, Trochus ... eee Be idk oa or 25

similus [sic] Sowerby (J.), 1816, Trochus ... ae a5 abe wae 26

skyensis Horniman, 1940, Troglodytes cageapiien On bes oat ... 846

vetus Miller, 1915, Pan é de PPP #33 oe URES

vulgaris Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, Homarus Jee Jas dee Pere 2 |

whitei Horniman, 1940, Prodotiscus ... - awe oti ade -. 346

Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoology, titles of works proposed

to be added to:

Bartram (W.), Philadelphia, 1791, London and Dublin, 1792, Travels
through North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida, the
Cherokee Country, the extensive territories of the ciaet innes or Creek
Confederacy, and the Country of the Chactaws “fe ee ee 102

Eberhard (J.P.), 1768, Versuch eines neuen Entwerfs der Thiergeschichte ... 96

Horniman (H.B.), 1940, Preliminary Descriptions of some new Birds... 345

Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, names proposed to be added

ANUROPHORINAE Borner, 1901 é. ve OK 2 70

ATYIDAE (correction of ATyADEA) De Haan, 1849 ye LO Prien 7)

BITHYNIIDAE (correction of pean ane ws E. 2s 1857 ots yeas

BRESILIIDAE Calman, 1896 ad “ 23 ZS

CAMPYLONOTIDAE Sollaud, 1913 % sf it we 226

CHAMIDAE (correction of CAMACEA) Blainville, 1825. oth 2 -. «©6929

DARDANINAE Schmitt, 1926... a BS & si AY Stor OSG

DIOGENINAE Ortmann, 1892... HY 316, 320

DOLICHOPIDAE (correction of DOLICHOPIDES) ‘Latreille, 1807 #39 3 81

ENTOMOBRYIDAE Schaffer, 1896 5 au Be se we Re ae 76

EUGONATONITIDAE Chace, 1937 gta .2 att . ue 207, 226

FISTULIPORIDAE Ulrich, 1882 ... hep ee we eh im soe ORDE

GEMPYLINAE Goode & Bean, 1895 $3 383 if Gre vo S888

GLYPHOCRANGONIDAE Smith, 1884 ... Ot a3 ed 332 oe 226

GNATHOPHYLLINAE Dana, 1852 Ay 45 wee fi Gs -.. 226

HEMIPROCNIDAE Oberholser, 1906 Lee nhs wt ae SaF -- 146

HIPPOLYTIDAE Bate, 1888 : ae x: ees sal Avy ... ©2226

HYPOGASTRURINAE Borner, 1906 vise 2! ake on ath ... 46-47

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, names proposed to be added
to (continued) :

427

Page
INOCERAMINAE Zittel, 1881... de se ae ayy Ae 244, 245
LITHOBIIDAE Newport, 1844 “ee * 136
LYMNAEIDAE (correction of LYMNIDIA) Rafinesque, 1815 Ae 343
MARGARITIFERIDAE Haas (F.), 1940... Se oe fe Aee 341,343
MAYAITIDAE Spath, 1928 a ae 231
MONTICULIPORIDAE Nicholson, 1881 92
NEANURINAE Borner, June 1901 46-47
NEMATOCARCININAE Smith, 1884 226
OPLOPHORINAE Dana, 1852 226
OXYPODIDES Thompson, 1859 . 178
PACHYCERATIDAE Buckman (S. S. fs 1918 wa ieee 32
PAGURIDAE (correction of pagurit) Latreille, [1802-1803] .. As 316, 320
PASIPHAEIDAE Dana, 1852 5 eg pas ae BA 225
PHILLIPSINELLIDAE Whittington (H. B. ), 1950 : 284
PLEUROTOMARIIDAE (correction of PLEUROTOMARIAE) "Swainson (Ww. NE 1840 26
PSALIDOPODIDAE Wood Mason & Alcock, 1892 oa ape Sear ke
RHYNCHOCINETIDAE Ortmann, 1890 226
SCOLOPENDRIDAE Newport, 1844 136
SCORPIONIDAE Pocock, 1893 175
SPHENODONTIDAE Cope, 1870 141
STYLODACTYLIDAE Bate, 1888 3 226
THALASSOCARIDIDAE (correction of THALASSOCANIDAE) Bate, "1888 226
TURBINELLIDAE Swainson, 1840 wee the x 332
TYPHLOCARIDINAE Annandale & : Kemp, 1913. 226
UNIONIDAE Fleming (J.), 1828. : 343
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, names already placed on, proposed
confirmation of position of :
Osmerus Linnaeus, 1758 282
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, names already placed on, proposed
revision of entries concerning :
Homalaspis Milne Edwards (A. }y 1863 a tie Sot ae 85
Homarus Weber, 1795 : aa wae we Fie 114-116
Iphis Leach, 1817 en ae aes Ane big S32 oe 80
Scorpio Linnaeus, 1758 175
Official List of Names in the Order-Class-Group in Zoology, name proposed to
be added to :—
Ammonoidea Zittel, 1884 200
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, names proposed to be added to :
Alope White, 1847 es 208
Anacaena Thomson, 1859 54
Anchistioides Paulson, 1875 208

428 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, names proposed to be added to
(continued) :

Anchistus Borradaile, 1898 Aes ma es ie see ae inc pegees
Anurophorus Nicolet, [1842]... sat he ous sinh aa aoe 69
Arete Stimpson, 1860... boi ae cae aae ess ae soe. 20S
Argis Kroyer, 1842 “aa ras ie iets Sidi se aes 205, 208
Athanas Leach, 1814 __.... Site Rey nore AB tore ae tie 208
Atya Leach, 1816 85 cae bee 6b S85 see Ras aay Le
Atyella Calman, 1906... ay ake ae vey a mee saan eee
Aucella Keyserling, 1846 ee 55e 45¢ as ase ae mars s
Automate De Man, 1888... te Se ace ae ase sis preys
Balssia Kemp, 1922... es sae sais ABE a sas ... 209
Barbouria Rathbun, 1912 vais es ae RE si ae .. 209
Bathypalaemonella Balss, 1914 <n Sate Be: che si ase ye
Beringius Dall, 1879... aes Ess no aes eae Fa eae 65
Beringius Dall, 1886... Be oe eee ae ae any Pee 65
Betaeus Dana, 1852 eae ate pis ee an nets bina --. 209
Birulia Brashnikov, 1903 ae: ae ws ARH wad Be essind 11)
Bithynia Leach, 1818 ... a aa wee ne pte ass Pesala is:
Bombina Oken, 1816... see oe ale vee Be as ee
Brachycarpus Bate, 1888 Ae sine ee ae ‘at aes ... 209
Bresilia Calman, 1896 ... a nee ube ae siete BPS nee ade
Bythocaris Sars (G.O.), 1870... ote aes a3 a nee «ee. ue
Campylonotus Bate, 1888 aes ves as aes ams ae aa, aoe
Caridella Calman, 1906. : oa = Be: ops) 8 asin aera
Caridina Milne Edwards (H. e 1837 i see sep mee a 3 210
Caridion Goés, 1863 __.... sa Bae sae ee ie 205, 210
Chama Linnaeus, 1758 . ee “re ate “ae sis wee 327-329
Chlorocurtis Kemp, 1925 aoe $02 ee 0 ae ae oe BO
Chlorotocella Balss, 1914 Sete es — sia ae es .. 210
Chlorotocoides Kemp, 1925 ice ; phe Ste de de anche lO
Chlorotocus Milne Edwards (A. Mn 1882 ae ss ae sae .. 210
Chorismus Bate, 1888 ... . a ce Ke eu 205, 210
Collocalia Gray (G.R.), 1840 ... Hess cer = ag wae 144-145
Coralliocaris Stimpson, 1860 ... tes pac it das 85 «ost 20
Coutierea Nobili, 1901 ... Ae nee epee ea a Sale Ss axey Jee
Crenitis Bedel, 1881... ae wee ee ae Hes! 54
Crenophilus, as from d’ Orchymont, 1942. St va ane wes 54
Cryptocheles Sars (G.O.), 1870 wie Coe eis et 56 204, 211
Cubiceps Lowe (R.T.), 1843... owe is ise st ff Rene |)
Dardanus Paulson, 1875 we: ide a oS. see sa 315, 320
Dasycaris Kemp, 1922 . aes ae 365 ae ne ape crea
Desmocaris Sollaud, 1911. : ts US sae ees ses coe
Dichelopandalus Caullery, 1896 o. es eae dee $28 nee ||) |
Diogenes Dana, 1851s... = eee ses ma ae Se .. 820
Dolichopus Latreille, 1796 Rte on din mF M3 the dee 81
Dorodotes Bate, 1888 ... Ye ce oh Ja oak =): oe? SSRI
Dugastella Bouvier, 1912 a ace see eis ae ae sc
Elaphe Fitzinger, 1833 ... ste és Be oa sas Ri .. ©3848
Ena Turton, 1831 33 big aS ea a te _ aie) es
Entomobrya Rondani, 1861 oe ee aes ois és Mie ihe 76
Ephyrina Smith (S8.I.), 1885... : + ae ae ae 204, 211
Escharina Milne Edwards (H.), 1836 . a ae fs He .. «©1654
Eugonatonotus Schmitt, 1926 ... sed oe SER ae antl APoier tb |
Fistulipora McCoy, 1849 oie ae nisl wee ice vil w= 157
Gelastocaris Kemp, 1914 dee iota shit Be sn a Pear Uf

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 429

Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, names proposed to be added to
(continued) :

Page

Gempylus Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1829 ... oe ee sists Beit Sc ee OS
Glyphocrangon Milne Edwards (A.), 1881 _.... -_ os acer 8
Gnathophyllum (emend. of ian sighed 1849 ae sas mati 4!
Heliosciurus Trouessart, 1880 . net ae Sas elon
Hemiprocne, as from Nitzsch, 1829 was sists =a Ae ae ae 144
Heptacarpus Holmes, 1900 eee S32 eae enn see see igen ede
Heterocarpoides De Man, 1917 = wats eae bets A Semi quedios
Heterocarpus Milne Edwards (A.), 1881 eke ah aoe sx er A
Hippolysmata Stimpson, 1860 ae sis “ap ‘on se sauna ice
Hippolyte Leach, 1814 ... : aa a0 we io% kas Pease Ate Lo
Hymenodora Sars (G.O.), 1877 . “ee ewe sek Se tery ay 212
Hypogastrura Bourlet, 1839... wee ae je at aes as 46
Inoceramus Sowerby (J.), 1814 sie se ae sfaty ee ... 244
Laqueus Dall, 1870 oe ? ts as = es ef nest LLG
Latreutes Stimpson, 1860 ats Aee ae rah sm a cumeunee
Leontocaris Stebbing, 1905 vas ae aee sig sins pa ogo twee
Leptochela Stimpson, 1860 set and ne ore Ste ‘ais sea taser
Lernaea Linnaeus, 1758 Sop ma oa sais saa = ... 264
Lernaeocera Blainville, 1822... A aed whe ae ane any; 254
Ligur Sarato, 1885 He Bie pe aun sa ry ae sea. wee
Limnocaridella Bouvier, 1913 ... ets ae ast ea ae wt, sole
Limnocaridina Calman, 1899 ... Nove 2 a Be ct eeges 7h 7 |)
Inthobius Leach, 1814 ... wae a nee oe aia aah ... 135
Lymnaea Lamarck, 1799 nor a: axe ... 342
Margaritifera (emend. of Margartifera) Schumacher, 1816 se ‘ata ... 342
Mayaites Spath, 1924 ... a af ate aie aes rte ‘sel GOON
Merguia Kemp, 1914 ... ee eee oe ars nia aed ose ele
Merhippolyte Bate, 1888 bet ane — «sn i sts Suh toe
Micratya Bouvier, 1913 Ae see ae a5 dei Ke sles Nea ee Lee
Microporella Hincks, 1877 ee aa ae en aid aes ne 154
. Mimocaris Nobili, 1903 ; siete fa < apts ask save te Le
Monticulipora d’Orbigny, Oct. 1849 aes sfohe sig ia sats seta 92
Mormoops Leach, 1821 “re aie sy rin sein Sis .. =: 185
Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815 ... isi viet xe Ri oe dems LOO
Nauticaris Bate, 1888 ... at A Jee de ae ime way a
Neanura MacGillivray, 1893... eee aff ns4'3 ae sts 47
Nematocarcinus Milne Edwards sg va 1881 53e tis bet - Weatele
Nikoides Paulson, 1875. . uh, Sika tee aes ee.) |S
Notocrangon Coutiére, 1900 yee : a sus ay ints wn 213
' Notostomus Milne Edwards ales Is 1881 sists prety ‘eere sia wor arelo
Odobenus Brisson, 1762. 5 ant — ate i ty sits 198
Ogyrides Stebbing, 1914.. zee aa ae awa te Wye nt
Omalaspis Giraud, 1860.. ee ows ‘a was are evisu OU
Oplophorus Milne Edwards (H. ), 1837. sae oe “ais se aaah, fee
Oxypoda Mannerheim, 1831 ... = are — ate os eae (7
Pachyceras Bayle, 1878 ete ane as oa “ oe ... 28-31
Pagurus Fabricius, 1775 cae he tes aid wats or 318-320
Palaeomonella Dana, 1852 Ee 3 see wag sie ie ... _ 214
Palaeomoneies Heller, 1869 its spas ei mee oe _ .. 214
Palaemonias Hay, 1901.. ets sss =e sia Soe fen ade 214
Pandalina Calman, 1899 a “_ oe re ae ae 214
Pantomus Milne Edwards (A.), 1883 . WP osie ioe Mes ee veo RE
Paracrangon Dana, 1852 ag Ae — wat J sad is 214

Paracymus Thomson, 1867 Beis vee ia aka i5: ese rae 54

430 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, names proposed to be added to
(continued) :

Page
Paralatreutes Kemp, 1925 Bes Fe nap ee ie oe she pate
Parapandalus Borradaile, 1899 ee ag* ete Age oats sep) tee
Parapasiphaé Smith (S8.I1.), 1884 nae 50 ays eA dash .. 214
Paratya Miers, 1882 “th =. os ye is as eer ike |
Paratypton Balss, 1914 a ide Ae Se See ice Pee
Pasiphaea Savigny, 1816 ee aris ct ane aa “obs ois LD
Periclimenaeus Borradaile, 1915 ca af aA Ons A a 4
Periclimenes Costa, 1844 bee’ Me it 4a <p gh we Une
Phacochoerus Cuvier (F.), 1826... ots 3) ave ae os sas 194
Phillipsinella Novak, 1886 ae ee ae ae es et nea Ne
Phorodon Passerini, 1860 44 ee Bie as ee et ... 97-98
Phycocaris Kemp, 1916 Z =. A Bee ap ae Saas eee ee
Phyllognathia Borradaile, 1915. nce ace ye ee ie tae lls
Plesionika Bate, 1888 ... abe Ace as me “4s wes oD
Pleurotomaria Sowerby (J.), 1821 See nice PE =< bey ass 25
Pontocaris Bate, 1888 ... AGS bar wy ae ee ioe. DD
Pontonides Borradaile, 1917... at af o, pies Serie
Prionocrangon Wood Mason & Alcock, 1891 oa Baie nee asa. MD
Psalidopus Wood Mason & Alcock, 1892 __.... ae Poa ve sae gs ee
Psathyrocaris Wood Mason & Alcock, 1893 ... Hn ane fee Peeters |i
Pseudopalaemon Sollaud, 1911 aes ae aes Lee me ten ee
Ptychopyge Angelin, 1854 ee cee aes mae Kee ve Aeenleeys ji)
Rhinopteraspis Jaekel, 1919... sci ohn ie “ta cs 67
Rhynchocinetes Milne Edwards (H. sags 1837 ae a Log se Refine. i
Roptrocerus Ratzeburg, 1848 ... cae ae aby ae ... 29-31
Sabinea Ross (J.C.), 1835 wee pA aff Nee <i nee Papin’
Saron Thallwitz, 1891 ... nae And es aa eae ta ee
Sclerocrangon Sars (G.O.), 1883 oe ae noe ae ane pee heat a

Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758 __s... Bae Ace Fa se Ae cea, yO
Seriola Cuvier (G.), [1816] ae aa nae oy eat ase ar ee
Sphenodon Gray (J.E.), 1831... aiets See en oe8 aed BS ks 5

Stegopontonia Nobili, 1906 598 ee a ane Le see 216
Streptoprocne Oberholser, 1906 sei aa S93 s& "144-145
Stylodactylus Milne Edwards (A. ) 1881. eae Fe “ih ats «oo Lee
Synalpheus Bate, 1888 ... Ac “de naa ane ae came
Syncaris Holmes, 1900 . = see “56 “se aa sae ws, 26

Systellaspis Bate, 1888 ... he at Se AGE ie ee saa eee
Terrakea Booker, 1930 ... ae ore et ss Fes es .. 336
Thalassocaris Stimpson, 1860 ... a7 ie oy sh. ee paren dG

Thaumastocaris Kemp, 1922 ... a ne SA ate aes ene
Thor Kingsley, 1878... on O\- si S05 ae aa epee
Torquesia Douvillé, 1929 = Pid a ze a4 pt <=, GO

Trachycaris Calman, 1906 Ace i use ne mele ae pep Ride!
Troglocaris Dormitzer, 1853... nbs a ee eae pie ppl iy
Turbinella Lamarck, 1799 ue anf ote So aa Nee ae pm
Typhlocaris Calman, 1909 an pe ees vr ae Et Pe ane

Typton Costa, 1844 mt Se Br Ma aaa “Poe bee cee eee
Unio Philipsson, 1788 ... san ee rats a ne ave Meh apt |
Volviceramus Stoliczka, 1871 ... ve one ae ph cast eee
Xiphocaris Von Martens, 1872 set apes Nee bt wes os ake

Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, names proposed to be added to :

acuta Davidson, 1863, Spirifera ane ae te oe <a Pia it |
aeneus Germar, 1824, Hydrophilus ... wes wu re 4 ie 55

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 431

Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, names proposed to be added to
(continued) :

Page
aethiopicus Pallas, 1766, Aper aes pad Ly: ce ve soavveeeh 4.
agassizi Coutiére, 1901, Coralliocaris ... Sas eax a3 ays Hee 218
agulhasensis Bate, 1888, Merhippolyte be ° He fs one i omnpals
alberti Lenz, 1910, Limnocaridina sats an ae saa wa eee LS
alpestris Linnaeus, 1758, Alauda ase aah #1. ae srt aoe 104
amethysteus Risso, 1826, Alpheus akg ne BS oot ay 223, 224
anglicus Sowerby (J.), 1818, Trochus ... ba ~ oP sae nes 25
angustrifrons Dalman, [1827], Asaphus 533 tok roe tee sates OU:
anophthalmus Kollar, 1848, Palaemon... PoP Bue i. seid 223, 224
antarcticus Pfeffer, 1887, Crangon ... sets ne Be was soa 218
aryxna Dyar, 1905, Megathymus a bas ar TF aple aval umege
atlantica Calman, 1896, Bresilia see oat bad ach ee nae 218
auricularius Spengler, 1793, Unio - sams das st Bn .. 3842
australis Kerr, 1792, Canis Ls Be one bi mas ey. 3. 123
benedicti Smith (S.I.), 1885, Ephyrina. - be im £0 ate sani lsS
bernhardus Linnaeus, 1758, Cancer... ds nos ee Aa 316, 320
bicornis Kemp, 1925, Paralatreutes ... sf 3. ope abe shaigi2lS
biunguiculatus Lucas, 1849, Palaemon.. Es ‘a 222, 224
blainvillet (correction of blainvillii) Leach, 1821, 1, Mormoops... as scbvonyr kod
bombina Linnaeus, 1761, Rana.. aA soe ase 133
bonniert Caullery, 1896, Dichelopandalus 5a $a a ane aehaype le
boreas Phipps, 1774, Cancer... ‘< 5. A‘ 758 somenelo
bouviert Sollaud, 1911, Pseudopalaemon bet “i wiph sie eae LS
brachythaerus as from noes. 1845, Productus Re ee aot — 336
branchialis Linnaeus, 1767, Lernaea ... 4 iid se iss «-- «©6258
brandti Dresser, 1874, Otocorys ae ae a5 is ie -- 104
brevirostris Rathke, 1843, Pandalus ... ae a5 aa Ae ieecyoyees
brevirosiris Calman, 1906, Atyella % aes nce sunnise LD
californiana (Koch MS.) Kiister, [1844], Terebratula oe wa wenger ll
ceratophthalma Balss, 1913, fusible (Diws wae ie eA ccupagsel9
ciliata Pallas, 1766, Eschara ... che a aoe “9 sae 153-154
comatularum Haswell, 1882, Alpheus ... arate aie i. sad 223, 224
commensalis Nobili, 1906, Stegopontonia es aie asi eae mmo |!
compressa De Haan, 1841, Ephyra_ ... src are he ee oonanie LO
compressus Paulson, 1875, Anchistioides Pe : oe ke 2 ecole
convexa de Haan, [1835], Ocypode (Chasmagnathus) = am 7 castsyOt
crassicornis Costa, 1871, Pandalus ... é sed £8. 223, 224
crassus Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, Gonatonotus ate fia ehale ani
crebricostatus Dall, 1877, Chrysodomus... ais Nae be nae .-. 64, 65
cubensis Von Martens, 1872, Hippolyte... ae is Bt ads 222, 224
cunningtonit Calman, 1906, Caridella ... ; A. va ‘3. , 219
cursor Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, Nematocarcinus ace “5 ae . 219
cuviertt Sowerby (J.), 1814, Inoceramus Ze ae! a as w. 244
cyprinacea Linnaeus, 1758, Lernaea ... 2s 1% obi aka Scope
daea Dampf, 1910, Palaeopsylla Hen oii ww se at senpeeOe
danae Paulson, 1875, Nikoides tte re its of A 438 i. gthpel
dingo Meyer, 1793, Canis af vas at 1s. cK meee ee 4
dolichognatha De Man, 1888, Automate ae ahs = os - ieee eee
dorsalis Stimpson, 1860, Arete . ol a's re ty ewe cen le
dumerili Risso (A.), 1810, Caranz a aes de ae ab ee ey
dunensis Roemer, 1855, Palaeoteuthis ays aad tes aes re 67
echinatus Dana, 1852, Paracrangon ... or uy é aie ears scope lS
elegans Risso, 1816, Alpheus ... el is eae ms “cutee

elongatus Guérin-Ménéville, 1856, Hippolyte = E. ee ecemupeld

432 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, names proposed to be added to
(continued) :

Page
ensifer Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, et Pare Ae “5 Bet 2 NED
ensiferus Risso, 1816, Palaemon EY Mas IEF 223, 224
ensis Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, Acanthephyra es bee a3 223, 224
eperlanus Linnaeus, 1758, Salmo oh aes is bed cd BZ
esculenta Linnaeus, 1758, Hirundo _.... ack bes A seri 143-145
floridanus Kingsley, 1878, Thor nt Bex se th: dt. ov 219
forficata Linnaeus, 1758, Scolopendra ... a aa .. =: 186
fragilis Wood Mason & Alcock, 1893, Peathyrocaris.. aie oh sereald
fucorum Fabricius, 1798, Palaemon ... ; $4 cas 223, 224
galilea Calman, 1909, Typhlocaris ... as ae es fee ; 219
gambianus Ogilby, 1835, Sciurus sea Sa ae Sond one «187
gammarus Linnaeus, 1758, Cancer... Ne ns es 34 oso 216
gantert Hay, 1901, Palaemonias ee s& oe eet 5 ey 219
gasti Balss, 1921, ‘Amphipalaemon tes of aan xe oe reliZLO
gibbosus Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, Notostomus eye ms vet vee LD
glacialis Buchholz, 1874, Pasiphaé ... ee Ai Se aerngZ0
globulus Paykull (G. von), [1798], Hydrophilus vas Ses a0 a3 55
gordoni Bate, 1858, Hippolyte ... ane Pe! ees soe .. 220
gracilis Lowe, 1843, Seriola waa Bs bs! ety OR ae see 182
gracilis Stimpson, 1860, Leptochela ... a es dae Aes eng)
gracilis Balss, 1914, Chlorotocella As a5 sii seg 20
granulata Sowerby (J. de C.), 1827, Turritella 393 one és .. 3855
granulosa Deshayes, 1832, Turritella . ae iy Ag List 30s (UNSbB
heterocarpoides Nobili, 1903, Mimocaris ie aie a ... 220
hualeyt Wood Mason & Alcock, 1892, Psalidopus ee ed oe IZA
involutus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1828, Inoceramus A Rae wh we (245
jactans Nobili, 1904, Virbius (?) : hee we wed te 223, 224
lalandeanus d’Orbigny, 1848, Ammonites... aie =. ved a 31
lamarckit Parkinson, 1819, Inoceramus iy. fe u a5 $9 9245
lanceocaudata Bate, 1888, Systellaspis Go ote i an -.. 220
lar Owen, 1839, Crangon : ose sot alae oy ... =» 220
laricis Nicolet, [1842], Anurophorus oss ne At Ba eS We 70
lazarus Linnaeus, 1758, Chama ee te ie ord 33 we S29
levicarina Bate, 1888, Dorodotes ont S35 bit see A! werenn2Zo
longipennis Rafinesque, 1802, Hirundo as Fee ost e.8 142-145
lucidus Dana, 1852, Regulus ... AB Bat. 43 ie see ey2z20
maldivensis Borradaile, 1915, Pontonia : Ae 35 Pe an 220
mammulata d’Orbigny, [January 1850}, Monticulipora ak Bs cx 92
margaritifera Linnaeus, 1758, Mya ... a oe rel 342
marionis Bate, 1888, Nauticaris eae Be tm us wish ots 220
marmoratus Olivier, 1811, Palaemon ... 22 = sft bas 223, 224
marocana Bouvier, 1912, Dugastella ... wee ats woe 4 .etz20
maurus Linnaeus, 1758, are eet an Bc oe J ORETS

maya Sowerby (J. de C.), 1840, Ammonites sts ae “at Use Pere st |
mierst De Man, 1888, Harpilius ae se Jas As nas .. 220
miles Fabricius, 1787, Pagurus... ‘ids ae fst 103 e. 320
minimus Sowerby (J.), 1816, Spirifer .. yak ape ie eae vee) EBL
minor McCoy, 1849, Fistulipora ~ eee ov aCe te SST
montanus Draparnaud, [1801], Bulimus swt bee ee bat £32278
morsitans Linnaeus, 1758, Scolopendra oa ae wae wen .. «136
mosquensis von Buch, 1844, Avicula ... ay he Ret eat i: 163
muntjak Zimmermann, 1780, Cervus ... fos ext 17 a ae 168
muscorum Templeton, 1835, Achorutes wet ae vans FS tdi 47

muscorum Nicolet, [1842], Degeeria ... be set ns uae ae 716

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 433
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, names proposed to be added to
(continued) :
Page
neumoegent Edwards, 1882, hehehe ies 293
niger Hartig, 1840, Figites 85
nitescens Leach, 1814, Palaemon 220
obscura Miller (O.F.), 1774, Helix 278
obscura Berezowsky & Bianchi, 1891, Larvivora 94
oligodon De Man, 1888, Hippolyte ‘ : 220
ommatosteres Wood Mason & Alcock, 1891, Prionocrangon 220
orientalis Stimpson, 1860, Ogyris mA Pj. 220
oxycephalus Boie, 1827, Coluber 348
pacifica Holmes, 1895, Miersia... 220
palpator Owen, 1839, Hippolyte 220
_ parabola Barrande, 1846, Phacops ... ? 284
paronat (emend. of paronae) Nobili, 1905, Latreutes... : 220
parvulus Milne Edwards (A.), 1883, Pantomus 220
paulsoni Stebbiug, 1905, Leontocaris ... 221
pictorum Linnaeus, 1758, Mya 342
planus Milne Edwards (H. )s 71834, Xantho 85
poeyt Guérin-Ménéville, 1856, Atya 221
propensalata Bate, 1888, Pontocaris 221
punctata Gray, 1842, Hatteria .. . 141
punctatosiriatus Letzner, [1841], Hydrobius seis 55
pygmaea Sars (G.O.), 1870, Cryptocheles 221
pyrum Linnaeus, 1767, Voluta .. 332
quatuorlineatus Lacépéde, 1789, Coluber 348
reflecus Bate, 1888, Dorodotes ask ve “ide wemur2ol
restricta Milne Edwards (A.), 1878, Hippolyte sas tte was 223, 224
robustus Borradaile, 1915, Periclimenaeus nr ara be serh Geel
rosmarus Linnaeus, 1758, Phoca 198
rufiventris Horn, 1873, Hydrobius 55
sachalinensis Brashnikov, 1903, Birulia ix oe Fit aie ae 221
sanguinolentus Quoy & Gaimard, 1825, roa bri A sae oe 316, 320
sauromates Pallas, 1814, Coluber : ust ‘ ob oes 348
‘scaber Leach, 1815, Atys ‘ 221
semistriatus Bate, 1888, Campylonotus 221
septemcarinatus Sabine, 1824, Crangon 221
septemspinosus Fabricius, 1787, Cancer : 81
serpens Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1829, Gempylus 288
serratus Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, BR ee 221
siebenrocki Balss, 1914, Paratypton 221
silvestris Schreber, [1777], Felis (Catus) 190
simplicirostris Sars (G.O.), 1870, Bythocaris ... 221
simulans Kemp, 1916, Phycocaris 2 221
sivado Risso, 1816, Alphaeus Ske 221
spectabilis Maerkel, 1844, Oxypoda : 177
spinicauda Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, Glyphocrangon 221
spinicaudus De Man, 1902, Chlorotocus ae : ne - cae M2
spinifrons Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, Hippolyte Ae Ae ase 222, 224
spinipes Bate, 1888, Plesionika a one a de 223, 224
spongicola Costa, 1844, Typton... ‘ ‘a6 sini, es uae
stagnalis Linnaeus, 1758, Helix 342
streptopus Kemp, 1922, Thaumastocaris Wate 221
sulcatifrons Smith (S.1.), 1884, ermamnners 221
superbus Dana, 1852, Oedipus A , 221
symoiotes Kemp, 1922, Dasycaris 221

434 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, names proposed to be added to
(continued) :

tanganyikae Calman, 1899, Limnocaridina
tentaculata Linnaeus, 1758, Helix

tenuipes Dana, 1852, Palaemonella ..
itrispinosus Aurivillius, 1898, Palaemonetes
truncatus Dana, 1852, Betaeus .

tuberculatus Bate, 1888, Chorismus

twmidus Philipsson, 1788, Unio a

typus Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, Caridina
typus Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, Oplophorus
typus Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, bdo aaunll
ungulata Linnaeus, 1758, Musca x
varians Leach, 1814, Hippolyte

varians Leach, 1814, Palaemon

viaticus Tullberg, 1872, Achorutes :

vittata Stimpson, 1860, Hippolysmata

vulgaris Moll, 1803, Eschara : ei
xylophagorum Ratzeburg, 1844, Pachyceras oh
zummeri Balss, 1914, a laa
zonaris Shaw, 1796, Hirundo

Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature,
titles of works proposed to be added to:
Drury (D.), 1770-1782, Illustrations of Natural History
[Réding (P.F.)], 1798, Museum Boltenianum...

Ogyrides Stebbing, 1914 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition

of, to the Official List of Generic Names in eat te with rene orientalis
Stimpson, 1860, as type species

gender of name ...

Ogyris Stimpson, 1860, a junior homonym of Ogyris Westwood, 1851, pro-
posed addition of, to the piers Index of Penee and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology P

oligodon De Man, 1888, as published in the combination Hippolyte oligodon
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), pe tet addition of, to the hits
List of Specific Names in Zoology BS:

Omalaspis Giraud, 1860 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in aan with aa bs
noricus, Giraud, 1860, as type species.. :

gender of name ...

251

57

213

213

225

220

85

85

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 435
Page
ommatosteres Wood Mason & Alcock, 1891, as published in the combination
Prionocrangon ommatosteres (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), ae a
addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology... ; aetr220
OPLOPHAIDAE Guiler, 1952, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for oPLo-
PHORIDAE Dana, 1852, proposed addition of, to the Calelah Index of
Rejected and Invalid Family-Growp Names in Zoology a 227
OPLOPHORINAE Dana, 1852 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Family-Growp Names in rein with
Oplophorus Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, as type genus RY 226
Oplophorus Milne Edwards (H.), 1837 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda),
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in eAankeatte with
Oplophorus typus Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, as type species.. 214
gender of name ... 214
orientalis Stimpson, 1860, as published in the combination Ogyris orientalis
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), Peo Gas addition of, to the eos
List of Specific Names in Zoology a 220
Osmerus (Class Actinopterygii), proposed validation of, under the : Sey
Powers, as of subgeneric status, as from Linnaeus, 1758... : 281-282
proposed designation, under the Plenary EP eat of Salmo Sistas:
Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of . 282
advertisement of the above proposals... 273
proposed confirmation of ese of, on the aes List cae Generic Names
in Zoology oe 282
oxycephalus Boie, 1827, as published in the combination Coluber oxycephalus
(Class Reptilia), ge ea addition of, to the bg he ge List : rg’ Names
in Zoology... 348

Oxypoda Mannerheim, 1831 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), proposed
setting aside, under the Plenary Powers, of all previous type selections for,

and designation of Oxypoda spectabilis Maerkel, 1844, to be the type species 175-177

advertisement of the above proposal ...
gender of name ...

proposed addition of, to the Oficial List of Generic Names in Zoology

170

436 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

oxyPpopATEes Mulsant & Rey, 1874, invalid because a vernacular word,
proposed addition of, to the ioe Index - gepece and Invalid | Family:
Group Names in Zoology 3

OXYPODIDES Thompson, 1859 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) (a name
published as the name for a Tribe), proposed addition of, to the exOnpa
List of Family-Group Names in Zoology a

Pachycerus Ratzeburg, 1844 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Living),
proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the Pern both
of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy ae

proposed addition of, to the i lea ie Index ¢ hare and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology...

Pachyceras Bayle, 1878 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed
validation of, under the Plenary Powers and addition of, to the Official
List of Generic Names in tiie with Ammonites lalandeanus q’ ee
1848, as type species

advertisement of the above proposal ..

gender of name ...

PACHYCERATIDAE Buckman (S.S.), 1918 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammon-
oidea), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Bamily Grove N Names in
Zoology with Pachyceras Bayle, 1878, as type genus.. ‘

pacifica Holmes, 1895, as published in the combination Miersia pacifica
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), pale addition of, to the SS
List of Specific Names in Zoology o: aid

PAGURIDAE (correction of PaAGuURII) Latreille, [1802-1803] (Class Crustacea,
Order Decapoda), proposed validation of, under the Plenary Powers, for
use for taxa belonging to the family and higher categories within the
family-group but not for taxa belonging to any category within that
group below the category of family, and proposed addition of, endorsed as

Page

178

178

. 28-31

32

32

220

proposed above to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology 309-315

advertisement of the above proposal ... 305
alternative proposal for addition of, to the Official List of etiages i Nie
Names in Zoology, with Pagurus Fabricius, 1775, as type genus.. 316, 320
’ paGuru Latreille, [1802-1803], an Invalid Original Spelling for PAGURIDAE,
proposed addition of, to the Official Index if hyd and Invalid ihise hes
Group Names in Zoology 321

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 437

Page
PAQURINAE (correction at subfamily level of pacurm) Latreille, [1802-1803],
proposed addition of, to the Official Index - ekg and Invalid Big
Group Names in Zoology aos 317
PAGURISTINEN Boas, 1924, invalid because a vernacular word, proposed
addition of, to the meen Index of aaa and Invalid her ng
Names in Zoology Ee 321
Pagurus Fabricius, 1775 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law
of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy _... 307-315, 317
advertisement of the above proposal ... ar as a aid atw1 806
support for the above proposal ... Ve te bY ap 322-324, 356
proposed addition of, to the igi Index " ae and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology ANS 315
Pagurus Fabricius, 1775 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), counter-proposal
for addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in sarin with
Cancer bernhardus Linnaeus, 1758, as type species ... — : 307-321
Pagurus ee 1803 arooe a aber Order 2 Maoh el nee
of 322-324
Pagurus Berthold, 1827, a nomen nudum, proposed addition of, to the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ... 315, 320
Palaemonella Dana, 1852 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in same with Palae-
monella tenuipes Dana, 1852, as type species es; 214
gender of name ... ade Lg oe bee aa ee re ce, ee
Palaemonetes Heller, 1869 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in PETIA with Palaemon
varians Leach, 1814, as type species... 214
gender of name ... ahr ie: se ee ane ee Tet «sa ee
Palaemonias Hay, 1901 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition
of, to the Official List of Generic Names in oo ae with Palaemonias
gantert Hay, 1901, as type species Boe “ 214
gender of name ... “A es sat aes a ans es wee) ae

F

438 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
Palaeoteuthis Roemer, 1855, a junior homonym of Palaeoteuthis d’Orbigny,
[1850], proposed addition of, to the yeaa Index Hs se ei and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology we : 67
palpator poe 1839, as published in the combination Hippolyte palpator
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), eer addition of, to the Be gaye
List of Specific Names in Zoology See 220
Pandalina Calman, 1899 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in caret with Pandalus
brevirostris Rathke, 1843, as type species 214
gender of name ... 214
pan te Bate, 1888 re aerial Order piesa. Sie halite of the
gender of .. ; cd 217-218
Pantomus Milne Edwards (A.), 1883 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda),
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology,
with Pantomus parvulus Milne Edwards (A.), 1883, as type species 214
gender of name ... 214
parabola Barrande, 1846, as published in the combination Phacops parabola
(Class Trilobita), gk Sai addition of, to the eae List vi aren Names
in Zoology... 284
Paracrangon Dana, 1852 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Rsciact with Para-
crangon echinatus Dana, 1852, as type species ‘ 214
gender of name ... 214
Paracymus Thomson, 1867 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in BHD with ey Sadie
philus aeneus Germar, 1824, as type species ... . 49-54
gender of name .. 54
Paralatreutes Kemp, 1925 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names tn ae, with Parala-
treutes bicornis Kemp, 1925, as type species ... ad . 214
gender of name ... 214

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Parapandalus Borradaile, 1899 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Pandalus
(Parapandalus) serratifrons Borradaile, 1899, as type species

gender of name .

Parapasiphaé Smith (S.I.), 1884 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), pro-
posed addition of, to the Official Inst of Generic Names in mnt with
Parapasiphaé sulcatifrons Smith (S.I.), 1884, as type species :

gender of name ...

Paratya Miers, 1882 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition
of, to the Official List of Generic Names in sey ina with ar ca nas
De Haan, 1844, as type species.. }

gender of name ...

Paratypton Balss, 1914 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition
of, to the Official List of Generic Names in eee with hes
siebenrocki Balss, 1914, as type species.. fe

gender of name ...

paronae Nobili, 1905, as published in the combination Latreutes paronae
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed emendation of, to paronat...

paronai (emend. of paronae) Nobili, 1905, as published in the combination
Latreutes paronai (Class Crustacea, Order oe ail ee addition of,
to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : :

parvulus Milne Edwards (A.), 1883, as published in the combination Pantomus
parvulus (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), eae addition of, to the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology Bae

Pasiphae Kréyer, 1845, an Invalid Emendation of Pasiphaea Savigny, 1816,

proposed addition of, to the chon Index é aceite and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology z oe

Pasiphaea Savigny, 1816 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in A aes with i Suen
sivado Risso, 1816, as type species

gender of name ...

439
Page

214

214

214

214

214

214

214

214

224

220

220

225

215

215

440 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Pasiphaeia Faxon, 1895, an Invalid Emendation of Pasiphaea Savigny, 1816,
proposed addition of, to the pasa Index pe pestle and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology a

PASIPHAEIDAE Dana, 1852 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Family-Group Names in aoe with
Pasiphaea Savigny, 1816, as type genus :

PASIPHAEIDAE Barnard, 1950, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for Past-
PHAEIDAE Dana, 1852, proposed addition of, to the is ei Index i
Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology ee :

PASIPHAEIIDAE Faxon, 1893, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for Past-
PHAEIDAE Dana, 1852, proposed addition of, to the Cherie Index bs
Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology

PASIPHAIDAE Smith, 1884, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for PASIPHAE-
IDAE Dana, 1852, proposed addition of, to the Oficial. Index ma Rotated and
Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology

PASIPHAIDAE Wood Mason & Alcock, 1893, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling
for PASIPHAEIDAE Dana, 1852, proposed addition of, to the ih Index
of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology

PASIPHEIDAE De Miranda y Rivera, 1933, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling
of PASIPHAEIDAE Dana, 1852, proposed addition of, to the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology aes

paulsoni Stebbing, 1905, as published in the combination Leontocaris paulsoni
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), a anal addition of, to the tiene:
List of Specific Names in Zoology a

Periclimenaeus Borradaile, 1915 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), pro-
posed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in pore
with Periclimenaeus robustus Borradaile, 1915, as type species

gender of name .

Periclimenes Costa, 1844 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in diet ire with Peri-
climenes insignis Costa, 1844, as type species..

gender of name ...

Page

225

225

227

228

228

228

228

22)

215

215

215

215

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 441

Page
Phacochaeres Gray (J.E.), 1821, a variant of the reputed but non-existent
generic name Phacochoerus Cuvier (G.), [1816], proposed suppression of,
under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but
not for those of the Law of Homonymy ane oH 192-194

proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology at ao sing sae ale re od wo 194

Phacocherus Fleming, 1822, a variant of the reputed but non-existent generic
name Phacochoerus Cuvier (G.), [1816], proposed suppression of, under the
Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those
of the Law of Homonymy aye Sie be si ves 192-194

proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic

Names in Zoology 194

Phacochoerus Cuvier (G.), [1816], a reputed but non-existent name, pro-
posed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic

Names in Zoology... 194

Phacochoerus Fischer de Waldheim, 1817, invalid because published in a
generic synonymy without an independent indication, proposed addition of,
to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ... 195

Phacochoerus, all uses of, prior to Cuvier, 1826, proposed suppression of,
under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and
of the Law of Homonymy a5 sae bee ve oats , 193-194

proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic

Names in Zoology 194
Phacochoerus Cuvier (F.), 1826 (Class Mammalia), proposed validation of,
under the Plenary Powers Ets ee ee ae eae , 191-194
advertisement of the above proposal ... a Bed “a e. wer halto
gender of name ... ae ty ae et ant ant ae aux) p04
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with
Aper aethiopicus Pallas, 1766, as type species aA ie 36a Jaber 94
Phascochaeres Cretzschmar, 1828, a junior objective synonym of Phacochoerus
Cuvier (F.), 1826, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology... ae LE 8 ts we 60S

442 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Page
Phascochaerus Desmarest, 1822, a variant of the reputed but non-existent
generic name Phacochoerus Cuvier (G.), [1816], proposed suppression of,
under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of ere but not
for those of the Law of Homonymy ... sé as 192-194
proposed addition of, to the ounce Index sf islam and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology... 194
Phascochoeres Ranzani, 1820, a variant of the reputed but non-existent
generic name Phacochoerus Cuvier (G.), [1816], proposed suppression of,
under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of pe ars but not
for those of the Law of Homonymy ... — bog 192-194
proposed addition of, to the ge Index of Ebest and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology ae 194
Phascochoerus Ranzani, 1820, a variant of the reputed but non-existent
generic name Phacochoerus Cuvier (G.), [1816], proposed suppression of,
under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of hr but
not for those of the Law of Homonymy nae sth a as 192-194
proposed addition of, to the cna Index = ern and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology Ree : 194
Phillipsella Oehlert, 1886 (Class Trilobita), proposed suppression of, under
the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of akiited but not for
those of the Law of Homonymy <5: aoe 283-284
support for the above proposal... ~ a ane ie alt --. 355
proposed addition of, to the para Index = rap gia and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology aS 284
Phillipsinella Novak, 1885, invalid because paper in which it appeared only
distributed in that year in a pre-print, proposed addition of, to the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology... oy 284
Phillipsinella Novak, 1886 ae a ac ene validation of, under
the Plenary Powers cae oes 283-284
advertisement of the above proposal ... poe a ee a a
gender of name ... oe ee at o sei . 3M ..- 284
support for the above proposal... on — den - aut -.» 355

proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in eters with
Phacops parabola Barrande, 1846, as type species Ae 284

OE —

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 443

Page
PHILLIPSINELLIDAE Whittington (H.B.), 1950 (Class Trilobita), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Family- sale Bs Names in ne with
Phillipsinella Novék, 1886, as type genus ... 284
Phorodon Passerini, 1860 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), proposed addition
of, to the Official List of Generic Names in 5 Moma with rhea og humuli
Schrank, 1801, as type species me .. 97-98
gender of name ... 4: see ae oes x03 ies bea aaa 98
support for the above proposal aa so se vs Ses se) ee
Phycocaris Kemp, 1916 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in shila with Bi ae:
simulans Kemp, 1916, as type species ace 215
gender of name ... ss ao one ae re aw ae cae es
Phyllognathia Borradaile, 1915 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in rs with Kg Hogg
cera (?) ceratophthalma Balss, 1913, as type species ... 215
gender of name ... Ae Zoe ae ues soe or fe seant S2EB
pictorum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Mya pictorum
(Class Pelecypoda), Pete addition of, to the eae Inst a coger:
Names in Zoology i 342

pilidownensis Keith, 1931, as published in the combination Homo pilt-
downensis, proposed rejection of, as a name based on a hypothetical form 171-172

advertisement of the above proposal ... ee us eee ae TLIO

proposed addition of, to the Hs re Index i on and Invalid ae
Names in Zoology a3 172

planus Milne Edwards (H.), 1834, as published in the combination Xantho
planus (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), earn addition of, to the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology owe - - 85

Plesionika Bate, 1888 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition
of, to the Official List of Generic Names in phe with Plesionika
uniproducta Bate, 1888, as type species 3 215

gender of name ... wee saz was zat wa ee ah Tivo 7.216

444 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
Pleurotemaria Carpenter, 1861 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling of Pleuro-
tomaria Sowerby (J.), 1821), proposed addition of, to the gee Index <
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ee 26
Pleurotomaria Sowerby (J.), 1821 pina ype ase ageaangyen validation
of, under the Plenary Powers ... -» 21-25
proposed setting aside, under the Plenary Powers, of all previous type
selections for, and CPT of Trochus Nenaee id this we " 1818,
as type Species.. une . 22-25
advertisement of the above proposals... eee vee ae A au 2
support for the above proposals +t a “iA Ag $4 wpe) 1 anton
gender of name ... eae = she ee ae ABE = he 25
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ar! 26
Pleurotomaria Férussac, 1822 (a nomen nudum), proposed addition of, to
the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 2.5 122526
Pleurotomaria Defrance, 1826 (a junior homonym of Pleurotomaria Sowerby
(J.), 1821), proposed addition of, to the iS Index of a and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ae : .. 22, 26
PLEUROTOMARIAE Swainson (W.), 1840 (an Invalid Original Spelling for
PLEUROTOMARUDAE), proposed addition of, to the ecoiceit Index of Spans
and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology... ves 26
PLEUROTOMARIIDAE (correction of PLEUROTOMARIAE) Swainson (W.), 1840
(Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Family-
ldap Names in epaean with Pleurotomaria ie U- ), 1821, as ila
genus 26
poeyi Guérin-Ménéville, 1856, as published in the combination Atya poeyt
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), sii ssiaalad addition of, to the BS
List of Specific Names in Zoology : 221
Pontocaris Bate, 1888 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition
of, to the Official List of Generic Names in sepeiiniod with Pontocaris pres
pensalata Bate, 1888, as type species . a“ 216

gender of name ‘3; a. a oe x = “eh evf eps

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 445
Page
Pontonides Borradaile, 1917 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in relish) with Pontonia
maldivensis Borradaile, 1915, as type species.. se sas) WEDS
gender of name 215
Pontoniopsis poate 1915 beg ches ssmiaan Order a DROSDORED anes
of the gender of .. 217-218
Prionocrangon Wood Mason & Alcock, 1891 (Class Crustacea, Order Deca-
poda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology, with vahscst gees ommatosteres Wood Mason & Alcock, 1891,
as type species : - 215
gender of name 215
propensalata Bate, 1888, as published in the combination Pontocaris pro-
pensalata (Class Crustacea, Order emai pepe addition of, to the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology E 221
prunt Scopoli, 1763, as published in the combination Aphis pruni, a junior
primary homonym of Aphis pruni Geoffroy, 1762, proposed addition of, to
the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology... 98
PSALIDOPODIDAE Wood Mason & Alcock, 1892 (Class Crustacea, Order
Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Family-Group
Names in iam ie with ji ad Wood Mason & Alcock, 1892, as type
genus 226
Psalidopus Wood Mason & Alcock, 1892 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda),
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in vpn with
Psalidopus huxleyi Wood Mason & Alcock, 1892, as type species .. 215
gender of name . 215
Pesathyrocaris Wood Mason & Alcock, 1893 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda),
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with
Psathyrocaris fragilis Wood Mason & Alcock, 1893, as type species 215
gender of name adi ss 215
Pseudopalaemon Sollaud, 1911 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), pro-
posed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Poon, with
Pseudopalaemon bouviert Sollaud, 1911, as type species 215
gender of name ... 215

446 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
Ptychognathus Stimpson, 1858 (Class etary a ie oe ie aad
under the Plenary Powers, of the gender of .. ce 260-262
advertisement of the above proposal ... Sa ne ott) phos -.. 234
Ptychopyge Angelin, 1854 (Class Trilobita), proposed setting aside, under
the Plenary Powers, of all previous type selections for, and designation of
Asaphus angustifrons Dalman, [1827], to be the type species bs 359-361
advertisement of the above proposal a ae . Cs i 3
support for the above proposal a mae ai ee bts -. 364
gender of name ... ae - oe ic ee aoe Pe ..- 360
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ... 360
punctata Gray, 1842, as published in the combination Hatteria punctata (Class
Reptilia), proposed addition of, to the we List iy isi Names in
Zoology ... aoe = 139-14}
punctatostriatus Letzner, [1841], as published in the combination Hydrobius
punctato-striatus, ees addition of, to the wecioaen List “ aienaion Names
in Zoology 55
pygmaea Sars (G.O.), 1870, as published in the combination Cryptocheles
pygmaea (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), PR addition of, to the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology te ap 2 Sopa
pygmaea Horniman, 1940, as printed in the combination Anthoscopus
pygmaea, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Specific Names in Zoology as possessing no status either under the Law
of Priority or under the Law of Homonymy... ss bs ee 345-346
pyrum Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Voluta pyrum (Class
Pelecypoda), es en addition of, to the ects List Hof Spegio# Names in
Zoology ... : 332
Pyzxidognathus Milne Edwards (A.), 1879 (Class Crustacea), er deter-
mination, under the Plenary Powers, of the gender of 260-262
advertisement of the above proposal aoe ae aos See ec:

quatuorlineatus Lacépéde, 1789, as published in the combination Coluber
quatuorlineatus (Class Reptilia), =< addition of, to the ron List
of Specific Names in Zoology ... 348

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 447

Page
Rathumoutes Templeton, 1843, proposed suppression of, under the Plenary
Powers, for the purposes of the Law of ae ate but not for those of the
Law of Homonymy .... a ‘ . 41-46
proposed addition of, to the se cae Index of Ries and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology a 47
seftecl Bate, 1888, as published in the combination Dorodotes reflexus (Class
Crustacea, Order Decapoda), PREP addition of, to the ae List of
Specific Names in Zoology use 221
Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, proposed amendments
and clarifications of :
Article 3, schedule relating to the transliteration of the Cyrillic alphabets
into the Latin Dag Rien oe, rsa of a Declaration relating
to aoe ; as. 4-7, 7-12
advertisement of the above proposal BY a fee 2 te 2
Article 14, proposed adoption of a Declaration, under the Plenary Powers,
conferring on the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
authority to prescribe for groups of generic names or for individual
generic names a gender different from that grammatically appropriate
to the word concerned where such action is asked for in the interests
of nomenclatorial stability ... ie AGE wie a: ae 256-259
advertisement of the above proposal eee a ore a4 way 4230
support for the above proposal a ae ae od tt a, s0l
Article 21, proposed adoption of a Declaration clarifying the meaning of,
in relation to the authorship to be attributed in certain circumstances to
zoological names and to action taken under the Régles affecting the
status of such names . ae si es ie of te 235-238
advertisement of the above proposal one {QOD a8 pee 234
support for the above proposal ia aur si ue te: 303-304
Article 25, proposed adoption of a Declaration clarifying the status of names
for taxa published in the indexes of works in the text of which those
taxa were described only under vernacular names tes ; 246-249
advertisement of the above proposal ees = ee or Reval
support for the above proposal Be =r see Se nes coe BO
Article 25, proposed adoption of a Declaration Tapert the status of a
generic name published conditionally hae , .-. 19-20

advertisement of the above proposal so = = we = 2

448 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
Article 25, proposed adoption of a Declaration prescribing the combination
to be attributed to the specific name of a nominal species established
as belonging to one genus but for which at the same time another nominal
genus is established conditionally ... “ae oor ae ae 179-180
advertisement of the above proposal Se ae fe Be seve | LOO
Article 27, Sub-Section (a), proposed adoption of a Declaration recom-
mending amendment excluding from the scope of, any generic or specific
name based solely upon the Aptychus of an Ammonite, objection to... 96
Article 30, Rule (c), proposed adoption of a Declaration 5 Sema the
expression “‘monotypical genus” ... oar 146-152
advertisement of the above proposal =f pas os eee -- 138
Article 30, Rule (f), proposed adoption of a Declaration as to the type
species of a nominal genus established as a substitution for a previously
established such genus Eee ead ras a 3 cee --. 35-37
advertisement of the above proposal a oe si a one 34
Article 30, Rule (g), proposed adoption of a Declaration pana ipcer
relation to the selection of the type species of a genus ... ..- 86-89
advertisement of the above proposal fen see ei ate see 74
proposed adoption of a Declaration regarding the specific name to be
cited for the type species of a genus in cases where that species
possesses two or more objectively synonymous such names ... 112-113
advertisement of the above proposal be seh $8 “gs -» 106
Regulus Dana, 1852, as junior homonym of Regulus Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.),
1800, proposed addition of, to the js Index of a and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology 5: 225
Renier (S.A.), [1804], Prospetto della Classe dei Vermi, objection to proposed
validation, under the Plenary Powers, of certain generic names from ... 04
restricta Milne Edwards (A.), 1878, as published in the combination Hippolyte
restricta (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), aise addition of, to the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology tie os 223, 224

RHINCOCYNETIDAE Sharp, 1893, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling of
RHYNCHOCINETIDAE Ortmann, 1890, proposed addition of, to the Given
Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology... 228

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Rhinopteraspis Jaeke], 1919 (Class Dyaake aaa Td validation of,
under the Plenary Powers

advertisement of the above proposal
support for the above proposal
gender of name ...

proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ti ig with
Palaeoteuthis dunensis Roemer, 1855, as type species

RHYNCHOCEPHALIDAE Hoffmann, 1881, a junior synonym of SPHENODONTIDAE
Cope, 1870, proposed addition of, to the ESE 2 Index of Relected and
Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology

RHYNCHOCINETIDAE Ortmann, 1890 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda),
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Family-Group Names in sored
with Rhynchocinetes Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, as type genus é

Rhynchocinetes Milne Edwards (H.), 1837 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda),
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology,
with Rhynchocinetes typus Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, as type species

gender of name ...

BHYNCHOCYNETIDAE Borradaile, 1907, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling
of RHYNCHOCINETIDAE Ortmann, 1890, proposed addition of, to the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology ...

robustus Borradaile, 1915, as published in the combination Periclimenaeus
robustus (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ae ee aE sats

Réding, Peter Friedrich, proposed Ruling that the aphetp of Museum
Boltenianum, Anon., 1798, be attributed to . ve

comment on the above proposal

proposed addition of title of, to the eee Inst 7 Works hagas ee as
Available in Zoological Nomenclature

Roptrocerus Ratzeburg, 1848 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), proposed
addition of, to the Oficial List of Generic Names in pg with ———
azylophagorum Ratzeburg, 1844, as type species

gender of name ...

449

Page

. 65-66

34

266

66

66

14]

226

216

216

228

221

- 56-57

58

57

. 29-31

3]

450 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Rosmarus Briinnich, 1771, a junior objective synonym of Odobenus Brisson,
1762, proposed addition of, to the Rn Index of Lanai and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology ae

rosmarus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Phoca rosmarus
(Class Mammalia), ear oaicg addition of, to the Reed List of SRI
Names in Zoology ee

rufa Linnaeus, 1758, as published i in the combination Formica haji support
for the proposed suppression of ote wk he ve aoe

rufa Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the combination Formica rufa (Class

Page

198

198

255

Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), support for the proposed validation of 232, 255

ruficornis Gravenhorst, 1802, Aleochara (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera),
proposed ruling as to misidentification of, Ni Dues 1831, and

Westwood (1838) 177
rufiventris Horn, 1873, Hydrobius (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), pro-

posed designation of, under the Plenary se te to be the bias panied of

Crenophilus d’Orchymont, 1942 . 51-54

proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 55
RYNCHOCINETIDAE Gurney, 1939, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling of

RHYNCHOCINETIDAE Ortmann, 1890, proposed addition of, to the Official

Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology 228
Sabinea Ross (J.C.), 1835 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed

addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ee. with nape

septemcarinatus Sabine, 1824, as type species F 216

gender of name ... 216
sachalinensis Brashnikov, 1903, as published in the combination Birulia

sachalinensis (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of,

to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology aan we 221
sanguinolentus Quoy & Gaimard, 1825, as published in the combination

Pagurus sanguinolentus (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed

addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 16, 320
Sao Barrande, 1846 (Class Trilobita), support for the proposed validation of... 361
Saron Thallwitz, 1891 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition

of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with H ‘ppolyte beak

Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, as type species 216

gender of name ... ee ic $i “5 oc no eis -- 216

, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 451
Page
sauromates Pallas, 1814, as published in the combination Coluber sauromates
(Class Reptilia), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology “he woz tee ie ex ee. a ee Ft ge te
scaber Leach, 1815, as published in the combination Atys scaber (Class
Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List
of Specific Names in Zoology : An bea a9: see ale re 4k
Sclerocrangon Sars (G.O.), 1883 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Cancer
boreas Phipps, 1774, as type species si cia ie Hee Hee ea
gender of name ... 216
Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Myriapoda), proposed setting aside, under
the Plenary Powers, of all previous type selections for, and designation of
Scolopendra morsitans Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species a5 134-135
advertisement of the above proposal ... 106
support for the above proposal 466 Sue ae 28 Sc 269-271
gender of name ... 135
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 135
SCOLOPENDRIDAE Newport, 1844 (Class Myriapoda), proposed addition of, to
the Official List of Family-Growp Names in Zoology, with Scolopendra
Linnaeus, 1758, as type genus 350 Sor ane Bc 260 soe P36
Scorpio Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Arachnida), proposed setting aside, under the
Plenary Powers, of all previous type selections for, and proposed designa-
tion of Scorpio maurus Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of ... 173-175
advertisement of the above proposal 169
support for the above proposal 296
gender of name ... 175
proposed amendment, in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, of
entry concerning “a S60 au ans BS ne ce Boer et hi)
SCORPIONIDAE Pocock, 1893 (Class Arachnida), proposed addition of, to the
Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, with Scorpio Linnaeus, 1758,
as type genus... pee ner he =e soe ae Bo: sen! Lb

452 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ;

Page
scotica Horniman, 1940, as printed in the combination Certhia familiaris
scotica, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Specific Names in Zoology as possessing no status either under the Law of
Priority or under the Law of Homonymy ae 345-346

SEGUENZICERATIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1924 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoi-
dea), proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers ... awe 297-298

advertisement of the above proposal oa ae es ae .. 274

proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-

Group Names in Zoology ca - 298

semistriatus Bate, 1888, as published in the combination Campylonotus
semistriatus (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to

the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology... Af. 221

septemcarinatus Sabine, 1824, as published in the combination Crangon
septemcarinatus (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of,

to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 221

septemspinosus Fabricius, 1787, as published in the combination Cancer
septemspinosus (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of,
to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ad es aks aie 81

Seriola Cuvier (G.), [1816] (Class Actinopterygii), proposed addition of,
to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Caranx dumerili Risso
(A.), 1810, as type species eee at — et ae 181-182

gender of name ... a ae AE ‘ee hs oes ay vo eS

Seriola Topsent, 1892, a junior homonym of Seriola Cuvier (G.), [1816],
proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic

Names in Zoology 182

serpens Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.), 1829, as published in the combination Gempylus
serpens (Class Pisces), proposed validation of, under the Plenary Powers 285-287

advertisement of the above proposal one ma 4% ies wee) aed Se

proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology... 288

serratus Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, as published in the combination Stylo-
dactylus serratus (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of,

to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology a ie 221

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

sibirica Wagner, 1901, as published in the combination Typhlopsylla sibirica,
proposed addition of, to the ae Index ma oe and Invalid shi teais
Names in Zoology cad

siebenrocki Balss, 1914, as published in the combination Paratypton sieben-
rocki (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), aca aati addition of, to the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 4

silvestris Schreber, [1777], as published in the combination Felis (Catus)
silvestris (Class Mammalia), ny sam validation of, under the Plenary

453

Page

352

221

Powers... er wat + 1S act Ne at ae 189-190

advertisement of the above proposal

proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology

similis Sowerby (J.), 1817, as published in the combination Trochus similis,
proposed addition of, to the i aut Index of nay and Invalid oi pte
Names in Zoology

similus [sic] Sowerby (J.), 1816, as published in the combination Trochus
similus, proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the
purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy

proposed addition of, to the a Index of pene and Invalid + Ape
Names in Zoology a :

simplicirostris Sars (G.O.), 1870, as published in the combination Bythocaris
simplicirostris (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), cpa addition of,
to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology... os a

simulans Kemp, 1916, as published in the combination Phycocaris simulans
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), Co addition of, to the Tree
List of Specific Names in Zoology aes

sivado Risso, 1816, as published in the combination Alpheus sivado (Class
Crustacea, Order Decapoda), eae addition of, to the “peal List of
Specific Names in Zoology :

skyensis Horniman, 1940, as printed in the combination Troglodytes troglo-
dytes skyensis, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as poeesssing no status either under the

170

190

25

25

26

221

221

221

Law of Priority or under the Law of Homonymy ... ry oe 345-346

G

454 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
spectabilis Maerkel, 1844, Oxypoda (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), pro
posed designation of, under the rag ree to be the > awe aetna a
Oxypoda Mannerheim, 1831 _... 177
advertisement of the above proposal ~ ae x soe ous, gO
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ... 177
Sphaenodon Gray (J.E.), 1831 (Class Reptilia), ates] ona under the
Plenary Powers, of emendation to Sphenodon : 23 139-141
advertisement of the above proposal Det se = ae ee 1.)
support for the above proposal $= eas isd bes ae .. 304
proposed addition of, to the ede Index of Eiger d and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology a 141
Sphenodon Gray (J.E.), 1831 (Class Reptilia), proposed bapa under the
Plenary Powers, of emendation to, from Sphaenodon re ra 139-141
advertisement of the above proposal se “a =r Ae: ioe? Coe
gender of name ... a de, Se ns 3% a ae cen a
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ret
with Hatieria punctata Gray, 1842, as type species 141
SPHENODONTIDAE Cope, 1870 ag: Rene Pees validation of, under
the Plenary Powers coe ns rie 140-141
advertisement of the above proposal me an 1 see Pam
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Family-Group Names in
Zoology, with PPT ois of Me eis) be! e E. ee 1831, as
type genus... 141
Sphenorhynchus Lichtenstein, 1823 (Class Avett ere aks ate ca
under the Plenary Powers, of the gender of .. a 260-262
advertisement of the above proposal 1% a Soe vis) Seas eee

spinicauda Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, as published in the combination
Glyphocrangon spinicauda (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), —
addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology... 221

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 455

Page
spinicaudus De Man, 1902, as published in the combination Chlorotocus
spinicaudus (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the

Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 221

spinifrons Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, as published in the combination Hippo-
lyte spinifrons (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of,
to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology As 833 222, 224

spinipes Bate, 1888, as published in the combination Plesionika spinipes
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology 3 doi ™ ay 223, 224

Spirifera Murray, 1831, an Invalid Emendation of Spirifer Sowerby (J.), 1816,
proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and I nvalid Generic
Names in Zoology so as as obs es <3 130, 131

Spiriferus Blainville, 1827, an Invalid Emendation of Spirifer Sowerby (J.),
1816, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology eae ato ~ te a 130, 131

spongicola Costa, 1844, as published in the combination Typton spongicola
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the Official

List of Specific Names in Zoology 221

stagnalis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix stagnalis
(Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the ficial List of Specific

Names in Zoology 342

Stegopontonia Nobili, 1906, (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Stego-
pontonia commensalis Nobili, 1906, as type species ... af aA ea ele

gender of name ... 6 2 sae Set We aes a we, ~ 216

Streptoprocne Oberholser, 1906 (Class Aves), proposed addition of, to the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Hirundo zonaris Shaw, 1796,
as type species ... ee aoe Rie Aer nae = : 144-145

gender of name ... oe 33 fe APE shy bss A sey 5 WG

streptopus Kemp, 1922, as published in the combination Thaumastocaris
streptopus (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology we sa ae atte ne ee Pa

STYLODACTYLIDAE Bate, 1888 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Oficial List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, with

Stylodactylus Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, as type genus 226

456 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
Stylodactylus Milne Edwards (A.), 1881 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda),
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with —
Stylodactylus serratus Milne Edwards (A.), 1881, as type species ... Sepa
gender of name ... 216
sulcatifrons Smith (S.I.), 1884, as published in the combination Parapasiphaé
sulcatifrons (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology aes ate Seis aie Peer!
superbus Dana, 1852, as published in the combination Oedipus swperbus (Class
Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology se ae Ar Eee oes if tach
symbiotes Kemp, 1922, as published in the combination Dasycaris symbiotes
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology Bete Bate oa Sa rif earner
Synalpheus Bate, 1888 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition
of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Synalpheus
falcatus Bate, 1888, as type species aes ae an cs tele
gender of name ... 216
Syncaris Holmes, 1900 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition
of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Miersia pacifica
Holmes, 1895, as type species eee ser ae sa ve ea tA
gender of name .. 216
Syngnathus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pisces), proposed determination, under
the Plenary Powers, of the gender of... set 48 =f a 260-262
advertisement of the above proposal ... 234
support for the above proposal 302
Systellaspis Bate, 1888 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition
of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Systellaspis
lanceocaudata Bate, 1888, as type species see se aE Be ope,
gender of name ... 216
tanganyikae Calman, 1899, as published in the combination Limnocaridina
tanganyikae (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of,
to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology sei re ae econ eet

a Oe ee eee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 457

Page
tentaculata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix tentaculata
(Class Gastropoda), isan addition of, to the Ogi cial List sa mart
Names in Zoology ; 278
tenuipes Dana, 1852, as published in the combination Palaemonella tenuipes
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), Bragoaet addition of, to the hic mine
List of Specific Names in Zoology Pe 221
Terrakea Booker, 1930 (Class Brachiopoda), proposed setting aside, under the
Plenary Powers, of all previous type selections for, and designation of
Productus brachythaerus Morris, 1845, to be the type species of ... 335-336
advertisement of the above proposal at oe om ves dea) (eo
gender of name ... Se Ass aise a ae vas a! .. 336
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ... 336
THALASSOCARIDAE Bate, 1888, an Invalid Origimal Spelling for THALASSoO-
CARIDIDAE Bate, 1888, proposed addition of, to the clea Index of
Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology abe 228
THALASSOCARIDIDAE (correction by Holthuis, 1955, of THALASSOCARIDAE)
Bate, 1888 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the
Official List of Family-Group Names in ee with Thalassocaris
Stimpson, 1860, as type genus ee) : 226 .
Thalassocaris Stimpson, 1860 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in eesoteaals with elation
lucidus Dana, 1852, as type species... 216
gender of name .... Ane ee re ant wae 27 = i.) LOG
Thaumastocaris Kemp, 1922 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in etn with
Thaumostocaris streptopus Kemp, 1922, as type species... 217
gender of name ... ee aos saa side sigs “ef pes PHEREH
Thor Kingsley, 1878 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition
of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ee with Thor ee
Kingsley, 1878, as type species ~—... 217

gender of name ... ae Ae ee Nas of ze as coh meee

458 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
THORINAE Kingsley, 1878 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
direction, under the Plenary Powers, that HIPPOLYTIDAE Bate, 1888, is
not to be rejected in favour of, by workers who regard Thor Kingsley,
1878, and Rhciticks Leach, 1814, as piginiat to the same meen -group
taxa Sts , 207-208

Torquesia Douvillé, 1929 (Class Gastropoda), proposed setting aside, under
the Plenary Powers, of all previous type selections for, and designation
of Turritella ihc sec sighs cents (J. de C. ne 1827, to be the ope fant
of 353-354

advertisement of the above proposal ae wie sa pes «dys ge
gender of name ... as Si hit ae a bk 0 .. 854

proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology... 354

Tortonese, Enrico, see Commission, International, on Zoological Nomen-
clature, Membership of

Trachycaris Calman, 1906 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in sedis with ascii
rugosus Bate, 1888, as type species... 217

gender of name ... Pie awe To bile $e. ox sie Sota tee

Tridacnocaris Nobili, 1899, a junior objective synonym of Anchistus
Borradaile, 1898, proposed addition of, to the oar ictal Index Ve ee
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ree 225

Trigonellites Parkinson, 1811 (Class Cephalopoda, Order seat antl #2
proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, support for ... : 96

trispinosus Aurivillius, 1898, as published in the combination Palaemonetes
trispinosus (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ai oan ae <jsie yond uaa

Troglocaris Dormitzer, 1853 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ae with Trey,
schmidti Dormitzer, 1853, as type species... 217

gender of name ... Ae a a ie ec 8; ais san Oe

truncatus Dana, 1852, as published in the combination Betaeus truncatus
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), ea addition of, to the ae iu
List of Specific Names in Zoology xo 222

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 459

Page
Trust, International, for Zoological Nomenclature :

Balance Sheet as at 31st December 1954 and Income and Expenditure
Accounts for the year 1954, with Report of Committee of Management
thereon . Sie Me one ak Ae aie ~~ i-xviii

tuberculatus Bate, 1888, as published in the combination Chorismus
tuberculatus (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the

Official List of Specific Names in Zoology oe Se aac ee ey:

tumidus Philipsson, 1788, as published in the combination Unio twmidus

(Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific

Names in Zoology Hae Ane a5 ps es as tie SOME LY:

Turbinella Lamarck, 1799 (Class Pelecypoda), proposed validation of,
under the Plenary Powers aie tf 3 ati ar 330-331
advertisement of the above proposal ... we aa oe ry ise OOD
gender of name ... noe one re nek hy bee yy SWF
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology,
with Voluta pyrum Linnaeus, 1767, as type species : ae Son aS BY?
TURBINELLIDAE Swainson, 1840 (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of,
to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, with Turbinella
Lamarck, 1799, as type genus ... ae ee = =o nd Lint OD
TYPHLOCARIDINAE Annandale & Kemp, 1913 (Class Crustacea, Order
Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Family-Group
Names in Zoology, with Typhlocaris Calman, 1909, as type genus... aio Se ee
Typhlocaris Calman, 1909 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with T'yphlo-
caris galilea Calman, 1909, as type species... ah ae ag eee ly
gender of name ... oh af ot ies see a aes Sige cet
Typton Costa, 1844 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of,

to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Typton spongicola

Costa, 1844, as type species =; hes uh sia Ey, =, eT

gender of name ... te: sf af re bos ee rath see DONT

typus Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, as published in the combination Caridina
typus (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology di oe ee im da 222

460 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
typus Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, as published in the combination Oplo-
phorus typus (Class Crustacea, Order taiggre Pepe § addition of, to
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology .. 222

typus Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, as published in the combination Rhyncho-
cinetes typus (Class Crustacea, Order Soh Ege addition of, to the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ee 222

ungulata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Musca ungulata
(Class Insecta, Order Diptera), ene addition of, to the Canes List
of Specific Names in Zoology ... 81

Unio Philipsson, 1788 (Class Pelecypoda), proposed setting aside, under the
Plenary Powers, of all previous type selections for, and designation of

Mya pictorum Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species Of. arc 337-341
advertisement of the above proposal ot ie ae mn sie: ae
gender of name ... =e ae ses che es oe ee .. 34)
proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology... 341

UNIONIDAE Fleming (J.), 1828 (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of,
to the Official List of Family- cage Names in Shai with Unio Bhan prt
1788, as type genus ae 343

Upogebia Leach, 1814 nn Crustacea, Order + Decapoda), as ae for the
proposed validation of . 232

varians Leach, 1814, as published in the combination Hippolyte varians
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), ga addition of, to the cael
List of Specific Names in Zoology __... Z 222

varians Leach, 1814, as published in the combination Palaemon varians
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), kad addition of, to the ——
List of Specific Names in Zoology Yr 222

Varuna Milne Edwards (H.), 1830 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda),
proposed determination, under the Plenary Powers, of gender for... 263-264

advertisement of the above proposal ... - tt #9t is vw. =: 234

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 461

Page
vetus Miller, 1915, as published in the combination Pan vetus, proposed
rejection of, as a name based on a hypothetical form fs pad 171-172

proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific

Names in Zoology 172

viaticus Tullberg, 1872, Achorutes (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), proposed
designation of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species for
Hypogastrura Bourlet, 1839... a Pre re ay ws -.. 38-46

advertisement of the above proposal ... aoe io oe, te a 34

proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology... 47

vittata Stimpson, 1860, as published in the combination Hippolysmata vittata
(Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the Official

List of Specific Names in Zoology 222

Volviceramus Stoliezka, 1871 (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Inoceramus involutus
Sowerby (J. de C.), 1828, as type species ons ete ame Ae sea:

gender of name ... “a wre i ele T, ae er <eaye 244

vulgaris Moll, 1803, as published in the combination Eschara vulgaris (Class
Ectoprocta), as determined by the lectotype selection made by Brown
(D.A.) in 1952, proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology ses vat ey un te =e shah cc 153-154

vulgaris Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, as published in the combination H. omarus
vulgaris, a junior objective synonym of gammarus Linnaeus, 1758, as
published in the combination Cancer gammarus proposed addition of,
to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ... 116

Watkins, Sheila C., see Commission, International, on Zoological Nomen-
clature, Staff of.

whitet Horniman, 1940, as printed in the combination Prodotiscus whitet,
proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific
Names in Zoology as possessing no status either under the Law of Priority
or under the Law of Homonymy Ser sas iss ay 2B 345-346

XANCIDAE Johnson, 1934, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of

Rejected and Invalid Family-Growp Names in Zoology 332

H

462 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page

Xancus Roding, 1798 (Class Pelecypoda), proposed suppression of, under
the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for
those of the Law of Homonymy ee tings aig ee : 330-332

proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic

Names in Zoology we nae 332

Xiphocuridina Bouvier, 1909, a junior objective synonym of Paratya Miers,
1882, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid

Generic Names in Zoology 225

Xiphocaris Von Martens, 1872 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed
addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Hippolyte
elongatus Guérin-Ménéville, 1856, as type species ae ss ‘ue

gender of name ... “i ‘gy: rie us Abe ie HE a SQ

zylophagorum Ratzeburg, 1844, as published in the combination Pachyceras
aylophagorum (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), proposed addition of,
to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology zee He at: ae 31

zimmeri Balss, 1914, as published in the combination Bathypalaemonella
zimmeri (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology... <8 SF at wes. | eee

zonaris Shaw, 1796, as published in the combination Hirundo zonaris (Class
Aves), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology 3 sais ne ales ae ate aed A 142-145

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 463

PARTICULARS OF DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL
PARTS IN WHICH THE PRESENT VOLUME WAS PUBLISHED

Part No.

ll

12

Contents of Part
(pages)

1-32, 1 pl., 2 text-figs.
33-72
73-104
105-136
137-168
169-200
201-232
233-272
273-304
305-324, [i]—xviii
325-356

357-464
T.P.-X XVIII

Date of Publication

3lst January 1955
3lst January 1955
28th February 1955
28th February 1955
31st May 1955

31st May 1955

7th July 1955

30th December 1955
30th December 1955
30th December 1955

9th May 1956

30th November 1956

464 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDERS

The present volume should be bound up as follows :
1-464

T.P.-XXVII, i-xviii,

Note :—The wrappers (covers) of the twelve Parts in which this volume
was published should be bound in at the end of the volume.

Zea Mi
JANP ras
Aas As’
f. ee: eee y
ft tat) ’ ae \
} 7% pine? fy
Lh ate ee © x}
A na Rd,
aT ys, ot,
NOUR AL Wie

oe

RL Re A 0
eg bs ,) ala