Ps S573 bi reyes rs rs ? at eye b a 7 : b ; aig ! eth spate #2 ba © THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 17 Edited by W. E. CHINA, C.B.E. Assistant Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and R. V. MELVILLE formerly Assistant Secretary to the Commission 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, 19, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1 1959-1961 (All rights reserved) TABLE OF CONTENTS Personnel of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : Death of the Honorary Life-President of the Commission Resignation of a Commissioner Election of three new Commissioners Offices of the Commission : Change of Address International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature: Financial Report and Accounts for the year 1957 Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the generic names Orthoceros Briinnich, 1771, and Orthocera Modeer, 1789, so as to stabilise the generic name Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Nautiloidea). By R. V. Melville (Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ... For comments see pages 71, 312. Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the generic name Orthoceratites Lamarck, 1799, so as to conserve the generic name Hippurites Lamarck, 1801 (Class Pelecypoda). By L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London) ... bd ae ae For comment see page 169. Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the generic names Prothechus Rondani, 1856, and Allonewra Rondani, 1856, for the purpose of validating the generic names Verrallia Mik, 1899, and Témésvaryella Aczél, 1939 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By D. Elmo Hardy (University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii) ... Eye Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the generic name Dictyoconus Blanckenhorn, 1900 (Class Rhizopoda, Order Foraminifera). By Don L. Frizzell (Missouri School of Mines, Rolla, Missouri, U.S.A.) eS a oe an For comment see page 184. Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species for the nominal genus Beraea Stephens, 1833, in harmony with current use (Class Insecta, Order Trichoptera). By D. E. Kimmins (British Museum (Natural History), London) a sa. Bets For comments see pages 68, 169. Proposed addition of the generic name Chaetopteryx Stephens, 1829, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (Class Insecta, Order Trichoptera). By D. E. Kimmins (British Museum (Natural History), London) om ing sole sly = - en For comments see pages 68, 169. ITI Page wow wo bd bw 25 27 30 32 35 IV Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate as type- species of the nominal genus Apatania Kolenati, 1847, the species intended by the original author (Class Insecta, Order Trichoptera). By D. E. Kimmins (British Museum (Natural History), London) oa For comments see pages 68, 169. Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate for the nominal genus Aphrophora Germar, 1821 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) a type-species in harmony with current use. By Frej Ossiannilsson (Kungl. Ce ert Institutionen agi Ips S Uppsala, Sweden) For comments see page 192. Proposed addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the specific name casertanwm Poli, 1791, as published in the binomen Cardium casertanum (Class Pelecypoda). By A. E. Ellis (Epsom College, Epsom, Surrey, haiti and E. B. ue Bibi ts Ontario, Canada)... : Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the generic name Spirontocaris Bate, 1888 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By L. B. Holthuis eiibadiaiias van 7 eeenes Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) ... : Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the currently accepted emendation Drepanella for the genus introduced under the name Depranella Ulrich, 1890 (Class Crustacea, Order Ostracoda). By P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (University of Sheffield, England), Harold W. Scott (University of Illinois, U.S.A. 3 and Jean M. Berdan (U.S. Geological Survey) eS 5 sic es Proposed rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of Bertrand (E.), 1763 ‘Dictionnaire Universel des Fossiles propres et des Fossiles accidentels’’. By R. V. Melville (Geological Survey and Museum, London, S.W.7) a Le aa ee re Bed Jes Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the generic name Westenoceras Foerste, 1924, so as to preserve the name Westonoceras Foerste, 1924 (Class Cephalopoda). By Rousseau H. Flower (Bureau of Mines, Socorro, New M arin! and Curt Teichert en Colorado, U.S.A.) : tess a aN he < Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the name saccharivora Peterkin, 1790 (Phalaena), and to place the generic name Diatraea Guilding, 1828, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (Class Insecta, Order ae Pee): = Harold E. Box gn B.WI) 3: For comments see pages 75, 223, 230, 240. Page 37 39 43 47 49 56 Request for a ruling on the interpretation of the nominal species Unio phillipsii Williamson, 1836 (Class Pelecypoda) in accordance with accustomed usage. By J. Weir (The University, Glasgow, Scotland) For comments see pages 64, 75, 162, 188. Assistant Secretaryship of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : Retirement of Mr. R. V. Melville and ee of Dr. W. E. China, C.B.E. in his stead : Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate a type- species ‘ee the nominal genus Bolitochara Mannerheim, 1831, in harmony with accustomed usage (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By C. E. Tottenham (University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge, England)... For comments see pages 198, 322. Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate type-species for the nominal genera Ischnopoda Stephens, 1835 and Tachyusa Erichson, 1837, in harmony with current usage (Class Insecta, Order Coleo- ptera). By C. E. Tottenham se of oe ee sol Cambridge, England) as For comments see pages 198, 309, Proposal to stabilise the scientific name of the cereal-root eelworm (Class Nematoda). By Mary T. Franklin (Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, England), G. Thorne (University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A.), and M. Oostenbrink a ee school, Wageningen, Netherlands) Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress ge all purposes the generic name Southernia Filipjev, 1927, with other rectifications of nomenclature (Class Nematoda). By Carl Allgén (Malmé, Sweden) DIRECTIONS Direction 104 Grant of the status of availability to the names published by C. A. Clerck in 1757 in the work Aranei Svecici and addition of the title of that work to the official List of Works pai: as available for use in zoological nomenclature : ne OPINIONS Opinion 569 Use of the plenary powers to set aside first reviser selections made for the generic name Selene Lacépéde, 1803, and for the specific names rostrata Lesueur, 1817 (Muraena); latipinna Lesueur, 1821 (Mollienesia) ; and fuscus Storer, 1839 (Syngnathus) (Class Pisces) ... V Page 61 65 69 72 76 86 89 92 VI Opinion 570 Designation under the plenary powers of a type-species in harmony with existing usage for the nominal genus Indiana Matthew, 1902 (Class Crustacea, Order Ostracoda) Opinion 571 Designation under the plenary powers of lectotypes for three species of Graptolites ae ; are : Opinion 572 Suppression under the plenary powers of the generic name Calandra Clairville & Schellenberg, 1798, and validation under the same powers of the specific name abbreviatus Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Curculio abbreviatus Sains Insecta, Order Coleo- ptera) ay 7a a oa : * Opinion 573 Determination under the plenary powers of a lectotype for the nominal species Helix vivipara Linnaeus, 1758, and addition to the official lists of the generic name Viviparus Montfort, 1810, and the family- group name VIVIPARIDAE Gray, 1847 (Class Gastropoda) Opinion 574 Validation under the plenary powers of the specific name gemmascens Esper, [1794], as published in the binomen aaa err eae (Class Hydrozoa, Order Stylasterina) .. ; : Opinion 575 Addition to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology of six family-group names in the Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea Opinion 576 Designation under the plenary powers of a type-species for Dactylioceras Hyatt, 1867 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) Opinion 577 Addition to the Official Lists of Names in Zoology of the generic names Caligo Hiibner, [1819], and Charaxes Ochsenheimer, 1816, and of the family-group names based thereon Saar. Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) : Page 95 106 112 117 132 134 138 140 Opinion 578 Use of the plenary powers to validate a neotype for the nominal species Cancer oculatus O. Fabricius, 1780, and to designate that species as the type-species of the nominal genus Mysis Latreille, [1802- 1803] (Class Crustacea, Order Mysidacea) re . " Opinion 579 Determination of the type-species of the nominal pease, Ancilla Lamarck, 1799 (Class Gastropoda) Opinion 580 Determination of authorship and date of the parts of the Histoire naturelle des Poissons by Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1828-1850 International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature : Report and Accounts for 1958 - Report on the generic name Delphax Fabricius, 1798 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) with proposals for its validation under the plenary powers. By R. V. Melville (Assistant mri International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Z = Proposed further use of the plenary powers in the case of the generic name Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 (Class Gastropoda). By R. V. Melville (Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ay =<. tea He Request for a ruling on the date of the generic name Hansenia Melichar (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). By R. G. Fennah parts wealth Institute of Entomology, London) ee “sh. Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name Idotea J. C. Fabricius, 1798 (Class Crustacea, Order Isopoda) and matters connected therewith. By Poul E. Heegaard (University of Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia) and L. B. Holthuis es van Natuur- lijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) he 3 a Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species for the nominal genus Macropsis Lewis, 1834, in accordance with accus- tomed use (Class Insecta, Order poceiran ae Wilhelm Wagner (Hamburg, Germany) 2 dell “ed Proposal to place the generic names Korynetes Herbst, (1792), and Necrobia Olivier, 1795, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By H. Boschma and the late K. W. Dammerman paceman van ene Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) wet oe sea ‘ Y 143 146 148 153 163 170 175 178 185 189 vill Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the generic name Promecopsis Duméril, 1806 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). By Wilhelm Wagner (Hamburg, Germany) bas #2 Proposed addition of the generic name Jasus Parker, 1883, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By L. B. Holthuis ie van N ie Historie, ame Netherlands) ; = Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the specific name dentipes Guérin, 1832, as published in the binomen Alpheus dentipes (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By L. B. Holthuis (Rijks- museum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) ‘iss Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name Parapenaeus S. I. Smith, 1885, and to interpret the nominal species Peneus membranaceus Risso, 1816 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By L. B. Holthuis (Rijemuseum van peice il Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) o ; Ses Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the oe an name longicorne Latreille, 1804, as published in the binomen Acrydium longicorne (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera). By D.K.McE. Kevan (Macdonald College, Province of Quebec, Canada) . : ae Request for a ruling on whether the generic name Diemictylus Rafinesque, 1820, or the generic name Notophthalmus Rafinesque, 1820, is to be used for the eastern North American newt (Class Amphibia). By Hobart M. Smith (Department of Geen whingiiies a Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) o Proposal to use the plenary powers to stabilise the names of the North European species belonging to the Tipula oleracea Group within the genus Jipula Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By A. M. Hemmingsen (Strédam Biological Laboratory, Hilleréd, Denmark) and Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) ... Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the generic name Spatagus O. F. Miiller, 1776 (Class Echinoidea). By R. V. Melville (Geological Survey & Museum, London) He eae Pas i zee Proposals concerning homonymous family-group names based on thé generic names Drepana Schrank, 1802 (Class Insecta, Order Lepi- doptera), and Drepanis Temminck, 1820 (Class Aves) ; request for the use of the plenary powers to suppress the generic name Drepanis Brisson, 1760. By Dean Amadon (American Musewm of Natural History, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) and John Franclemont Lip York State College of Agriculture, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) Page 191 193 197 199 203 205 209 214 220 Proposed addition of the generic name Archaeopteryx von Meyer, 1861, and the specific name lithographica von Meyer, 1861, as published in the binomen Archaeopteryx lithographica to the Official Lists (Class Aves). By W. E. Swinton (British Museum (Natural History), London) : me a re “~ oe shi Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the generic name Bvt M‘Coy, 1846 (Class Crustacea, Order Ostracoda). By P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (University of Leicester, England) and Stuart A. Levinson cnc Oil and ss ooh Co., Houston, Texas, U.S.A.) : Proposed use of the plenary powers to ae a type-species for the genus Sphaerocoryphe Angelin, 1854 (Class Trilobita) in harmony with accepted use. By C. J. Stubblefield (Geological Survey & Museum, London) and G. Henningsmoen (Paleontologisk Museum, Oslo) : ¥ tt i ee A 5 mo For comments see page 300. Request for a ruling as to whether Lichas aranea Holzapfel, 1895, is to be treated as a junior primary homonym of Lichas araneus Lindstrom, 1885 (Class Trilobita). By R. P. Tripp (Sevenoaks, Kent) ... Proposed addition of certain generic and specific names in the family PHASMATIDAE (Class Insecta, Order Phasmatodea) to the Official Lists and Indexes. By K. H. L. Key (Division of Entomology, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, Australia) Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the familiar usage of the generic name Tanytarsus Van der Wulp, 1874 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By Paul Freeman (British Museum (Natural History), London) a ee =e oe rea Kee aes For comments see page 343. Proposal to place the generic name Neoeuthyris Bretnall, 1921 (Phylum, Polyzoa) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. By Anna B. Hastings (British Museum (Natural History), London) ... Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate a neotype for Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758, the type-species of Graphoderus Dejean, 1833 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By J. Balfour-Browne (British Museum (Natural History), London) pe tps diz Proposed use of the plenary powers to vary the ruling given in Opinion 522 so as to preserve the generic name Acilius Leach, 1817 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By J. Balfour-Browne AEP Museum (Natural History), London) Me : fae id Ix Page 224 227 231 233 235 241 244 250 x Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the specific name dardanus Brown, 1776, as published in the binomen Papilio dardanus (Class Insecta, Order Si aE Sete By W. Parkinson Curtis (Bournemouth, England)... 4 af oh Proposals concerning homonymous family-group names based on Phaenomeris Hope, 1833 and Phaenomerus Schénherr, 1836 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By R. D. Pope (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) and R. T. ee arin Museum (Natural History), London) me Personnel of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : Election of two Commissioners... Obituary : Karl Jordan OPINIONS Opinion 581 Determination of the generic names for the fallow deer of Europe and the Virginia deer of America (Class Mammalia) Opinion 582 Validation of the generic name Pleurotomaria as from Defrance, 1826 (Class Gastropoda) Opinion 583 Validation of the generic name Creniphilus (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) as from Horn, 1890, and associated matters Opinion 584 Addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the specific name duponcheli Staudinger, 1871, as published in the binomen Leucophasia duponcheli (Class Insecta, Order eer eat and associated matters ve Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate a pres for the nominal genus Fenestella Lonsdale, 1839 (Class Bryozoa) in harmony with accustomed usage. By M. K. Elias and the late G. E. Condra (University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, U.S.A.) ..: Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species for the nominal genus Blankaartia Oudemans, 1911 (Acarina)*. By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary, International. Commission on itis Nomenclature) ~ : he wits Page 253 255 267 276 281 290 301 *The Editor regrets that by an oversight the word Nematoda was used on page 301 instead of Acarina. Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the generic name Macronema Stephens, 1829, so as to preserve the generic name Macronema Pictet, 1836 (Class Insecta, Order Trichoptera). By D. E. Kimmins (British Museum (Natural History), London) Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate Crocodilus palustris Lesson, 1831 (Reptilia). By Robert Mertens (Forschungs Institut und Natur-Museum, Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. Main, Germany) ... Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species for the nominal genus Strophalosia King, 1844, (Phylum Brachiopoda). By Helen M. Muir-Wood (British Museum Sai mks Proposed use of the plenary powers to revise Opinion 107 so as to stabilize the specific name minutus J. Buckman, 1845 (Echinus) (Class Echinoidea). By R. V. Melville (Assistant eae International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Mallophagan names of De Geer, 1778; proposed addition to official lists, By G. H. E. Hopkins and Theresa gs it Museum aan History), Tring and London) : as Ate Menopon Nitzsch, 1818 (Insecta, Mallophaga) and related names ; application for addition to official lists. By G. H. E. Hopkins and Theresa Clay (British Museum (Natural History), Tring and London) Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate a neotype for Pediculus dentatus Scopoli, 1763 (Insecta, Mallophaga). By G. H. E. Hopkins and Theresa Clay Sart Museum aa ee: Tring and London) an . Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate the nominal species Buccinum australe Gmelin, 1791, as type-species of the nominal genus Phasianella Lamarck, 1804 (Class Gastropoda). By L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London) . us sk Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the name Aedipoda pellarini Le Guillou, 1841 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera) as a nomen dubium. By K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and and Industrial Research Organization, Canberra, Australia)... Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species for Regina Baird & Girard, 1853 (Reptilia). By Hobart M. Smith and James E. Huheey (Department of Zoology and Museum of Natural History, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) 313 315 316 323 326 334 337 341 344 346 XII Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate Rhynchonella refractifrons Bittner, 1890, as the type-species of the nominal genus Norella Bittner, 1890 (Phylum Brachiopoda, Class Articulata). By D. V. Ager (Imperial College of Science and Technology, London)... es Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the specific name trigonalis R. Etheridge Jun., 1876, as published in the binomen Myalina ? trigonalis (Class Pelecypoda). By R. B. Wilson (Geo- logical Survey Office, Edinburgh, Scotland) me ie a International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature : Report and Accounts for 1959) ).... ou a fe a os a ne ee Index to Authors List of Decisions in this volume _ ... a i oe Ga tae Index to key names ... Names placed on Official Lists and Indexes in Decisions published in Volume 17 Corrigenda Particulars of dates of publication of the several Parts in which the present volume was published ... ie ; ae fae Instructions to Binders Page 349 357 353 359 360 361 376 379 380 380 Volume 17. Double Part 1-2 lst October, 1959 pp. 1-64 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE it 6 oct 1953 Edited by PURCHASED R. V. MELVILLE Assistant 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 the application published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1 Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in a certain case ... ait Fe + ome es Lee aoe ss 1 (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, 19, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1 1959 Price One Pound, Twelve Shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Professor James Chester BrapLEey (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARaAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12 August 1953) Secretary: Mr. N. D. Ritey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) Assistant Secretary: Mr. R. V. MELVILLE (c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7) 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) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AmMaRAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12 August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. Dymonp (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12 August 1953) Professor J. Chester BrapLey (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E, Voxes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) Professor Béla Hanx6é (Mezégazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12 August 1953) Dr. Norman R, Stoiu (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) a ae “f Hoxruuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12 August 5 Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15 October 1954) Dr. Alden H. Minuer (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (29 October 1954) es a Ferdinand Pranti (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30 October Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kiinnett (Zoologisches Institut der Universitét, Vienna, Austria) (6 November 1954) Professor F. S. BopENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11 November 1954) Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa- chusetts, U.S.A.) (4 December 1954) ache Enrico TorTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘ G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16 December Dr. Per. Bruxox (Lunds Universitets, Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958) Dr. Max Pott (Musée du Congo Belge, Tervuren, Belgium) (12 July 1958) Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (23 July 1958) Senor Dr. Angel Caprera (La Plata, Argentina) (23 July 1958) Mr. Francis Hemmune (London, England) (23 July 1958) Dr. Henning Lemcue (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958) Professor Pierre Bonnut (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Mr. Norman Denbigh Rixey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) (Secretary) Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaczewsxt (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur-Musewm u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Erich Martin Herne (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (23 July 1958) Dr. D. V. Osrvoney (Palacontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-71, USSR) (5 November 1958) Professor Tohru Ucuipa (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March 1959) BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 17, Double Part 1-2 (pp. 1-64) ___ 1st October, 1959 j . | ws \Y> =e of (a) Date of Commencement of Voting—In normal circumstances the Commission starts to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications in the present part is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretariat before the close of the six-month period. (b) Possible use of the Plenary Powers.—The possible use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers is involved in the following applications published in the present part of the Bulletin :— (1) Suppression of the generic names Orthoceros Briinnich, 1771 and Orthocera Modeer, 1789 so as to stabilise Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789 (Class Cephalopoda). Z.N.(S.) 44; (2) Suppression of the generic name Orthoceratites Lamarck, 1799 so as to conserve Hippurites Lamarck, 1801 (Class Pelecypoda). Z.N.(S.)1395 ; (3) Suppression of the generic names Prothechus and Alloneura Rondani, 1856 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). Z.N.(S.) 230; (4) Designation of a type-species for the nominal genus Beraea Stephens, 1833 (Class Insecta, Order Trichoptera). Z.N.(S.) 395 ; (5) Designation of a type-species for the nominal genus Apatania Kolenati, 1847 (Class Insecta, Order Trichoptera). Z.N.(S.) 427; (6) Designation of a type-species for the nominal genus Aphrophora Germar, 1821 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). Z.N.(S.) 478 ; (7) Validation of Drepanella in place of the generic name Depranella Ulrich, 1890 (Class Crustacea, Order Ostracoda). Z.N.(S.) 1112; (8) Validation of Westonoceras in place of the generic name Westenoceras Foerste, 1924 (Class Cephalopoda). Z.N.(S.) 1226 ; (9) Suppression of the specific name saccharivora Peterkin, 1790 (Phalaena) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1315. c/o British Museum (Natural History), RICHARD V. MELVILLE Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on lst October, 1959. Zoological Nomenclature 2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PERSONNEL OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Death of the Honorary Life-President of the Commission The Commission announces with great regret the death, on 12 January 1959, of their Honorary Life-President, Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. at the age of 97. Dr. Jordan was elected a member of the Commission at the Ninth International Congress of Zoology (Monaco, 1913) and presided at the sessions held in conjunction with the Congresses at Padua in 1930 and Lisbon in 1935. He was re-elected President of the Commission at Paris in 1948 but begged to be excused on the grounds of deafness, and was thereupon elected Honorary Life-President, as a mark of the affection and esteem in which he was held. An obituary notice of Dr. Jordan is being prepared by Mr. Francis Hemming and will be published in the Bulletin as soon as possible. Resignation of a Commissioner On 24 July 1958 Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (University of Sheffield, England) wrote to the Secretary to the Commission resigning from his position as a Commissioner. Election of three new Commissioners The following new members have been elected to the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down by the International Congress of Zoology, with effect from the dates shown in each case :— Dr. Max Poll, Chef de la Section des Vertébrés, Musée Royal du Congo Belge, Tervuren, Belgium (12 July 1958) Dr. Dmitri Obruchev, Professor of Palaeontology, Academy of Sciences, USSR, Moscow (5 November 1958) Dr. Tohru Uchida, Professor of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan (24 March 1959) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3 NOTICE The Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History) have allocated accommodation for the Commission’s office in the Museum. It will readily be appreciated that this will greatly facilitate the work of the Commission by reason of the unique library facilities and wide range of specialist advice available. The Commission desires to acknowledge publicly its gratitude to the Trustees for their generous action. Members of the Commission and correspondents are asked to note the new address of the Commission’s office given below. c/o British Museum (Natural History), N. D. RILEY, Cromwell Road, Honorary Secretary, London, 8.W.7, England. International Commission on 24 August 1959. Zoological Nomenclature. INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR 1957 The Balance Sheet and the Income and Expenditure Account for the year ended 3lst December 1957 are appended hereto and they are accompanied by the certificate of the auditors, Messrs. W. B. Keen & Co. of London. It will be seen that the financial resources of the Trust increased during the year by £2,800 and the total assets of the Trust at the end of the year were in excess of £10,000 for the first time. During the year provision was made for the expenditure which would necessarily fall on the funds of the International Trust in connection with the International Congress of Zoology to be held in London in the summer of 1958. The Committee of Management acknowledges with gratitude a donation of £178 11s. 5d. from U.N.E.S.C.O. per the International Union for Biological Sciences. INTERNATIONAL TRUST FO Incorporated under the Companie! Balance Sheet— Revenue Reserves (per separate accounts)— 436 ** Official List ’’ Suspense Account... ad oh. 18940 o 98 Office Equipment Reserve ste sare ee - - - 6,077 Income and Expenditure Account—Balance ... 8,879 1 2 6,611 9,668 11 ' Provision for Cost of Revision of International Code— “International Code (Publication) Suspense 677 Account (per separate account) eae ath Provision for Cost of Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature— — Colloquium Suspense Account (per separate account) ... nae ae eae ele a 742 6 Liabilities— | 167 Sundry Creditors... ae os ee mA. 135 943 £7,455 £10,546 7 REPORT We have obtained all the information and explanations which to the best of our knowledge and belief from our examination of those books. We have examined the above Balance Sheet and accompanying Inco: our information and according to the explanations given us, the said accounts give the information required by ti Trust’s affairs at 31st December 1957, and the Income and Expenditure Account gives a true and fair view of Frxspury Crracus Hovssz, BLOMFIELD STREET, Lonpbon, E.C.2. 4th February 1958. OLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE et 1929 (Limited by Guarantee) st December, 1957 1956 £ £ £ 1S etes a AT > a Fema | CBee a Fixed Assets— Office Equipment— Book value at Ist July 1948 325 and additions since at cost 377 ll 8 159 Less Depreciation ... aoa AST. 2S Amount written off from Office Equip- — ment Reserve See 97 16 8 159 — —— 27819 5 166 — —_—__—_— 98 12 3 Current Assets— 2,900 Amounts due for Publications valued at... sos 8,000" -OF 20 4,389 Balance at Bank and Cash in Hand ee ... 6,947 15 4 7,289 ——— 10,447 15 4 (Note—Stock of Publications not valued) FRANCIS HEMMING Members of the Committee FRANCIS J. GRIFFIN of Managemont £10,546 7 7 AUDITORS. for the purposes of our audit. In our opinion proper books of account have been kept, so far as appears E diture Account, which are in agreement with the books of account. In our opinion and to the best of panies Act, 1948 in the manner so required, and the Balance Sheet gives a true and fair view of the state of the cess of Income over Expenditure for the year ended on that date. (Signed) W. B. KEEN & CO., Chartered Accountants. Income and Expenditure Account f | INCOME 1956 £ £ £ sd £ 8 To Sales of Publications— 7,235 Opinions and Declarations ... And ... 8,651 14 6 3,703 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature... 52 8 6:035. fas Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomen- —- clature se ee she tae veo LOO ae 10,938 — ————_ 14,813 16 Z », Donations ane neg Ge oe 20 64 5 » Grant from U.N.E.S.C.O. per the International 357 Union for Biological Sciences : 178 11 £11,299 £15,056 13 2,631 To Balance brought down » Balance at 3lst December 1956 brought 4,467 forward Pee se me bin Se 6,076 14 £7,098 £11,879: I “ Official List *} 500 To Transfer from Income and Expenditure Account 1,000 0 « 536 » Balance at 31st December 1956 brought forward 436 3 i £1,036 £1,436 3 98 To Balance at 31st December 1956 brought forward £98 ine year ended 31st December 1957 EXPENDITURE 1956 £ Sensei i ess. Sen sad. By Administration Expenses— £ Salaries— 715 Administrative Officers ... 1,102 13 1 547 Others sae .. 40519 6 1,262 — —————._ 1,508 12 7 1,282 Office Expenses nae nee 963 10 6 52 Audit Fee... aes bes 52 10 0 2,596 2,524 13 1 Less: Proportion allocated to 100 ** Official List’? ... 100 0 0 ‘* International 30 Code” ... ee --- — “Colloquium” ... 30 0 0 130 — ——————_ 130 0 0 2,466 —————— 2,394 13 1 18 », Depreciation of Office Equipment ... cae 2116 6 » Publications— 4,234 Opinions and Declarations ... EG ... 4,982 10 11 1,950 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature on, A ODOL UT 27. Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological —- Nomenclature ade te apn ... 20414 2 6,184. ———— ————. 6,837 16 8 », Balance carried down, being Excess of Income 2,631 over Expenditure for year wats ave 5,802 6 11 11,299 £15,056 13 2 > ea By Additional Audit Fee 1955... sia male --- » Transfer to— 500 ‘* Official List ’’ Suspense Account . 1,000 0 0 ** International Code (Publication) ” Sus- 500 pense Account : ron shi -- - — Colloquium Suspense Account cis ... 2,000 0 0O 1,000 ——— ———. 3,000 0 0 6,077 », Balance carried forward per Balance Sheet... 8,879 1 2 £7,098 £11,879 1 2 ‘puspense Account By Expenditure during year— 500 Salaries and Office Expenses ... .. 546 12 10 100 Proportion of Administration Expenses aso OO) OE O — ————— 646 12 10 »» Balance at 3lst December 1957 carried forward per Balance Sheet nee Cae oe oa 789 10 5 £1,436 3 3 ent Reserve By Amount written off Office Equipment .. 97 16 8 », Balance at 3lst December 1957 carried Saeed per Balance Sheet hes eee “rr Biers --- £97 16 8 3 91 919°C a & 91 9L9°CS 6 9 PEL jooyg sounyeg iod premio pores a LEGIT Joqmesay 4STg 48 oouRfeg “ 2 Li ae ra 8 EG" — (ST ‘TOA ‘omye[oucMION, [BoIdoJoo7Z jo uyorng) sodeg epuesy ssordu0p pure unmborjor — G61 £96 (FI ‘TOA ‘omnyepousmoN peorsoy -007 Jo uNjoT[Ng) ,, onbis0jo07 eIN4R[OUSWON BI Op sopeuoTyeU -19jUT ~seldoy,, oy} JO 4yviq —suryung Cele = 0 0 0g eee tee eee eee sosued. -Xq] WOIeIystUIUIpY Jo uol410do1g 0 0 000° 3UnodDY omzIpuedxy puv omMooUT WO Joysueay, “ = — 6 I Sip" sosuedxq ooyQ puv solereg Z 91 9L9 a TX “* gunoooy esuedsng ,, (u019 —ivok Sump omyipuedxgy Ag “BOl[GNd) epoy [VUolywUIEZUT ,, WOIy JoysuvIT, OF, — junoovoy esuedsng ummborog G 91 9L9S PLOTS & 91 9L9F PLOTS --- "= gaayg eourpeg £L9 Jod pieMio0j pole 1 CET Joquies0(qy 4STE 4B oouvjeg “* % 91 9L9 aac gunosoy osuodsng twunmborjog 0% sojsuery, “ i a Sh 7 ee eae ar 7 468 - - - ‘ sosuodxq uoryer4 0g -slulipy jo uomsodorg a i oar” 908 re sosuodx' air oon tte eae hg Z 91 OL9 pxvasoy gyFnosq gogr Joqmooog ysTg ye ooUNEG “ pF LE —aeok Sump omyrpuedxsay Ag -- - qunoooy omyipuodxy pue ouoouy wor JojsuvIy, OF OO Pie Pes ow $ $ 5 Aa $ 9°61 9961 junoooy esuedsng ,, (uoHeoTqng) epog jeuoneueUy ,, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAMES ORTHOCE ROS BRUUNICH, 1771, AND ORTHOCERA MODEER, 1789, SO AS TO STABILISE THE GENERIC NAME ORTHO- CERAS BRUGUIERE, 1789 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER NAUTILOIDEA). Z.N.(S.) 44 By R. V. Melville (Assistant Secretary, International Commission on . Zoological Nomenclature) Part 1. Historical Survey The present report is based on a draft prepared some years ago by Mr. Francis Hemming, late Secretary to the Commission, in response to a request addressed to him by the Commission at their Paris (1948) meeting. On that occasion, the Commission agreed (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 307-310) to render an Opinion (eventually Opinion 236, Ops. Decls. Int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 329-342) stating that the generic names published by Briimnich (M.T.), 1771, in his Zoologiae Fundamenta are available names under the Code. At the same time, it was agreed to defer a decision on the status of the name Orthoceros Briinnich, 1771, pending consultations with palaeontologists. The question of the status of Briinnich’s work had been put to the Commission by the late Mr. R. Winckworth (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 113-117), but the particu- lar problem discussed here had been brought before the Commission in a slightly different form as long ago as 1930 by Dr. A. K. Miller (now of University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, U.S.A.). The first part of the present paper (para- graphs 1 to 18) describes the history of the case in the Commission’s office since the receipt of Dr. Miller’s application and is of historical interest as showing how progressive improvements in the Rules have increased the power and flexibility of the means at the Commission’s disposal for dealing with complicated issues. Concrete proposals for dealing with the situation now disclosed are put forward in the later part of the report. 2. In his communication, Dr. Miller pointed out that the name Orthoceras had been for many years generally in use for an extinct group of long, straight, nautiloid cephalopods and attributed to Breynius, 1732. Apart from the fact that this author’s work is not available for use in zoological nomenclature (having been published before 1758), the name which he used was not Orthoceras but Orthoceratites. This latter name was also used by Gesner in 1758 (a non- binominal author) to denote both nautiloid cephalopods and Nodosaria-like foraminifera with straight, elongate shells. The first author to publish Orthoceras as an available name was Bruguiére (1789 ; Ency. méth., Hist. nat. Vers, pt. i: xvi) as follows: ‘““ORTHOCERATE.—Orthoceras. Coquille conique, composée de cloisons transverses, & d’une gouttiére sur un des cétés, louverture fermée par un opercule.” No species were then included in the genus, but (according to Dr. Miller) Bory de St. Vincent in 1824 (Tabl. ency. méth., Helminth. ou vers infusoires, etc.) listed ‘“Orthocera raphanus Lamk. VII. 593 ” and “Orthocera legyumen Lamk. VII. 595 ”’ and these species are figured in Plate 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 465 of Lamarck’s Tabl. ency. méth., etc. as Nautilus raphanus and Nautilus legumen respectively. Dr. Miller also stated that in 1799 and 1822 Lamarck applied the generic names Orthocera and Orthoceratites to foraminifera. The position was, therefore, that a generic name in constant general use in nautiloid cephalopods should have been applied to foraminifera, not only in the spelling Orthoceras, but also in the closely similar spellings Orthocera and Orthoceratites, and Dr. Miller asked “ whether the rules should be rigidly followed in this case, or whether the Commission should be asked to establish a cephalopod type for Orthoceras, since the name has become so deeply embedded in cephalopod literature ”’. 3. Dr. Miller’s case had not been put before the Commission for a ruling at the time when Mr. Hemming became Secretary to the Commission in 1936, and it was not found possible to complete it before the outbreak of war in 1939. In 1944, Mr. Hemming re-opened the case and came to the conclusion that, on the data presented by Dr. Miller in 1930, the only means whereby the name Orthoceras could be validated for a genus of cephalopods would have been by the suppression, under the Plenary Powers, of Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789 (as applied to a genus of foraminifera) and all subsequent uses of that name prior to its first use in an available sense for a genus of cephalopods. Apart, however, from the difficulty of establishing by whom, when and where the name had been so applied, there was the possibility that, by the date in question, some other generic name might have been published for the same cephalopod taxon, in which case that other name would also have had to be suppressed in order to validate the accustomed use of Orthoceras. Alternatively, the Commission might have been asked to designate a cephalopod species to be the type- species of Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789, but clearly very strong grounds would have been needed to justify the use of the Plenary Powers to transfer a nominal genus from one phylum to another while retaining its original authorship and priority. 4. Mr. Hemming had therefore begun to look about for some other method of dealing with Dr. Miller’s problem when the submission of the late Mr. Winckworth’s application in relation to the status of the generic names in Briinnich’s Zoologiae Fundamenta seemed to offer the possibility of a new approach. Briimnich used the generic name Orthoceros (not Orthoceras) for a genus of cephalopods, and since he referred no species to any of his genera, their respective type-species fell at that time to be determined in accordance with the principles laid down in Opinion 46. Pending a decision by the Commission on the general question of the availability of Briinnich’s generic names, Mr. Hemming enquired of interested specialists whether they would accept a solution of the problem which involved the adoption of the name Orthoceros as the name to be used for the group of species generally, but as it then appeared incorrectly, referred to by the name Orthoceras. 5. In August 1944, Mr. Hemming therefore wrote further to Dr. Miller and also sought the advice of Dr. C. J. Stubblefield (Geological Survey & Museum, London) and the late Dr. L. F. Spath, with the results set out below. 6. Dr. Stubblefield drew attention in his reply (dated 1 September 1944) to two important developments in the case which had not come to the notice Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 11 of the Commission. The first was a paper by Miller (A.E.), Dunbar (C.O.) & Condra (G.E.) (1933, Bull. Nebraska Geol. Surv. (2) 9 : 58-65) where the status of Orthoceras was discussed and illustrated. The second was a paper by Miller & Teichert (C.) (1936, Amer. J. Sci. 31 : 352-362) in which they concluded that ‘“‘no species had ever been referred to Orthoceras that comes ‘ under the generic description as originally published ’ and therefore none can be chosen as genotype ” (: 353-354). They therefore rejected Miller, Dunbar & Condra’s designation of Orthoceratites regularis Schlotheim, 1820 as the type-species, and pointed out that the conservation of Orthoceras for a genus of cephalopods, while desirable on grounds of usage, would involve the suppression of five valid uses of that name. They then stated a case for the adoption of Orthoceros Briinnich, 1771 for the genus in question, and suggested that Orthoceratites regularis Schlotheim might be chosen as its type-species. They did not think it either ‘‘ necessary or desirable ’’ to change the spelling to Orthoceras (: 360). They stated further that Bruguiére’s description of Orthoceras was almost identical with Lamarck’s descriptions of Orthoceratites (1799) and of the well- known lamellibranch genus Hippurites (1801). Dr. Stubblefield also mentioned a later note by Teichert & Miller (1938, Amer. J. Sci. 35 : 143-144) pointing out that the first author to use Orthoceras exclusively for cephalopods was Deshayes (1831) in connection with the single species O. simplex from the “terrain de transition” of Belgium. Dr. W. G. van Leckwijk, of Brussels, kindly tells me (in lit. 10.2.59) that this species is unknown and that its name has never come into general use. 7. Dr. Stubblefield’s own view on the general question was expressed as follows: ‘‘. . . You ask whether I think that confusion would result, either in systematic work or in the teaching of invertebrate zoology, if the name Orthoceras were transferred from the Mollusca to the Protozoa. I would reply that Orthoceras used as a name for a cephalopod is one of the few genera of fossils mentioned in Parker & Haswell’s Text-book of Zoology, 1910 edition ; the name is similarly used in almost all the text-books of invertebrate Palae- ontology ; I know of no exception. I would say also that a similar usage will be found in any text-book dealing with the general stratigraphy of the Palaeo- zoic rocks. In my opinion, the transference of this name to the Protozoa would create confusion, and, I am inclined to think, ridicule among those impatient of nomenclatorial matters. The name Orthoceras has given rise to such systematic terms as ‘ Orthoceroid ’, ‘ Orthoceratid’ and ‘ orthocone’ ; these would presumably create confusion in the Protozoa and Cephalopod literature if a change were to be made. In conclusion, personally were I asked, I would prefer that a suspension of the rules be allowed and that Orthoceras (rather than Orthoceros) be retained for the well-known cephalopod ; in any case, with the present restriction of genera to those species close to the chosen type species, in systematic work the use of the name would be much more restricted than in the last century ; but Orthoceras would remain a useful, easily remembered name for the field geologist.”’ 8. Dr. Spath, in a letter dated 4 September 1944, expressed the view that it would be unwise for the Commission to use the Plenary Powers in the present case at least until a type-species for Orthoceras had been validly selected. He 12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature added that it was ‘probable that between 1758 and 1789 some earlier author, unknown to Miller or Teichert, used the name Orthoceras Breyn, 1732 (which was excellently figured) in a binary form ”’ and that “ the name Orthoceras as used in all modern text-books, is without exact meaning ; it is used as a synonym of ‘ orthocone’ or a straight nautiloid, and will continue to be so used, what- ever the Commission may find, simply because it is so deeply embedded in geological literature ”’. 9. Dr. Miller, in a letter dated 19 September 1944, said that, in view of the developments which had taken place, the statement that he had put before Dr. Stiles in 1930 would need to be thoroughly revised, and he proposed to confer with Dr. Teichert on this subject as soon as his other commitments allowed. 10. The late Mr. Winckworth’s application concerning the status of the generic names in Briinnich’s Zoologiae Fundamenta was published in 1945 (see paragraph 1 above) and was illustrated by a facsimile reproduction of p. 246 of Briinnich’s work, containing, among other things, the diagnosis of the new genus Orthoceros. Mr. Winckworth suggested that the close adherence by Briinnich to the descriptions given by Linnaeus in the 10th and 12th editions of the Systema Naturae made it possible to determine the species which he regarded as belonging to his genera. Briinnich, whose work consists of what would now be regarded as a series of simple keys, placed Orthoceros next to Nautilus Linnaeus, 1758, and by abstracting from the key, the description can be seen to be: “‘ Testaceum, Univalve ; Multiloculare, Siphone interiori communicans, Spirale rotundatum ”. Mr. Winckworth concluded that “ the type must be one of the species numbered 240-249 in the section “ Elongati erectiusculi”’ of the genus Nawtilus Linnaeus, 1758”, and added that he did not ‘think that Nautilus orthocera Linnaeus, 1758 (sp. no. 249) should be regarded as the type by absolute tautonymy, for Briinnich’s work is not con- cerned with fossils ’’. 11. The publication of Mr. Winckworth’s paper prompted Dr. Curt Teichert to write to the Commission in January 1946, and to comment as follows on Mr. Winckworth’s suggestion for determining the species which should be regarded as having been originally included by Briimnich in his new genera : “To attempt to find out what species Briinnich might have had in mind when he established this and other generic names seems to be hopeless and irrelevant. The name Orthoceros is, therefore, available for any more or less straight, elongate, multilocular, univalve mollusc with an internal siphuncle. Since such forms are not known living, it cannot be said that Briinnich’s work is not concerned with fossils. Teichert and Miller stated i.e. in the paper published in 1936 that the name Orthoceros had apparently never been used in connection with a specific name and that, therefore, according to Opinion 46, any species, for example Orthoceratites regularis Schlotheim, 1820, might be selected as the type-species of this genus. Teichert and Miller took care not to select Orthoceratites regularis Schlotheim formally as the type-species of Orthoceros. This procedure was suggested, and even recommended as a distinct possibility, but it was desired to test the feelings of palaeontologists first. In 1944, Ulrich, Foerste, Miller & Unklesbay (Geol. Soc. Amer. Special Paper Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13 58 : 60) stated: ‘The genotype of Orthoceros is Orthoceratites regularis Schlotheim ...’, but it seems doubtful whether this pronouncement constitutes a valid act of ‘ selecting ’ the type-species. More probably it does not, because as it stands, the statement is incorrect ; no type-species had been definitely chosen in 1944.” 12. At that date it seemed clear, by virtue of the ruling given in Opinion 46, (a) that Ulrich, Foerste, Miller & Unklesbay had definitely referred the nominal species Orthoceratites regularis Schlotheim, 1820 to Orthoceros, (b) that this, which was the only species referred to the genus by those authors, was the first species to be so referred, and therefore (c) that their designation of that species as the type-species of Orthoceros was valid. After further correspondence, Mr. Hemming wrote to Dr. Teichert and Dr. Miller in January 1947 to ascertain whether, if the Commission accepted that view, the resulting addition of Orthoceros to the Official List with the species named as type- species would offer a satisfactory solution to the problem. The following statements are extracted from their replies: (a) from Dr. Miller’s letter dated 8 February 1947 : “‘ I believe that it would be very desirable for the Commission to place the generic name Orthoceros Brimnich, 1771, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and establish as its type-species Orthoceratites regularis Schlotheim, 1820. Such procedure would, as you anticipated, eliminate the need for any action to be taken on the application which in 1930 I submitted to the Commission through the late Dr. C. W. Stiles.’ (b) from Dr. Teichert’s letter dated 11th March 1947 : “‘ Your interpretation of the position with regard to the name Orthoceros Brinnich, 1771, is quite correct. There is no doubt in my mind that Brimnich’s names are valid names and therefore that no special action is required to give them official standing. The case of Orthoceros is a special one, because it is a genus without a type-species. The suggestion of Teichert & Miller to select Orthoceratites regularis Schlotheim, 1820, as the type-species still stands and it would be a good thing if the Commission finalised this choice.” 13. No further advance was made with the case before the Commission met in Paris in July 1948, when it was decided (see paragraph 1 above) to render an Opinion stating that Briimnich’s generic names in the Zoologiae Fundamenta (1771) are available names. The Commission next considered each of the new names involved. Mr. Hemming stated that Mr. Winckworth maintained his former view that Orthoceros ought to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers on the ground that Briinnich had not dealt with fossils in the work in question ; he drew attention to the contrary view expressed by Dr. Teichert and Dr. Miller and suggested that a decision should be deferred until the views of palae- ontologists were more fully known. The Commission accepted this suggestion and asked Mr. Hemming to prepare a report on the proposed consultations as quickly as possible, for submission to the Commission (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 ; 312-313). 14, Acting under the decision recorded in the previous paragraph, Mr. Hemming proceeded to consider (i) what was the position of the generic name Orthoceros Briinnich, 1771 under the Code as amended by the Paris (1948) Congress ? and (ii) was this position such as would meet the general wishes 14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of palaeontologists by promoting stability of nomenclature in nautiloid cephalopods ? 15. The first question finds its answer in the decision of the Commission at at its Paris meeting to recommend the addition of a provision to the Régles stating (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 159-160) ‘“‘that where, prior to 1 January 1931, a generic name was published for a genus established (a) with an indication, definition or description, (b) with no nominal species distinctly referred to it, the first nominal species to be subsequently referred to it by the same or another author is to be deemed to have been an originally included species and that species automatically becomes the type-species of the genus in question ’’, and to cancel the decisions in Opinion 46, other than the decision just recorded. At a subsequent meeting (ibid. : 346) the Commission recommended the addition of words to that provision to cover the case in which, on the first occasion when any nominal species Were referred to such a genus, two or more species were so referred. These recommendations were approved by the Section on Nomenclature and by the Congress. The effect of these decisions on the generic name Orthoceros Briinnich, 1771 is that its status is exactly what it had before been supposed to be by Mr. Hemming (see paragraph 12 above), namely that Orthoceratites regularis Schlotheim, 1820 was the type-species of that genus by monotypy through the designation by Ulrich, Foerste, Miller & Unklesbay in 1944. 16. The next point to be considered was whether the name Orthoceros was subject to automatic correction by reason of having been incorrectly formed. The Rev. Professor L. W. Grensted (Consulting Classical Adviser to the Commission) pointed out that the word “ orthoceros”’, like the word “rhinoceros”, is a correctly formed Greek adjective, and that dpdxepws actually occurs as an adjective in classical Greek. He went on to say that the adjectival form dp@éxepws (orthoceros, straight-horned) and the substantive form dp6éxepus (orthoceras, straighthorn) are both equally correct from the point of view of Greek word-formation. The Latin words used as generic names are here formed by direct transliteration from the Greek. The word “ ortho- cera ”’, on the other hand, is not a transliteration (for no such word is possible in Greek), but a latinisation, and must be treated as a purely Latin (or Neo- Latin) word from the grammatical point of view, as which it is perfectly accept- able as a generic name. It is therefore clear that the generic name Orthoceros Briinnich, 1771 is not subject to correction by reason of having been incorrectly formed in any way. 17. It must here be pointed out that, under the Law of Homonymy as amended at Copenhagen in 1953 (Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 78 paragraph 152), the generic names Orthoceros, Orthoceras and Orthocera are not homonyms of one another, but must be treated as separate available names. 18. In considering the second of the two questions referred to in paragraph 14, it is sufficient in the first instance to recall what has been said in earlier paragraphs of this report, namely that Dr. Teichert and Dr. Miller both held the view that the group of species formerly known by the generic name Orthoceras, should in future be known by the generic name Orthoceros Briimnich, 1771, and that that nominal genus should have as its type-species Orthoceratites Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 15 regularis Schlotheim, 1820 (paragraph 12 above): and that Dr. Stubblefield and the late Dr. Spath held that means should be found to preserve the generic name Orthoceras for use in cephalopods, since the name itself and morphological and systematic terms derived from it are deeply embedded not only in systematic literature, but also in general textbooks of zoology, palaeozoology and strati- graphy and in the current language of field-geologists. They added that, in their separate opinions, Orthoceras would continue to be used whatever the Commission might decide (paragraphs 7 and 8 above). Part 2. The Present Situation until the 1840’s (e.g. d’Orbigny, 1835-47, Voyage dans lV’ Amérique méridional). Fleming (1828, 4 H istory of British Animals) divided the genus Orthocera into two groups, corresponding approximately to recent foraminifera and fossil cephalopods respectively. Thus it is possible to claim that the intentions of an early author would be treated with equal respect, whether a cephalopod or a foraminiferan type species were used as a means for giving objective definition to any of the generic names Orthocera, Orthoceras or Orthoceratites. 21. The third point is one that arises out of the last, and is connected with the arguments presented in paragraph 18 above by Dr. Stubblefield and the late Dr. Spath. The group of straight, elongate nautiloids generally known as even ancestral group, from which the far more numerous spirally coiled cephalopods are held to have descended. Thus, students of the evolutionary process are apt to find, in any work which refers to the evolution of cephalopods, that a fundamental position is allotted to a group denoted by the name 16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Orthoceras. From being quoted in this sort of context, the name has acquired wide and long-established currency in the teaching of palaeozoology and in books of a semi-popular character on the history of animal life; in which there are few episodes more dramatic than the rise and fall of the Cephalopods. 22. It is thus clear that there are strong reasons of an empirical kind why the Commission should take the necessary steps to preserve the generic name Orthoceras as an available name in cephalopods. In view, however, of Dr. Miller’s statement (see paragraph 2 above) that the name should properly be used in the foraminifera, I thought it necessary to enquire of workers in that group whether they recognised the name as the valid name of a genus of fora- minifera or not. The replies received, from which quotations are given in Annexe 1 below, show that Orthoceras is not so regarded, and that workers in foraminifera would not only strongly oppose its adoption in their group, but would also, as palaeontologists with a wider interest in the subject, emphatically wish that name to be preserved in its accustomed sense. While these enquiries were proceeding, I examined personally the circumstances surrounding the generic name Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789 and found these to be different from what they had been stated in good faith to be by Dr. Miller. The facts are set out in the following paragraph. 23. The status of the name Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789 (see paragraph 2 above) under the Code is made clear by a chronological statement of the events connected with the name : 1789. Bruguiére opened the volume of the Ency. méth. on “ Vers, coquilles et polypiers ” with a “Tableau systématique”’ setting out his classification and giving diagnoses of the genera and their species as far as the letter “CG”, but he died (in 1799) before publishing any further part of the work, which was continued under the supervision of Lamarck. 1799. Lamarck (Mém. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 1:80) proposed the genus Orthocera with Nautilus raphanus Linnaeus, 1758 as type species by monotypy. (The generic name was an invalid homonym of Orthocera Modeer, 1789.) 1816. A fascicle of plates of the Tableau ency. méth. including pls. 391-488 was issued under Lamarck’s supervision. This included a sixteen-page “Liste des objets représentés dans les planches de cette livraison (attributed to [Lamarck], [1816] by Sherborn & Woodward, 1906, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) 17 : 577) in which figs. 2 and 3 of pl. 465 are listed as “Orthocera raphanus” and ‘“‘Orthocera legumen”’. The two points to note in this reference are, first that the generic name used is Orthocera (i.e. of Lamarck, 1799), not Orthoceras; and secondly, that the plates of this fascicle, with the accompanying “ Liste’, were issued in advance of their related text. ‘ 1822. Lamarck redescribed his genus Orthocera in vol. 7 of his Hist. nat. Anim. s. Vert. and referred six species to it, including Orthocera raphanus (: 593) and Orthocera legumen (: 595). There is no doubt that Lamarck is here using his own generic name of 1799. k 1824. Bory de St. Vincent (Tabl. ency. méth.) published a new set of explanations of the plates published in 1816, in which pl. 465, figs. 2 and 3 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17 are explained as “‘Orthocera raphanus Lamk. VII. 593” and “Orthocera legumen Lamk. VII. 595”. The references are to the Hist. nat. Anim. s. Vert. quoted above, and the genus concerned is not Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789, but Orthocera Lamarck, 1799. 24. It does not appear that Bruguiére’s genus Orthoceras was ever dealt with in the text of the work in which the name was first published. In volume 3 of the “ Vers” in the Ency. méth., written by G. P. Deshayes and published in 1832, the following appears on p. 627 under Nodosaria : “‘ On ne peut trop savoir quelle a été l’opinion de Bruguiére a l’égard de ce genre : parmi le petit nombre de genres qu’il a démembrés des Nautiles de Linné, il semble que ce seroit plutét 4 celui qu’il a nommé Orthocére qu’il appartiendroit qu’a tout autre.” The difficulty in interpreting this statement lies in the fact that the French vernacular word ‘“ Orthocére ” was generally used as the equivalent of Orthocera rather than of Orthoceras (‘‘ Orthocérate ”), but it appears that Deshayes considered Orthoceras Bruguiére as representing a genus of foramini- fera, whereas Dr. Cox, in his application relating to Hippurites (p. 000 below) considers that the description accompanying the name might well apply to a Rudistid lamellibranch, and Dr. Eames has remarked to me that that description could not possibly apply to any known species of foraminifera. Later (: 673), Deshayes remarks : “Il faut se souvenir enfin que, dans quelques méthodes, toutes ces choses si diverses, portant des noms & peu prés semblables, [i.e. Orthocera, Orthoceras, Orthoceratites] sont confondues quelquefois dans un seul genre, et quelquefois dans une méme famille : cette famille, pour augmenter la confusion sans doute, porte aussi le nom d’Orthocéres ou d’Orthocérées. Pour éviter une telle confusion, nous adoptons complétement le genre Nodosaire de M. d’Orbigny ; nous adoptons également dans son entier le genre Orthocérate de M. Sowerby, nommé a tort Orthocére par M. d’Orbigny, et nous rejetons tout le reste comme nuisible & la science par las confusion extréme que cela y apporte.”” It is clear from these two passages that Deshayes regarded Orthoceras Bruguiére as a nomen dubium and that he proposed to attribute that name to Sowerby, who had in fact used Orthocera for straight nautiloid cephalopods. It is also clear that Deshayes did not attribute any nominal species to Bruguiére’s genus. 25. The generic name Orthoceras was used, apparently as a new name and without citation of any earlier author, by the following: Batsch, A. I. G. C., 1791, Sechs Kupfertafeln mit Conchylien des Seesandes, in relation to fourteen named species of foraminifera ; Spalovsky, J. J. N. A., 1795, Prodromus in Syst. nat. Hist. Test. in connection with one named species of foraminifera ; Schrank, F. von P. von, 1796, Sammi. nat. phys. Aufsatz, for a dipteran insect ; Perry, G., 1811, Conch. nat. Hist. Shells, in relation to a named foraminiferan and a doubtful organism ; Blainville, H. M. D. de, 1825, Man. Malac., for two straight nautiloids and four foraminifera ; Deshayes, G. P., 1831, Deser. Coquilles caract. Terrains, for a straight nautiloid ; and Phillips, J., 1836, Jil. Geol. Yorks. for eighteen species of straight nautiloids. Subsequent nineteenth century authors all used the name for straight nautiloids and attributed the name to the pre-Linnean author Breyn, 1732, sometimes spelt Breynius. No reference has anywhere been found prior to that mentioned in the next 18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature paragraph that could be construed as the attribution of any nominal species to Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789. 26. It has been explained in paragraphs 4 to 15 above how it was thought that Orthoceros Briinnich, 1771 could, by the designation of a suitable type- species, be used in place of Orthoceras auctorum, and how Orthoceratites regularis was so designated by Ulrich, Foerste, Miller & Unklesbay in 1944. This same treatment had, however, already been given to Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789 by Miller, Dunbar & Condra in 1933, although it had been rejected by Teichert & Miller (1936) on the ground that Schlotheim’s species did not come under Bruguiére’s generic diagnosis in the terms of Opinion 46, in spite of the efforts made by Miller, Dunbar & Condra to show that that requirement was in fact met. There is no doubt that, under existing rules, the action taken by those authors in 1933 is valid and definitive, for they were the first authors to refer any nominal species to Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789, and the fact that only a single species (Orthoceratites regularis Schlotheim, 1820) was so referred makes that species automatically the type-species, even if the authors concerned had not expressly stated this to be the case. Orthoceros Brimnich, 1771, first defined in terms of a nominal species by Ulrich and others in 1944, is thus a senior objective synonym of Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789, and it is suggested that the Commission should use its Plenary Powers to suppress the former in the interests of conserving Orthoceras in its accustomed sense. 27. The statements made in the preceding paragraph are made on the basis of an extensive search of the literature and are true so far as is known. Nevertheless, the literature on orthocone nautiloids is extensive and world- wide, and it is possible that some work may have been overlooked in which species were definitely referred to Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789 prior to the work of Miller, Dunbar & Condra, 1933 referred to. In order to place the interpreta- tion of Orthoceras on a finally secure basis, therefore, the Commission is asked to set aside, by using its Plenary Powers, all designations of a type-species for that genus made prior to the ruling now requested and, having done so, to designate Orthoceratites regularis Schlotheim, 1820 as the type species. 28. Dr. Teichert has kindly drawn my attention to a recent paper in Russian by S. G. Balashov (1956, Ezhegodnik Vsesoyusnogo Obshsch. 15 : 223-241). No full translation of the extensive historical discussion in this paper is at present available, but it seems clear that Balashov concludes that Orthoceros Briinnich, 1771 is to be treated as a synonym of, and emended to, Orthoceras, and that the latter name is to be given priority as from 1771. If this is a correct reading of the work, then Orthoceras Balashov, 1956 is an invalid emenda- tion of Orthoceros Briinnich, 1771. 29. With regard to the type-species of Orthoceras, it may be pointed out that the taxonomic concept represented by the name, which at one time included all Palaeozoic straight nautiloids, has been progressively restricted by the establishment of other nominal genera for parts of the broader idea. It is therefore important that, if the generic name is to be stabilised by reference to a cephalopod species, the use of those other generic names should not be disturbed. Owing to the comparatively recent origin of the discussion of the history and status of the name, this aspect of the question is well covered, for Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 19 Orthoceratites regularis Schlotheim, 1820, which, as shown in paragraph 26 above, is the type-species of the genus under the Rules, is considered by specialists in the group to be typical of the genus in the restricted sense. This is shown by the fact that it was designated as the type-species not only by Miller, Dunbar & Condra, 1933, but also by Ulrich, Foerste, Miller & Unklesbay, 1944 (for Orthoceros) and by Balashov, 1956. It is clear also that Teichert & Miller, 1936 regarded the species in the same light. Moreover, the species was fully described and illustrated by Troedsson (1931, Lunds Univ. Arsskr. N.F. Avd. 2, 28) who selected a lectotype from Schlotheim’s collection. No special action is therefore needed to provide Orthoceras, if accepted as a cepha- lopod genus, with a type-species in harmony both with current usage and with the Rules. 30. At the family-group level, it is found that names have been founded both on Orthoceras and on Orthoceros. It is proposed to disregard the French vernacular word “‘ Les Orthocérées ” on account of the doubtful uses of this name for a suprageneric unit, and to accept in its place the undoubted family- name ORTHOCERATIDAE MCoy, 1844 (Synopsis carb. Fossils Ireland : 6) which, as Dr. W. H. C. Ramsbottom (Geological Survey & Museum, London) kindly informs me, is the oldest family-group name based on Orthoceras and expressly used to designate a nominal family of nautiloid cephalopods. It is therefore proposed that this name be placed on the Official List. The only family-group name based on Orthoceros is ORTHOCEROTIDAE Teichert & Miller, 1936, and if the proposal made in paragraph 26 above to suppress Orthoceros under the Plenary Powers is accepted, then the family-name based on that generic name will be automatically rejected and can be placed on the Official Index. 31. At this point I took up the examination of a reference in Teichert & Miller (1936) to the fact that the generic name Orthoceratites Lamarck, 1799 was apparently identical with the non-binominal Hippurites Picot de la Peyrouse, 1781, and possibly also with the widely-used available name Hippurites Lamarck, 1801. This question was entrusted to Dr. L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London), who found that this was indeed the case. He has kindly prepared an application (pp. 25-26 below) for the Suppression under the Plenary Powers of Orthoceratites Lamarck, 1799 so as to conserve Hippurites Lamarck, 1801. 32. In order to ascertain the position of the names mentioned in Foramini- fera, I consulted Dr. F. E. Eames and Dr. F. T. Banner (British Petroleum Co. Ltd., Sunbury-on-Thames, England) and Dr. A. H. Smout (Iraq Petroleum Co. Ltd., London). All were of the opinion that the names Orthocera and Orthoceras constituted potential threats to the stability of generic names in general use and that steps should at once be taken to remove this threat. Extracts from their letters are given in Annexe 1 below. 33. The generic name Orthocera was first published as an available name under the Code by Modeer, 1789 (Illustr. quaedam in R. D. Ambr. Soldani opus egreg. Saggio Orittograffico dictum). This work was first published as a part of Soldani’s T'estaceogr. ac Zoophytogr. parvae et microsc. tomus primus, which is a non-binominal work. Modeer’s contribution, however, is strictly binominal and was re-issued in 1791 in Nova Acta Acad. Caes. Leop.-Carol. 8 (Appendix) : 20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 85-94. The following species were expressly and unambiguously referred to the genus by Modeer: Orthocera crispata Modeer, Nautilus orbiculus Forskal, 1785, Nautilus raphanistrum Linnaeus, 1758, Nautilus obliquus Linnaeus, 1758, Orthocera armilla Modeer, Nautilus radicula Linnaeus, 1758, Nautilus raphanus Linnaeus, 1758, Nautilus legumen Linnaeus, 1758 and Orthocera pupa Modeer. No type-species was designated or indicated and an additional species cited as “‘ Nautilus rapistrum Linnaeus . . . mihi Orthocera vel Arthrocena rapistrum”’ is not eligible for selection as type-species since it was referred to the genus only with doubt. (Modeer’s work consists of comments on various specimens figured by Soldani in his Saggio Orittograffico rather than of a systematic description of new species. The specific name “ rapistrum ” is not known in Linnaeus’s works.) Galloway (1933, Man. Foram. : 453) selected Orthocera sipunculus Modeer, 1796, but this is invalid because the species was not among those originally included in the genus. Dr. Banner informs me (in lit. 27 November 1958) that no valid type-selection is known for Orthocera Modeer, 1789. 34. It would clearly be desirable to dispose of the unwanted generic name Orthocera Modeer, 1789, by finding out to what genera the species referred by him to that genus are now attributed and by safeguarding those generic names from any threat to which they are liable so long as Orthocera remains an available name by placing them on the Official List. However, it appears from correspondence with Dr. Banner and Dr. Smout that certain of the species in question have in the past been referred to genera whose taxonomic validity is not unequivocal, and that two or more generic names may be currently in use for a taxon containing one of Modeer’s species. Moreover, it is by no means easy in the present state of knowledge to find out whether valid type- designations have been made for these genera, nor to be sure that the strict application of the Rules in these cases would meet with general approval. This situation, while regrettable, demands lengthy investigation and much help from specialists in foraminifera, and it seems better, therefore, not to delay the seeking of a permanent settlement of the main Orthoceras problem while the collateral questions are being thoroughly explored. The only other method whereby the generic name Orthocera Modeer, 1789, can be effectively disposed of is by finding a nominal genus of undisputed validity of which the type-species under the Rules is (a) one of the species placed in Orthocera by Modeer in 1789, and (b) in harmony with the accustomed use of the generic name in question. Orthocera Modeer, 1789 can thus be rendered a senior objective synonym of a generic name in general current use and, as such, amenable to suppression for priority but not for homonymy through the use of the Plenary Powers. 35. A nominal genus suitable to this purpose exists in Nodosaria [Lamarck], [1816] (Tabl. ency. méth., 16-page “ Liste des objets” : 13). This nominal genus was proposed with two included species, namely, Nautilus radicula Linnaeus, 1758 and Nodosaria clavulus Lamarck. Nautilus radicula Linnaeus, 1758 was designated as the type-species by Children in 1823 (Lamarck’s genera of shells translated from the French : 113) and the genus, which is and always has been universally employed, is used in this sense. The following species Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 21 included in Orthocera Modeer, 1789, are currently placed in Nodosaria : Ortho- cera armilla Modeer, 1789 (by some authors referred to Dentalina d’Orbigny, 1826) ; Nautilus obliquus Linnaeus, 1758 (with some doubt) ; Nautilus radicula Linnaeus, 1758 ; and Nautilus raphanistrum Linnaeus, 1758. I therefore now designate Nautilus radicula Linnaeus, 1758 as the type-species of Orthocera Modeer, 1789 and request the Commission to use its Plenary Powers to suppress that generic name for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. 36. Modeer used his own generic name Orthocera in 1791, in the re-issue of his 1789 work already mentioned, and in 1796 (K. Vetensk.-Akad. nya Handl. 17 : 63) for foraminifera and for straight nautiloids. The name was also used by Lamarck, 1799 (Mém. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 1 : 80), for foraminifera ; J. Sowerby, 1812 (Min. Conch. 1 : 127) for straight nautiloids ; Fleming, 1815 (Ann. Phil. 5 : 201-206) for nautiloid cephalopods and one species of fora- minifera ; and Blainville, 1828 (Dict. Scr. nat. 36 : 485) for foraminifera. No usage of Orthocera later than 1828 (Blainville, op. cit.; Fleming, Hist. brit. Anim.) has been traced. Uses of the generic name Orthoceras in foraminifera have been listed in paragraph 25 above. 37. The Rules do not give precise guidance as to the treatment of an exist- ing generic name when this is cited without reference to any previous author. In the vast majority of such cases there is no reasonable doubt that the name is being used in its existing sense, and it would not be necessary to consider every use of, for example, Homo or Musca as the homonymous proposal of a new generic name merely because no explicit reference was made to ‘“‘ Linnaeus, 1758’. Similarly, it is generally obvious when a generic name is being used as an invalid homonym, for this will usually take place in a group far removed taxonomically from that in which the name is valid. The names involved in the present case, however, do not present themselves in so clear a light. This is partly due to the fact that both Orthoceras and Orthocera had come into current use in pre-Linnean times, so that their meaning was clear, in a generalised way, to any late-eighteenth-century naturalist whether they were referred to any of several previous authors or not. In the case of Orthoceras, for example, there is no evidence that Batsch (1791) knew of the existence of this name in Bruguiére’s work of 1789, for he made no reference to it, and the species which he referred to the genus have no relevance to the generic description provided by Bruguiére. Neither Spalovsky (1795) nor Perry (1811), who both used Orthocera for foraminifera, made any reference to Batsch, nor did they include any of the species named by him in the genus. Schrank’s usage of the name for an insect in 1796 is clearly homonymous in the ordinary sense of the word. Blainville (1825) and Deshayes (1831) used the name in different senses from each other and from any previous author, and Phillips (1836) clearly considered it to be in part equivalent to Orthocera Fleming (1815, 1828), for he included some of Fleming’s species of Orthocera in Orthoceras. In order to prevent some later author from challenging a ruling on the lines here proposed for Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789, on the grounds that these later uses of the name had been wrongly regarded as usages of Bruguiére’s generic name, the Commission is asked to rule that those uses are invalid by reason 22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of being junior homonyms of Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789. This course will not, however, be necessary in regard to the uses of Orthocera after Modeer, 1789, because those names will automatically be rendered invalid if the proposal made in paragraph 35 above to use the Plenary Powers to suppress that name for priority but not for homonymy is accepted. 38. The last point calling for attention in the present problem concerns the alleged generic names Orthocerata Soldani, 1780 and Orthoceratia Soldani, 1780 (Saggio Oritt. : 107) listed by Sherborn in his Index gen. sp. Foram., 1896 : 287- 289. These alleged names were used as Latin plural nouns by a non-binominal author in a non-binominal work, and as such have no status in zoological nomenclature. 39. The action which the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is therefore asked to take is as follows :— (1) use its Plenary Powers: (a) to set aside all designations of a type-species for the nominal genus Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789 made prior to the ruling now asked for and, having done so, to designate Orthoceratites regularis Schlotheim, 1820 as the type-species of that genus ; (b) to suppress the following generic names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy : (i) Orthoceros Briinnich, 1771 (an unused senior objective synonym of Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789) ; (ii) Orthoceras Balashov, 1956 (an invalid emendation of Orthoceros Briinnich, 1771) ; (iii) Orthocera Modeer, 1789 (an unused senior objective syno- nym of Nodosaria [Lamarck], [1816)) ; (2) rule that the following generic names are invalid by reason of being junior homonyms of Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789: (a) Orthoceras Batsch, 1791 ; (b) Orthoceras Spalovsky, 1795 ; (c) Orthoceras Schrank, 1796 ; (d) Orthoceras Perry, 1811; (e) Orthoceras Blainville, 1825 ; (f) Orthoceras Deshayes, 1831 ; (g) Orthoceras Phillips, 1836 ; (3) place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789 (gender: neuter), type-species, by designation under the Plenary Powers in (1)(a) above, Ortho- ceratites regularis Schlotheim, 1820 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Nautiloidea) ; (b) Nodosaria [Lamarck], [1816] (gender : feminine), type-species, by selection by Children, 1823, Nautilus radicula Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Rhizopoda, Order Foraminifera) ; (4) place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) regularis Schlotheim, 1820, as published in the binomen Ortho- ceratites regularis (type-species, by designation under the Plenary Powers in (1)(a) above of Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789) ; (b) radicula Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Nautilus Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 23 radicula (type-species, by selection by Children, 1823, of Nodosaria [Lamarck], [1816)) ; (5) place the family name ORTHOCERATIDAE M°Coy, 1844 (type-genus : Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ; (6) place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) the three generic names suppressed under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b) above ; (b) the seven generic names declared in (2) above to be invalid junior homonyms of Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789 ; (c) the following junior homonyms of Orthocera Modeer, 1789: (i) Orthocera Lamarck, 1799; (ii) Orthocera J. Sowerby, 1812 ; (iii) Orthocera Fleming, 1815 ; (iv) Orthocera Blainville, 1828 ; (d) the following reputed generic names published in a non-binominal work by a non-binominal author : (i) Orthocerata Soldani, 1780 ; (ii) Orthoceratia Soldani, 1780 ; (7) place the family-name ORTHOCEROTIDAE Teichert & Miller, 1936 (rendered invalid by the suppression under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b) above of Orthoceros Briinnich, 1771) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. ANNEXE 1 Extracts from letters received Dr. F. T. Banner, 27 November 1958.—The name Orthocera does not seem to have been applied to any Foraminifera since the middle of the nineteenth century... It seems highly probable that (a) no type-species has been validly designated for Orthocera Modeer, 1789, and this genus is still potentially valid and a potential nuisance unless suppressed ; (b) Orthocera Lamarck is a homonym of Orthocera Modeer ; (c) Orthoceras has not been used validly for any group of Foraminifera, and (d) there is a strong case for the suppression of Orthocera on the grounds of stability. Dr. F. E. Eames, 9 January 1959.—Although Orthoceras was used as a generic name for foraminifera in the eighteenth century, it has for many years been used for long, straight, nautiloid cephalopods, and in this sense it has acquired, and still enjoys, wide usage in stratigraphical palaeontology and field geology, and in the teaching of palaeontology and evolution. As a specialist in foraminifera, I strongly oppose any attempt to transfer the name to that group ; and as being concerned in my work with fossils of many groups, I use the name in its accustomed sense not only from force of teaching and habit, but also because I know that my colleagues will immediately understand what I mean by it. I therefore wish to support the proposal to conserve the generic name Orthoceras in the sense in which it has been used during the last hundred years or more. Dr. Curt Teichert, 19 January 1959.—I was very glad to have my attention called to the modification of Opinion 46. This, if applied retroactively, as I suppose it must be, invalidates entirely all arguments presented by Miller 24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and myself in 1936 against the possibility of selecting a cephalopod as type- species of Orthoceras Bruguiére ... I have reviewed again all the relevant literature from the 1920’s and early 1930’s and I find that Miller, Dunbar & Condra (1933:31) very definitely and unambiguously designated Ortho- ceratites regularis Schlotheim as the genotype of Orthoceras Bruguiére. Dr. Teichert, 27 January 1959.—It looks to me now as if final settlement can only be achieved by appeal to the Commission. I would favour an appeal to the Commission to uphold Miller, Dunbar & Condra’s selection of Ortho- ceratites regularis as type-species of Orthoceras Bruguiére. Confirmation of this choice is now possible since the part of Opinion 46 requiring that the type- species must come “ under the description as originally published ” has been rescinded. As far as I am aware no type-species for Orthoceras Bruguiére had been selected prior to 1933 nor had it ever been stated that Bruguiére was technically the author of that genus. As late as the late 1920’s it was customary to credit Orthoceras to Breyn, a non-Linnean author. It may, therefore, be assumed that references of Orthoceras prior to the publication of Miller, Dunbar & Condra’s paper, other than those concerned with Ortho- ceratites regularis, may be regarded as junior homonyms of Bruguiére’s genus. If you concur in this opinion and would like to prepare a statement of the case for submission to the I.C.Z.N., I shall be very glad to support the application. I am definitely not in favour of emending Orthoceros Briinnich and I fully concur in the reasons stated by you against such action [see paragraph 16 above]. Dr. R. H. Cummings (Department of Geology, Glasgow University), 20 March 1959.—I have discussed this matter with Professor George and Dr. Weir. Both feel as strongly as I do on having the generic name Orthoceras placed on the Official List and reserved for the Cephalopoda. ee J 7 7 j q “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 25 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAME ORTHOCERATITES LAMARCK, 1799, SO AS TO CONSERVE THE GENERIC NAME HIPPURITES LAMARCK, 1801 (CLASS PELECYPODA). Z.N.(8.) 1395 By L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London) The generic name Hippurites was first published by J. B. de Lamarck (1801, Systéme des animaux sans vertébres : 104) with citation of a single species H. bioculata Lamarck, the identity of which was established by references to figures published by P. Picot de la Peyrouse in a non-binominal work (1781, Description de plusieurs nouvelles espéces d’Orthocératites et d’Ostracites), where a number of species of the genus were described under “‘ Orthoceratites’. The name Hippurites has been in continuous use ever since, and no species other than H. bioculata has probably ever been cited as its type ; but it should be noted that many authors, with whom the present applicant is in agreement, have differed from Lamarck in considering Hippurites to be a word of masculine gender*. The genus is a very important one and is the best known of the group of aberrant sessile pelecypods termed the Rudists ; it is the type genus of the family HIPPURITIDAE Gray, 1848. It is highly desirable that it should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 2. The present application arises from the existence of two prior generic names, both apparently based on specimens of the same zoological genus as the type-species of Hippurites ; these were published with indications sufficient to establish them as available although in both cases without any mention of a nominal species. The procedure to adopt in determining the species to accept as type-species in such circumstances was decided at the Paris Congress in 1948 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 160, 346). A search must be made through subsequent literature, and the type-species must be the first valid nominal species to be associated with the generic name (or one of the first when two or more were so associated simultaneously), provided that the genus was definitely attributed to its original author. It should be noted that it is not essential for the type-species, so determined, to agree with the original generic diagnosis, even though it was this diagnosis that served as the indication validating the generic name. 3. The two earlier generic names applied to the taxonomic genus to which Lamarck assigned the name Hippurites are as follows :— 4. Orthoceras J. G. Bruguiére, 1789 (Encyclopédie méthodique [Vers], 1 : xvi). No nominal species was included, but a generic definition was given, reading as follows: “ Coquille conique, composée de cloisons transverses, & d’une gouttiére sur un des cétés, l’ouverture fermée par un opercule ”’. This diagnosis seems to refer to a hippurite. The literature has been searched, but no instance ' has been found of the reference of any nominal species of hippurite, or of any pelecypod, to Orthoceras Bruguiére. No nominal species of any group appears * The Commission adopted in March 1958 Declaration 40 ruling that generic names having the terminations -ides, -ites, and -oides are to be treated as masculine in gender. (See Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 19 : xix-xxviii, published 15th October 1958.) 26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature to have been referred to the genus Orthoceras, attributed to Bruguiére, until 1933 when Miller, Dunbar & Condra (Bull. Nebraska geol. Surv. (2) 9) included in it the Palaeozoic cephalopod species originally described by Schlotheim in 1820 as Orthoceratites regularis. The stabilisation of Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789 in this sense is advocated by the Assistant Secretary in his accompanying report (: 9-24 above). 5. Orthoceratites J. B. de Lamarck, 1799 (Mém. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 1 : 81). No nominal species was included in this genus, but a generic diagnosis was given, reading as follows : “ Coq. conique, droite ou arquée, munie intérieurement de cloisons transverses, et de deux arétes longitudinales obtuses, convergentes ; la derniére loge fermée par un opercule’’’. This diagnosis also appears to refer to a hippurite. So far as I know, no nominal species has yet been referred to Orthoceratites by any author who has attributed that genus to Lamarck. The name could, therefore even now be made an objective synonym of some generic name in current use by proceeding to include in it the type-species of such a genus, which would become its monotype by the Paris decision already men- tioned. In any case, the status of generic names for fossils derived from a previously published generic name by the addition of the termination “-ites’’, and published as part of a binomen, was determined at the Copenhagen Congress (1953, Copenhagen Decisions: 65); and the decision then made that such names should have no status could be held to apply to Orthoceratites as soon as it was published as part of a binomen. The direct suppression of the generic name by the International Commission would, however, be preferable to its formal publication as part of a binomen, with the deliberate intention of producing a situation which would render it invalid. 6. Application is, therefore, made that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : (1) use its Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Orthoceratites Lamarck, 1799 for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, in the interests of stability and uniformity of nomenclature ; (2) place the generic name Hippurites Lamarck, 1801 (gender : masculine), type-species, by monotypy : Hippurites bioculata Lamarck, 1801, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) place the specific name bioculata Lamarck, 1801, as published in the combination Hippurites bioculata (type-species of Hippurites Lamarck, 1801) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) place the generic name Orthoceratites Lamarck, 1799 (as suppressed under the Plenary Powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; (5) place the family-group name HIPPURITIDAE Gray, 1848 (type-genus : Hippurites Lamarck, 1801) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. SS Ree a ee a 3 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 27 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAMES PROTHECHUS RONDANI, 1856, AND ALLONEURA RONDANI, 1856, FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALIDATING THE GENERIC NAMES VERRALLIA MIK, 1899, AND TOMOSVARYELLA ACZEL, 1939 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 230 By D. Elmo Hardy (University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii) The present application is concerned with the names of two genera based on misidentified type species (Prothechus and Allonewra Rondani, 1856). In my “ Revision of the Nearctic Dorilaidae ” (1943, Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull. 19 : 1-231) and in “ Nomenclature notes on the family Dorilaidae”’ (1946, J. Kansas ent. Soc. 19 : 135-137) I attempted to avoid confusion by accepting the named rather than the described species as the type-species of each of these genera, in accordance with the principles laid down in Opinions 65 and 168. Now, however, under the procedure adopted at the Paris (1948) Congress (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 158-159), the Commission is bound to consider such cases and to render whatever decision is best calculated to promote stability in nomenclature. In my view, this object will be best served in the present case if the Commission uses its Plenary Powers to suppress the two generic names mentioned on the grounds that they are nomina dubia, and to validate the two names (Verrallia Mik, 1899 and T'émésvdryella Aczél, 1939) which are in general use for the taxonomic genera concerned. 2. The type-species, by original designation, of Prothechus Rondani, 1856 (Dipt. Ital. Prodr.1 : 39) is Cephalops aucta Fallén, 1817 (Dipt. suec. 1 (Syrphici) (6) : 61). The species actually intended by Rondani, however, while certainly not identical with the species cited by name, is of doubtful identity. It was evidently a species of the subfamily DoRmatNaE having an appendiculate fourth vein in the wing (vein M,_,), and probably one of the two known European species of the genus Cephalosphaera Enderlein, 1936 (Dipt. Thierw. Mitieleurop. 6 : 3). There is, however, no way of ascertaining which, if either, of these two species Rondani may have described. The type-species of Cephalosphaera, by original designation, is Pipunculus furcatus Egger, 1860 (Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 10 : 347), and this generic name should now be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 3. Becker (1897, Berl. ent. Ztg. 42 : 93) interpreted Prothechus in terms of the true Cephalops aucta Fallén. On the discovery of Rondani’s misidentifica- tion, Mik (1899, Wien. ent. Ztg. 18 : 137) proposed Verrallia as a replacement name for Prothechus Rondani as interpreted by Becker and designated Cephalops aucta Fallén as its type-species. Since that time, Verrallia has come into general use for the genus in question, in the works of Dr. Aczél and Mr. J. E. Collin, and in Pius Sack’s Die Fliegen-der paldarkt. Region. Prothechus, on the other hand, has only been used by me in the two works cited in paragraph 1 above and in “ The African Dorilaidae ” (1949, Inst. roy. Sci. nat. Belg. (2) 36 : 3-4). I now wish to reverse my stand in this matter, since I feel that uniformity will be better served if Prothechus Rondani is suppressed as a nomen dubium, and if Verrallia is validated. 28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 4. The type-species, by original designation, of Allonewra Rondani, 1856, (Dipt. Ital. Prodr. 1 : 140) is Pipunculus flavipes Meigen, 1824 (Syst. Beschr. zweifl. Ins. 4 : 20), so that Alloneura was long considered to be a synonym of Dorilas Meigen, 1800 (Nouv. Class. Mouches : 31). From Rondani’s description of the species, however, it is clear that the material before him did not belong to Pipunculus flavipes Meigen, but to that group of the subfamily DORILAINAE of which the species have no stigma in the wing. This group has since been divided into four genera by Aczél (1939, 1940) and Hardy (1943) and it is not possible to say to which of these genera the species described by Rondani belonged. Collin (1945, Ent. mon. Mag. 81 : 3-4) put forward the view that the species misidentified by Rondani with Pipunculus flavipes was a species congeneric with Pipunculus sylvaticus Meigen, 1824 (op. cit. 4 : 20), the type species, by original designation, of Témésvdryella Aczél, 1939 (Zool. Anz. 125 : 20, 22). He accordingly sank Témésvdryella as a synonym of Alloneura and gave the name Alloneura rondanii Collin to the type-species of the latter. Neither Dr. Aczél nor I has followed this procedure, since we regard Alloneura as a nomen dubium based on an unrecognisable misidentified type-species. The taxonomic genus in question is very widely known under the name Témésvaryella and the acceptance of this name would cause much less confusion than the adoption of Allonewra, which has been applied to it only once, namely by Collin (1945) in the paper noted above. 5. For the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that greater confusion than uniformity would result if the nominal genera Prothechus Rondani, 1856 and Alloneura Rondani, 1856 were to be accepted, either on the basis that their type species are the nominal species actually designated as such by Rondani, or on the basis that their type-species are the species which Rondani is alleged to have had before him. I therefore request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the following generic names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy on the ground that the genera so named are based on unrecognisable, misidentified type-species: (a) Prothechus Rondani, 1856 ; (b) Alloneura Rondani, 1856; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Verrallia Mik, 1899 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation, Cephalops aucta Fallén, 1817 ; (b) Cephalosphaera Enderlein, 1936 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation, Pipunculus furcatus Egger, 1860 ; (c) Toémésvdryella* Aczél, 1939 (gender: feminine) type-species, by original designation, Pipunculus sylvaticus Meigen, 1824 ; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : * Nots.—This name is printed with its diacritic marks in accordance with the rules in force at the time of going to press. The London (1958) Congress decided that diacritic marks are in future to be omitted from zoological names but this rule will not come into force until it is published. R.V.M. 10.iv.59. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 29 (a) aucta Fallén, 1817, as published in the binomen Cephalops aucta (type-species of Verrallia Mik, 1899) ; (b) furcatus Egger, 1860, as published in the binomen Pipunculus furcatus (type-species of Cephalosphaera Enderlein, 1936) ; (c) sylvaticus Meigen, 1824, as published in the binomen Pipunculus sylvaticus (type-species of Témésvdryella Aczél, 1939) ; (4) to place the generic names Prothechus Rondani, 1856, and Alloneura Rondani, 1856, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY OF THE GENERIC NAME DICTYOCONUS BLANCKEN- HORN, 1900 (CLASS RHIZOPODA, ORDER FORAMINIFERA) Z.N.(S.) 316 By Don L. Frizzell (Missouri School of Mines, Rolla, Missouri, U.S.A.) The Upper Cretaceous and Eocene foraminiferal genus Dictyoconus Blanckenhorn, 1900 is very widely known and has considerable stratigraphical significance. Although the name was spelt in two different ways when it was first proposed, there is no confusion, so far as I am aware, in the current spelling of the name. It is desirable, however, for the unused original spelling (which has in fact become the invalid spelling) to be definitely rejected and for the valid original spelling to be placed on the Official List. The. opportunity is provided at the same time to correct certain statements that have been made with regard to the type-species of the genus. The information presented here has already been published in J. Paleont. 22 : 370, 1948. 2. The generic name Dictyoconus was introduced without description on p- 419 of Blanckenhorn’s paper (Z. deutsch. geol. Ges. 52 : 403-479). The spelling Dictyoconos was used on p. 432 and in the formal description of the genus (: 434) and in six later passages (: 434-436). H. Douvillé (1901, Bull. Soc. géol. France (4) 1 : 156) was the first subsequent user of the name and chose Dictyoconus (“ Il faut done adopter le nom nouveau de Dictyoconos (ou mieux Dictyoconus) proposé par M. Blanckenhorn’’). Subsequent authors have, so far as I can determine, unanimously accepted the spelling chosen by Douvillé. 3. The genus was established with two originally included species, Patellina egyptiensis Chapman, 1900 (Geol. Mag. (4) 7: 11-12, pl. 2, figs. 1-3) and Dictyoconus coralloides Blanckenhorn, although other species not cited by name were recognised as belonging to the genus. Woodring, 1924 (Geol. Republic Haiti, Geol. Surv. Rep. Haiti, Appendix 1 : 608-610), cited by Galloway, 1933 (Manual of Foram. : 206) was in error in citing Patellina egyptiensis as type- species by monotypy, but the same species was unequivocally designated as type-species by Cushman, 1933 (Sp. Publ. Cushman Lab. Foram. Res. 4 : 125), and was also so cited by A. Morley Davies (1935, Tertiary Faunas1 :11). Ellis & Messina, 1940 (Catalogue of Foraminifera) wrongly stated that no type-species had been designated. 4. In order finally to stabilise the name of this well-known genus of Foraminifera, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked : (1) to place the generic name Dictyoconus Blanckenhorn, 1900 (gender : masculine), type-species, by subsequent designation by Cushman, 1933, Patellina egyptiensis Chapman, 1900 on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as the Valid Original Spelling of the generic name in question ; (2) to place the specific name egyptiensis Chapman, 1900, as published in the binomen Patellina egyptiensis (type-species, by selection by Cushman, 1933, of Dictyoconus Blanckenhorn, 1900) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 31 (3) to place the generic name Dictyoconos Blanckenhorn, 1900 (an Invalid Original Spelling of Dictyoconus Blanckenhorn, 1900) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE A TYPE-SPECIES FOR THE NOMINAL GENUS BERAEA STEPHENS, 1833, IN HARMONY WITH CURRENT USE (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER TRICHOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 395 By D. E. Kimmins (British Museum (Natural History), London) Stephens (1833 ; Nomen. Brit. Ins. ed. 2 : 118) established the genus Beraea for eight species (five of which, being at that time known only by manuscript names, do not affect this discussion), the three species from which the type must be chosen being Phryganea pusillus Fabricius, 1781, P. funerea Fourcroy, 1785 and P. pygmaea Fabricius, 1798. Three years later, Stephens (JU. Brit. Ent., Mand. 6 : 158) gave a diagnosis of his genus, including in it Beraea albipes Stephens, 1836, B. pygmaea (Fabricius, 1798) and B. marshamella Stephens, 1836. In 1839 we have the first type citation, that of Westwood (Introd. mod. Classif. Ins., Gen. Syn. 2 : 50), who selected Phryganea pygmaea Fabricius. 2. In 1878, McLachlan (Rev. Syn. Trich. Eur. : 493) expressed doubt as to the identity of pygmaea Fabricius, placing it with a query under Beraea pullata (Curtis, 1834). On p. 495 he states that the examples of Beraea pygmaea (Fabricius) in the Stephens Collection are in fact two females of Beraea maurus (Curtis, 1834). The example in this collection bearing the label pygmaeus was examined by Mr. M. E. Mosely when he was preparing his Handbook of British Caddis-Flies (1939), and he also placed it with Beraea maurus. He did not, however, use the name pygmaea in his book, due possibly to his expressed dislike of changing well-established names. 3. In an endeavour to settle the identity of Phryganea pygmaea Fabricius, a letter was sent to Monsieur L. Berland in Paris, asking whether the Fabrician type was still in existence in the Bosc Collection, and he replied that it could not be traced. McLachlan probably did not see this type, or he would certainly have mentioned the fact in his revision. 4, According to the Rules, an author is to be deemed to have correctly identified the species which he refers to a new nominal genus, and therefore when he or some later author designates one of those species as the type- species of the genus, that designation is not to be rejected on the ground that the species was misidentified by the original author of the generic name. There is nothing in Fabricius’s original description of Phryganea pygmaea (1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 202) which will not fit the example identified with that species by Stephens, and one might assume that his specimen was indeed conspecific with Phryganea pygmaea Fabricius. If this assumption is adopted, then Beraea maurus (Curtis, 1834, Lond. Edinb. phil. Mag. (3) 4 : 216) becomes a synonym of Beraea pygmaea (Fabricius). 5. If the above course is rejected, then (since the identity of Phryganea pygmaea Fabricius cannot, in the absence of the type, be established) the generic name Beraea Stephens, 1833 becomes a nomen dubiwm and must remain in abeyance. The taxonomic genus to which this name has been applied will Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 33 require another name. The oldest available synonym, Thya Curtis, 1834 (London Edinb. phil. Mag. (3) 4 : 216), is not in general use and was at one time regarded as a junior homonym of Thia Leach, 1815 in accordance with a decision of the Paris Congress (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 161-162) that the difference between “y”’ and “i” was to be ignored in deciding whether or not a given name is a homonym of another. This was, however, repealed five years later (Copenhagen Decisions : 78, para. 152) when it was ruled 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 ”’, so that since 1953 Thya Curtis, 1834 has been an available name. If this name is adopted, the well-established generic name Beraea will be replaced by Thya. Such action would not only cause confusion in the generic nomenclature of the Trichoptera, but the change would always be threatened by the possibility that the Fabrician species might one day be definitely recognised. 6. The position under the Code thus is that Beraea Stephens, 1833 is defined by reference to a nominal type-species (Phryganea pygmaea Fabricius, 1798) which is based on a nomen dubium, so that it cannot be said whether Stephens identified his material rightly or wrongly. His material is, however, reliably identified with another nominal species, namely Thya maurus Curtis, 1834. This is therefore a case where the strict application of the Rules would produce greater confusion than uniformity. I believe that it is highly desirable to stabilise the generic name Beraea in its accepted meaning as applied to Beraea maurus (Curtis, 1834) and its congeners, having regard to the facts that the name has been almost universally applied to those species since its establishment in 1833. 7. At the family-group level, the genus Beraea is currently referred to the family BERAEIDAE Wallengren, 1891 (K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Handl. 24(10) : 111), and this is the oldest available name for a family-group taxon containing this genus. 8. I therefore ask the International Commission :— (1) to use their Plenary Powers : (a) to set aside all selections of type-species for the nominal genus Beraea Stephens, 1833, made prior to the decision now requested and, having done so, to designate the nominal species maurus Curtis, 1834 (as published in the binomen Thya-maurus) to be the type-species of that genus ; (b) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the specific name pygmaea Fabricius, 1798 (as published in the binomen Phryganea pygmaea) ; (2) to place the generic name Beraea Stephens, 1833 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the Plenary Powers in (1) (a) above, Thya maurus Curtis, 1834, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name maurus Curtis, 1834, as published in the binomen Thya maurus (type-species, by designation under the Plenary Powers in (1) (a) above of Beraea Stephens, 1833), on the 34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the family-group name BERAEIDAE Wallengren, 1891 (type- genus: Beraea Stephens, 1833) on the Official List of Family-group Names in Zoology ; (5) to place the specific name pygmaea Fabricius, 1798, as published in the binomen Phryganea pygmaea (suppressed under the Plenary Powers in (1) (b) above), on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 35 PROPOSED ADDITION OF THE GENERIC NAME CHAETOPTERYX STEPHENS, 1829, TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER TRICHOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 426 By D. E. Kimmins (British Museum (Natural History), London) The nominal genus Chaetopteryx was established by Stephens (1829 ; Nomen. Brit. Ins. : 28) with Phryganea villosa Fabricius, 1798 (Suppl. Ent. syst. : 200) as the only originally included species, therefore the type-species by monotypy. 2. In 1837 (Ill. Brit. Ins., Mand. 6 : 232) Stephens cited the same genus as containing Phryganea villosa Fabricius, 1798 and Limnephilus brevipennis Curtis, 1834 (Lond. Edinb. phil. Mag. (3) 4(20) : 125) and in the same year (1837) Curtis (Guide Arr. Brit. Ins. ed.2:169) placed the latter species first in order under Chaetopteryx. In the introduction to this work (: vi) Curtis states : “ It may often happen that all of the species following such genericnames would not be considered by the Author who proposed the name as belonging to his group, but the one immediately following is always a typical species”. This has been accepted by China (1943; Gen. Names Brit. Ins. : 8) as constituting the fixation of the type-species of the genera in question, and in consequence it must be taken that Curtis thus intended to fix Limnephilus brevipennis Curtis, 1834 as the type-species of Chaetopteryx. It is clear, however, that this designation is invalid because the species in question was not one of those originally included in the nominal genus. 3. McLachlan (1875, Rev. Syn. Trich. Eur. : 193) pointed out that Stephens misidentified the material which he cited as belonging to Limnephilus brevipennis and that the specimens in question really belong to Phryganaea villosa Fabricius, 1798. 4. Limnephilus brevipennis Curtis, 1834 is a subjective synonym of Phacopteryx granulata Kolenati, 1848, which is the type-species, by monotypy, of Phacopteryx Kolenati, 1848 (Ent. Ztg. Stettin: 18). It is not, however, generally known that Stephens established Chaetopteryr in 1829 with Phryganea villosa Fabricius, 1798, as the type-species by monotypy. Westwood and subsequent authors believed the genus to have been established only in 1837 and accepted the technically invalid type-designation by Curtis in 1837. There is therefore a danger that any author who did not know of Stephens’s work of 1829 might conclude that Phacopteryx should be replaced by Chaetopteryx, and that Chaetopteryx, as used by Westwood and other well-known mid-nineteenth century authors, should receive a new name. Such action would cause con- fusion in the nomenclature in these genera by disturbing names which have been in use for over 100 years. Fortunately, the recent discovery of Stephens’ earlier action makes it possible to apply the Rules strictly, for Chaetopteryz, following McLachlan’s statement cited above, is currently applied to the group of species to which Phryganea villosa Fabricius, 1798 belongs, and Phacopteryx to the group to which Limnephilus brevipennis belongs. The risk of confusion in the future can thus be avoided by the Commission’s agreeing to place the names concerned on the relevant Official Lists. 36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5. No family-group names have ever been based on either of the generic names involved in this application. 6. The International Commission is therefore asked :— (1) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Chaetopteryx Stephens, 1829 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Phryganea villosa Fabricius, 1798 ; (b) Phacopteryx Kolenati, 1848 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Phacopteryx granulata Kolenati, 1848 ; (2) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) villosa Fabricius, 1798, as published in the binomen Phryganea villosa (type-species, by monotypy, of Chaetopteryx Stephens, 1829) ; (b) brevipennis Curtis, 1834, as published in the binomen Limnephilus brevipennis (the oldest available name for the type-species of Phacopteryx Kolenati, 1848). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 37 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE AS TYPE-SPECIES OF THE NOMINAL GENUS APATANIA KOLENATI, 1847, THE SPECIES INTENDED BY THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER TRICHOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 427 By D. E. Kimmins (British Museum (Natural History), London) The nominal genus Apatania was established by Kolenati in 1847 (Allgem. deutsch. Naturhist. Ztg. 2 (5-6) folio page appendix) in a key with Phryganea vestita Zetterstedt, 1840 as the only originally included species, therefore the type-species by monotypy. 2. McLachlan, 1876-1877 (Rev. Syn. Trich. Eur. : 212, 285) showed that the true Phryganea vestita is identical with Molanna angustata Curtis, 1834 (the type-species, by monotypy, of Molanna Curtis, 1834; London Edinb. phil. Mag. (3) 4: 214) and that Kolenati had employed the name both for a species of Apatania and for a species of Molanna. McLachlan therefore placed Phryganea vestita Zetterstedt in the synonymy of Molanna angustata Curtis and adopted Apatania wallengrent McLachlan, 1871 (Ent. mon. Mag. 7 : 281) as the valid name for vestita Kolenati non Zetterstedt. 3. It is necessary under the Code to assume that Kolenati correctly identified Phryganea vestita Zetterstedt, 1840 and accordingly his genus Apatania should be treated as a subjective synonym of Molanna Curtis, 1834. Apatania is the type-genus of the nominal subfamily aPaARANIINAE Wallengren, 1891 (K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Handl. 24(10) : 85, as family APATANIIDAE), which is placed in a distinct family from Molanna, type-genus of the family MOLANNIDAE Wallengren, 1891, ibid.: 116. Acceptance of the Rules would thus involve not only the provision of a new name for the genus now known as Apatania and a change in nomenclature at the family-group level, but it would also run directly counter to Kolenati’s intentions and would be open to the strongest objections in that it would involve the acceptance as type-species of Apatania of a species (Phryganea vestita Zetterstedt) disagreeing completely with the generic diagnosis and with the figure of the wings given by Kolenati in his “Gen. spec. Trich, pars prior” issued separately in 1848 and re-published in 1851 (Abh. kénigl.-béhm. Ges. Wiss. (5) 6 : 17, pl. ii, fig. 14). It is for these reasons that it is desired (a) to disregard Kolenati’s designation of Phryganea vestita Zetterstedt, 1840 as the type-species, by monotypy, of Apatania Kolenati, 1847; (b) to accept Apatania wallengreni McLachlan, 1871 as the type-species of that genus ; and (c) to continue current taxonomic practice in treating Phryganea vestita Zetterstedt as a junior subjective synonym of Molanna angustata Curtis, 1834. 4. I therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers to set aside all designations of a type-species for the nominal genus Apatania Kolenati, 1847 made prior to the ruling asked for and, having done so, to designate Apatania wallengreni McLachlan, 1871 as the type-species of that genus ; 38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Apatania Kolenati, 1847 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation under the Plenary Powers in (1) above, Apatania wallengrent McLachlan, 1871 ; (b) Molanna Curtis, 1834 (gender : feminine), type-species, by mono- typy, Molanna angustata Curtis, 1834 ; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) wallengreni McLachlan, 1871, as published in the binomen A patania wallengrent (type-species, by designation under the Plenary Powers in (1) above, of Apatania Kolenati, 1847) ; (b) angustata Curtis, 1834, as published in the binomen Molanna angustata (type-species, by monotypy, of Molanna Curtis, 1834) ; (4) to place the following family-group names on the Official List of Family- group Names in Zoology: (a) APATANIIDAE Wallengren, 1891 (type-genus : Apatania Kolenati, 1847) ; (b) MOLANNIDAE Wallengren, 1891 (type-genus: Molanna Curtis, 1834). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 39 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE FOR THE NOMINAL GENUS APHROPHORA GERMAR, 1821 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA) A TYPE-SPECIES IN HARMONY WITH CURRENT USE. Z.N.(S.) 478 By Frej Ossiannilsson (Kungl. Lantbrukshégskolan, Institutionen for Vazxtsjukdomsléra, Uppsala, Sweden) I herewith submit to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature the following application regarding the type-species of the nominal genus Aphrophora Germar, 1821, a genus based on a misidentified type-species. The details of the case are set out below. 2. (a) Generic name: Aphrophora Germar, 1821 (Mag. Ent. Germar, 4(1) : 48-50). (b) Nominal type-species: Cicada spumaria Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 437, No. 24), selected by Westwood (1840, Introd. mod. Classif. Ins. 2, Synopsis Gen. Brit. Ins. : 116). (c) Species intended by the original author of the generic name when employing the specific name in question: Cercopis spumaria (Linnaeus, 1758) Fabricius, 1775, nec Linnaeus, 1758, i.e. the species for which the valid name is Cercopis alni Fallén ([1806], K. Vetensk.-Akad. nya Handl., 26 (No. 4) : 240- 243). 3. Germar included eleven species in his new genus Aphrophora. The specific name of the first among these was spumaria, with the citations of Fabricius, Panzer and Linnaeus. Although Germar did not refer to Fallén in this connection, it is apparent that he, as well as Fabricius in 1775, identified the species of Linnaeus with that described by Fallén [1806] under the name of Cercopis alni. When Westwood (1840) selected Cicada spumaria as the type-species of Aphrophora, which he did without discussion and without citing any synonyms, he interpreted the species in the same way, as is clear from his definition of the genus. 4. Fallén, however, ([1806], K. Vetensk.-Akad. Nya Handl., 26 (no. 4) : 244— 250) interpreted Cicada spumaria as the valid synonym of Cicada leucophthalma Linnaeus (1758, Syst. Nat., (ed. 10), 1 : 437, No. 26), over which the name Cicada spumaria has line-precedence. In this sense it was included by Stal (1864, Ent. Ztg. Stettin 25 : 66) in his new genus Philaenus and this inter- pretation of Fallén’s has been accepted by most European authors. Horvath, however, (1898, Rev. Ent. frang. 17 : 275-276) stated that Fallén’s interpreta- tion was erroneous and held that Cicada spumaria Linnaeus, 1758 and Cercopis alni Fallén, [1806] were identical. If this view were correct, the valid name for Cercopis alni Fallén would be Aphrophora spumaria (Linnaeus), while the common meadow frog-hopper would be named Philaenus leucophthalmus (Linnaeus). Horvath based his opinion on the following considerations : (1) In the Linnean collection, under the name of Cicada spumaria, there are preserved one specimen of Aphrophora alni (Fallén) and one specimen of Philaenus spumarius: (Fallén) (= leucophthalmus Linnaeus sp.); (2) the description of Linnaeus corresponds better with the former than with the latter ; (3) the words of Linnaeus—“ frequens in Salice viminali ’’—indicate 40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature that the former species was intended. Schumacher (1919; Ent. Mitt. 8: 191-193) refuted this opinion. He argued (1) that later transpositions and additions had taken place in the Linnean collection, making doubtful the rank as type specimens of certain of the specimens included; (2) that the description of Cicada spumaria Linnaeus does not correspond better with Aphrophora alni than with Philaenus spumarius, in contradiction to the statement of Horvath ; (3) that the note in Fauna Svecica (ed. 1) regarding the colour variation of Cicada spumaria is not applicable to Aphrophora alni but is certainly applicable to Philaenus ; (4) that Linnaeus, in Fauna Svecica (ed. 1) : 202, under No. 640, stated that his species Nos. 635-640 (i.e. those later named Cicada spumaria, lineata, leucophthalma, lateralis and leucocephala) were similar to each other in all except colour—which would certainly not be true if Aphrophora alni was one of those species. 5. In all this I agree with the view expressed by Schumacher. In addition it may be pointed out that Linnaeus cited de Geer (1741 ; K. svensk. Vetensk.- Akad. Handl. 2 : 221-236, tab. vii) and that he laid particular stress (in Fauna Svecica, ed. 1) on the accuracy of de Geer’s description and figures. The insect reproduced by de Geer in 1741 is unmistakably Philaenus spumarius (Linnaeus) in the sense of Fallén. By a special investigation during the summer of 1950, I have been able to show that Aphrophora alni (Fallén), at least in the region of Uppsala, where Linnaeus lived, breeds by no means more often on Salix viminalis or other Salix species than Philaenus spumarius as this species was interpreted by Fallén. In consequence, the third argument of Horvath loses its force. The results of this investigation have been published elsewhere (Ossiannilsson 1950, Opuscula Entom. (Lund) 15 : 145-156). 6. Cicada spumaria Linnaeus, 1758, is thus identical with Cercopis spumaria (Linnaeus), Fallén [1806] (= lewcophthalma Linnaeus, 1758). The latter was selected as type-species of Philaenus Stal, 1864, by Van Duzee (1917; Cat. Hem. Amer. north of Mexico: 513). Cicada spumaria thus becomes the oldest available name for the type-species of Philaenus Stal, 1864, and that well-known generic name becomes a junior synonym of Aphrophora Germar, 1821, since Cicada spumaria is the nominal species first validly selected as the type-species of the latter (by Westwood (1840); see paragraph 2 above). The taxonomic concept represented by the generic name Aphrophora auctorum will thus be without a valid name if the International Commission does not intervene. But since, as has already been shown, the species intended by Germar (1821) and Westwood (1840) was not Cicada spumaria Linnaeus, but Cercopis spumaria (Linnaeus, 1758), Fabricius, 1775, it is clear that the genus Aphrophora Germar, 1821 is based upon a species misidentified by the original author of the generic name. The matter will be rectified in the best interests of stability of nomenclature if the Commission sets aside the selection by Westwood (1840) of Cicada spumaria Linnaeus, 1758 as the type-species of Aphrophora and designates the species intended by Germar and by Westwood, namely the species for which the valid name is Cercopis alni Fallén [1806]. 7. Lallemand (1949; Mém. Inst. roy. Sci. nat. Belg. (2) 32 : 7-8) argued that Cercopis spumaria is the valid name for Cercopis alni Fallén, [1806], as it is not homonymous with Cicada spumaria Linnaeus, 1758. This would Agere ating. . 7 +2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 4] only be true if Germar, in establishing the nominal genus Aphrophora in 1821, had explicitly stated that he was applying the specific name spwmarva in the sense of Fabricius, 1775, not of Linnaeus, 1758. This is not, however, the ease. Fabricius in fact misidentified the species of Linnaeus (placing another species under that name in his new genus Cercopis), and Germar did not perceive that misidentification, since he accepts Fabricius’ (1775) usage of the name as synonymous with that of Linnaeus. The specific name spwmaria cannot therefore rank as a valid name for a new species either from Fabricius (1775) or from Germar (1821). 8. In July 1956 I examined the Hemiptera part of the Linnean collection in London and there saw the two above-mentioned specimens of ‘Cicada spumaria’”’. I designated the Philaenus specimen to be the lectotype of Cicada spumaria Linnaeus, 1758 (Ossiannilsson 1957, Opuscula Entom. 22 : 1) and so far as I know no previous lectotype selection has ever been made for this species. 9. Cicada spumaria has also been cited (Distant 1907; Lallemand 1912) as the type-species of the genus Ptyelus Lepeletier & Serville, 1827 (Ency. méth. (Ins.) 10 : 608), a genus established for two new species (Ptyelus ferrum- equinum, a junior subjective synonym of Tettigonia flavescens Fabricius, 1794 (Ent. syst. 4 (Suppl.) : 24); and Ptyelus dianthi, a junior subjective synonym of Cicada spumaria Linnaeus, 1758) and including three previously established species : (1) Ptyelus marginellus, with synonymy Aphrophora marginella Germar, 1818, Cicada lateralis Panzer, 1793 and Cicada marginella Fabricius, 1775. All these are forms of Cicada spumaria Linnaeus, 1758. (2) Cicada angulata Fabricius, 1794 (a junior subjective synonym of Lepyronia coleoptrata (Linnaeus, 1758)). (3) Cicada lineata Linnaeus, 1758 (now Neophilaenus lineatus (Linnaeus, 1758)). 10. Cicada spumaria was not, however, referred to Ptyelus by Lepeletier & Serville either as a valid species or as a synonym, so that the designation by Distant (1907) and Lallemand (1912) of that species as the type-species of Ptyelus is invalid. This means that Ptyelus Lepeletier & Serville is still without a type-species. In accordance with modern taxonomic usage, I herewith designate Ptyelus ferrumequinum to be the nominal type-species of Ptyelus Lepeletier & Serville, 1827. The oldest available name for this species is Tettigonia flavescens Fabricius, 1794. 11. The genera Aphrophora, Philaenus and Ptyelus are at present referred to the tribes Aphrophorini, Philaenini and Ptyelini of the subfamily Aphrophorinae, family Aphrophoridae. The oldest family-group name based on the generic name Aphrophora is the vernacular word APHROPHORIDES Amyot & Serville (1843 ; Hist. nat. Ins., Hémiptéres : 563). This name was duly latinised as APHROPHORIDAE by Dohrn (1859 ; Cat. Hemipt. : 68) and is generally accepted by workers in Hemiptera, so that it satisfies the provisions adopted by the London (1958) Congress in regard to the availability of family- group names first published with vernacular terminations. The oldest family- group name based on the generic name Philaenus is PHILAENINI Metcalf (1955 ; 42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 45 : 264). The oldest family-group name based on the generic name Ptyelus is PTYELINAE Fowler (1897 ; Biol. Cent.-Amer., 2 : 174) ina Key. These family-group names, being the oldest available such names for the taxa to which they relate, and being all in general current use, should therefore be added to the Official List of Family-group Names in Zoology. 12. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly requested : (1) to use its Plenary Powers :— (a) to set aside all selections of type-species for the nominal genus Aphrophora Germar, 1821 made prior to the Ruling now requested, and, having done so, to designate Cercopis alni Fallén, [1806] to be the type-species of the above genus ; (b) to set aside all selections of type-species for the nominal genus Piyelus Lepeletier & Serville, 1827 made prior to the Ruling now requested, and, having done so, to designate Ptyelus ferrumequinum Lepeletier & Serville, 1827 to be the type- species of the above genus ; (2) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Aphrophora Germar, 1821 (gender feminine), type-species, by designation under the Plenary Powers in 1(a) above: Cercopis alni Fallén, [1806] (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) ; (b) Ptyelus Lepeletier & Serville, 1827 (gender masculine), type- species, by designation under the Plenary Powers in 1(b) above : Ptyelus ferrumequinum Lepeletier & Serville, 1827 ; (c) Philaenus Stal, 1864 (gender masculine), type-species by selection by Van Duzee (1917); Cicada spumaria Linnaeus, 1758, as defined by the lectotype selected by Ossiannilsson, 1957 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) ; (3) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) alnt Fallén [1806] as published in the binomen Cercopis alni (type-species, by designation under the Plenary Powers in 1(a) above of Aphrophora Germar, 1821) ; (b) spwmaria Linnaeus, 1758 as published in the binomen Cicada spumaria and as defined by the lectotype selected by Ossian- nilsson, 1957 (type-species, by selection by Van Duzee (1917) of Philaenus Stal, 1864) ; (c) flavescens Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen T'ettigonia flavescens (the oldest available name for the type-species of Ptyelus Lepeletier & Serville, 1827) ; (4) to place the under-mentioned names on the Official List of Family-group Names in Zoology :— APHROPHORIDAE (correction by Dohrn, 1859, of APHROPHORIDES) Amyot & Serville, 1843, type-genus Aphrophora Germar, 1821 ; PHILAENINI Metcalf, 1955, type-genus Philaenus Stal, 1864; PTYELINI Fowler, 1897, type-genus Ptyelus Lepeletier & Serville, 1827. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 43 PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY OF THE SPECIFIC NAME CASERTANUM POLI, 1791, AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMEN CARDIUM CASERTANUM (CLASS PELECYPODA). Z.N.(S.) 500 By A. E. Ellis (Epsom College, Epsom, Surrey, England) and E. B. Herrington (Westbrook, Ontario, Canada) Until 1921 the specific name casertanum Poli, 1791, as published in the binomen Cardium casertanum (Testacea utriusque Siciliae 1, Bivalvia: 65, pl. 16, fig. 1) was in regular use for a common species of freshwater lamellibranch of the genus Pisidium. In 1921, B. B. Woodward (Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 14 : 209) claimed that Poli’s work must be “ ruled out as not a serious contri- bution to systematic zoology, and his names have to be discarded’”’, on the grounds that Poli gave one set of names to the shells and another to the contained animals. Woodward concluded that the next available name for the species was Pisidium cinereum Alder, 1838 (Trans. nat. Hist. Soc. Northumb. 2 : 341), and some subsequent authors have accordingly employed this name. 2. After carefully studying Poli’s description and figure of Cardium casertanum, we are in agreement with Woodward that there can be no doubt as to the identity of this species, which, moreover, has been found to be the sole species of Pisidiwm living in the type-locality near Caserta (Boettger, 1954, Arch, Moll. 83 : 137-138). Both description and figure are good for the eighteenth century, and are superior to many published later and accepted as adequate. We are unable, however, to agree with Woodward’s contention that Poli’s work should be rejected for purposes of nomenclature: it is consistently binominal and Linnean, and his practice, not unusual at that period, of in some cases giving the animal and the shell different names, constitutes no ground for discarding his names in toto. In the present instance, he described only the dead shell of Cardium casertanum, and neither knew nor named the contained animal. [The question of the availability of Poli’s work for purposes of zoological nomenclature has been registered in the Commission’s office under the number Z.N.(S.) 488. Editor] 3. Some of the leading authorities on the genus Pisidium, e.g. A. W. Stelfox, Jules Favre, Temple Prime and Victor Sterki, have always used Poli’s name, and quite ninety per cent. of the material of this species in the collections of the British Museum (Natural History) is labelled Pisidium casertanum (Poli). The rejection of Poli’s name in favour of Alder’s would involve much profitless labour in relabelling specimens in museums and private collections, and would cause more confusion in the literature than would be occasioned by the stabilisation of that name in preference to the specific name cinereum Alder. 4, Although Poli’s figure is adequate as a standard of reference for the species, the following published descriptions and figures will help to make clear the way in which it is understood : Stelfox, A. W., 1918, J. Conchol. 15, pl. 9, figs. 27, 28. Favre, J., 1927, Mém. Soc. phys. Hist. nat. Genéve 40 : 290, pl. 17, fig. 12, pl. 22, fig. la-c. 44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Ellis, A. E., 1940, Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 24 : 54-55, fig. 7, pl. 4, fig. 35. 5. We therefore request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to rule that the nominal species Cardium casertanum Poli, 1791 is to be interpreted by reference to fig. 1 on pl. 16 of Poli’s work Testacea utriusque Siciliae, 1, Bivalvia ; (2) to place the specific name casertanum Poli, 1791, as published in the binomen Cardium casertanum, and as defined in (1) above, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45 PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY OF THE GENERIC NAME SPIRONTOCARIS BATE, 1888 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA). Z.N.(S.) 621 By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) The purpose of the present application is to seek the addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the name of a well-known genus of Caridean shrimps. The nominal genus in question is Spirontocaris Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy. Challenger (Zool.) 24 : 576, 595, type-species, by monotypy, Cancer spinus Sowerby, 1805, Brit. Miscell. 4 : 47. 2. So far as is known to me, this generic name is available in the sense that it has not previously been used for any other genus in the Animal Kingdom and that it has been proposed in accordance with the requirements of the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. It has been used by every author who recognises the distinctness of the genus from the genus Hippolyte [Leach], [1814] and it is generally accepted in modern carcinological literature. 3. There is, however, a minor complication connected with this name which might become a potential menace to the stability of the name Spirontocaris. When Bate studied the Crustacea Macrura of the Challenger Expedition, he found a parasitic Cirripede on a specimen of the species which he intended to describe in his report under the name Spirontocaris spinus (Sowerby). He sent this parasite to Dr. P. P. C. Hoek in Holland, to whom the study of the Cirripedia of the Challenger Expedition had been entrusted. At the meeting of the Netherlands Zoological Society on 18th December 1886, Dr. Hoek made some remarks on the parasite and stated it to have been found on a specimen of “ Sowerbyus spinus’’. The proceedings of this meeting were published in 1887 (Tijdschr. Nederl. dierk. Ver. (2) 1 : ceviii) and the binomen Sowerbyus spinus is there published for the first time. The generic name is obviously a manuscript name of Bate’s for the genus in which he later placed Cancer spinus Sowerby. Bate probably changed Sowerbyus to Spirontocaris because he thought the former name showed too much resemblance to Sowerbya d’Orbigny (1850), a genus of Mollusca (Pelecypoda). In Hoek’s note the name Sowerbyus was published one year before the publication of the name Spirontocaris by Bate. As Hoek cited the binomen Sowerbyus spinus without mentioning the author of either name, and as he gave no details whatsoever of the species, the generic name Sowerbyus may conveniently be considered a nomen nudum. However, since Cancer spinus Sowerby was probably the only shrimp bearing the specific name spinus at that time, the association of that specific name with the generic name Sowerbyus might be considered by some authors a sufficient indication to make the generic name available and to identify the genus in question. 4. In order to prevent the validity of the well-known generic name Spirontocaris Bate, 1888, from ever being threatened by the generic name Sowerbyus Hoek, 1887, I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic 46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature name Spirontocaris Bate, 1888 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Cancer spinus Sowerby, 1805 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) ; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name spinus Sowerby, 1805, as published in the binomen Cancer Spinus [sic], (type-species, by monotypy, of Spirontocaris Bate, 1888) ; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Sowerbyus Hoek, 1887 (a nomen nudum). ea ee f.. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE CURRENTLY ACCEPTED EMENDATION DREPANELLA FOR THE GENUS INTRODUCED UNDER THE NAME DEPRANELLA ULRICH, 1890 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER OSTRACODA). Z.N.(8.) 1112 By P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (University of Sheffield, England) Harold W. Scott (University of Illinois, U.S.A.) Jean M. Berdan (U.S. Geological Survey) Ulrich in 1890 proposed the name Depranella for a new genus of Ostracod. In 1894 he indicated that this was a spelling error for Drepanella. Until 1955, this emendation has been universally adopted, and the genus has become type of the family-group name spelt DREPANELLIDAE Ulrich & Bassler, 1923. In 1955 Howe pointed out, however, that the emendation to Drepanella was invalid according to the Rules. This application proposes that the Commission uses its Plenary Powers to validate an emendation that has been universally recognized for over sixty years. 2. Ulrich (1890, J. Cincinnati Soc. nat. Hist.: 117, 118) proposed the name Depranella for five new species, one of which (D. crassinoda) was desig- nated as type. No indication was made of the derivation of the name, which was spelt consistently throughout the paper, being mentioned 12 times in all. 3. Ulrich (1894, Rep. Minnesota geol. & nat. Hist. Surv., 3 : 670) indicated that Depranella was an error for Drepanella. Again the etymological derivation of the word was not discussed, but it is reasonable to suppose it is derived from the Greek substantive Speravov, a sickle, and that it has reference to a well marked sickle-shaped marginal ridge that characterizes the type-species. 4. Since 1894 the genus Drepanella has been abundantly quoted in the literature, always with the emended spelling. Ulrich & Bassler (1923, Maryland geol. Surv. Silurian Vol. :308) based on it the subfamily DREPANELLINAE. This was subsequently raised to family rank by Swartz (1936, J. Paleont., 10 : 552). 5. In 1955 Howe (Handbook of Ostracod Taxonomy : 60) pointed out that ** Ulrich in 1890 had made no obvious typographical error, or lapsus calami, and that under the Rules he was not permitted to change the name.” It appears that Howe is perfectly right in his contention. According to the definitions introduced at Copenhagen (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 43, 44) Depranella is the only “valid original spelling,” and Drepanella Ulrich, 1894 is an “invalid emendation”’, and as such ranks as a junior objective synonym of Depranella Ulrich, 1890. 6. For all that, we believe that it would now be tiresome and confusing to change the spelling of a name that has been universally used in its emended form, and we recommend that the Commission should validate the emendation of Depranella to Drepanella. 7. The subfamily name DREPANELLINAE Ulrich & Bassler, 1923, was changed to DEPRANELLINAE by Howe (1955, op. cit. : 61) “ to correspond with the original spelling of its type genus Depranella.” According to regulations introduced at Copenhagen, a family-group name is to be emended in accordance 48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature with the valid emendations of that part of the generic name on which the family-group name in question is based (Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 36). Thus if the present proposals for the emendation of the generic name are accepted, the correct form of the family-group name must automatically remain DREPANELLINAE, as first introduced, and as consistently used until 1955. 8. Accordingly we now formally submit that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should :— (1) use its Plenary Powers to validate the currently accepted emendation Drepanella for the generic name Depranella Ulrich, 1890 ; (2) place the generic name Drepanella (emendation of Depranella) Ulrich (E.0.), 1890 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation Drepanella crassinoda Ulrich, 1890, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) place the specific name crassinoda Ulrich, 1890, as published in the combination Depranella crassinoda (type-species of Drepanella Ulrich, 1890) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) place the family-group name DREPANELLINAE Ulrich & Bassler, 1923, (type-genus : Drepanella Ulrich, 1890) on the Official List of Family- group Names in Zoology ; (5) place the generic name Depranella Ulrich, 1890 (an Original Spelling suppressed under the Plenary Powers in (1) above for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (6) place the family-group name DEPRANELLINAE Howe, 1955 (a name based on a generic name suppressed under the Plenary Powers in (1) above, and an objective junior synonym of DREPANELLINAE Ulrich & Bassler, 1923) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-group Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49 PROPOSED REJECTION FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES OF BERTRAND (E.), 1763 “‘ DICTIONNAIRE UNIVERSEL DES FOSSILES PROPRES ET DES FOSSILES ACCIDENTELS”. Z.N.(S.) 1185 By R. V. Melville (Geological Survey and Museum, London, S.W.7) * The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission for a ruling rejecting for nomenclatorial purposes the work by Bertrand (E.) published at La Haye in 1763 under the title Dictionnaire Universel des Fossiles Propres et des Fossiles Accidentels (2 vols.). The reasons for this request are set out below. 2. In the course of compiling a list of names in the Order/Class-group in the Class Echinoidea, Professor J. Wyatt Durham and the writer came to consider whether the names “ echiniti, echinometra, echinodermata ’’, used by Bertrand (E.), 1763, Vol. II : 100 as alternative names for a taxon including all known echinoids, should be added to the list. This led to an examination of Bertrand’s work to see whether it should be regarded as a nomenclatorially available work or not. The work certainly includes some names in binominal combination, but polynominal names also occur and it is clear that the author did not consistently adopt the principles of binominal nomenclature. The position of books of this type was considered by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, which decided that words should be inserted in the Régles to make it clear that, in order to qualify for the purposes of Proviso (b) to Article 25, as an author who had applied “les principes de la nomenclature binominale ’’, an author must have consistently applied those principles in the book or paper in question and not merely in a particular section or passage (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 175, Decision 67). It appears clear, therefore, that Bertrand’s Dictionnaire Universel is not available for nomenclatorial purposes. That this is so is fortunate, since there are at least six names in this work which would otherwise be available as generic names and which would in each case be senior synonyms of a generic name now in use, while others would be senior homonyms of such names. 3. The work was first considered not from the standpoint of binominal nomenclature (that is, the nomenclature of the genus and species groups), but from the standpoint of the Order/Class-group. It seems to the writer a natural corollary of the rejection of a particular work for nomenclatorial purposes at the genus and species level that the same work is also rejected for the same purposes at all higher levels. This corollary seems never yet, however, to have been explicitly stated, and the Commission is invited to consider whether it might not be expedient to issue a Declaration to this effect, covering works already placed, or requested to be placed, on the Official Index of Rejected Works in Zoological Nomenclature as well as future cases. 4, Although Bertrand stated (Vol. I: xv—xvi) “ Tout systéme peut étre partagé de cing maniéres : classes, ordres, genres, espéces, varietés, ce sont-la autant de devisions qu’il faut saisir et suivre ’’, he does not consistently adopt 1 By permission of the Director, Geological Survey and Museum. 50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature this Linnean system in his classification of fossils, which for him meant not only organic remains, but minerals, rocks, and all substances dug out of the earth. His Latin or latinised names are also in most cases given as synonyms of the French word that heads each article, and there may be several of these, including both binominal and polynominal names. An example is found in the article ‘““atcrons. Alcyonia corallofungitae [binominal] : Corallia figura fungorum terrestrium [polynominal]: Port lapidei [binominal]. It is not clear which, if any, of these names Bertrand is adopting. 5. It isnevertheless clear in some cases that Bertrand is adopting a particular Latin name as the equivalent of the French name heading a particular article. In some cases these names are accompanied by a description, or by references to published works, or both, sufficient (other things being equal) to give his names availability under the Rules. Thus the name Buglossa Bertrand, 1763 would replace the name Ogygiocaris Angelin, 1854 (Class Trilobita) and the name Ornitoglossum would replace the name Odontaspis Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1835 (Class Pisces). Both of these names are in general use and applications are pending for the addition of each of them to the Official List. 6. In accordance with the principle recommended by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953 (Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 23-4, Decision 23), I therefore request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to give a ruling that in the work entitled ‘“‘ Dictionnaire Universel des Fossiles Propres et des Fossiles Accidentels ”’ published at La Haye in 1763, E. Bertrand did not adopt the principles of binominal nomenclature as required by the Rules, and therefore that no name acquired the status of availability by reason of being published in that work ; (2) to place the title of the foregoing work on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature ; (3) to add the generic names set out in Annexe | to the present application to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as rejected for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy ; (4) to add the accidentally binominally-formed specific names set out in Annexe 2 to the present application to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as rejected for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy. (Note to the Annexes.—Since Bertrand’s work is in the French language, it has been assumed that the word heading each article is a French word unless there is obvious evidence to the contrary, as in the case of the generic name Astacopodium listed in Annexe 1 below. In particular, heading words ending in -ites have been taken as vernacular words. Latin names are generally printed in italics or in small capitals and are often preceded by the words “en Latin...”’.). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ANNEXE 1 List of generic names published by Bertrand (E.), 1763 and requested in Paragraph 6(3) above to be rejected. Vol. I, p. 1 14 53 60 62 131 143 Acanthiodos Vol. I, p. 143 Alcyonia Port Arquatula 162 Astacopodium 183 Corallium Astropodium 187 Astrorrhisa 192 Stellarum 202 Auricularia 210 Balenosteon 244 Xylosteon Belemnites _Soldat.[us]} 245 Bidentula 250 Brissoides 253 Brissus 259 Bufonites Buglossa 263 Calamus Calopodium 280 Capsularia Carcinopodium Vol. II, p. 3 Forficula 44 Carina 61 Carinula 66 Ceramites 80 Cidaris Cymbium 87 Bulimus 92 Coretus Pedipes Cochlea Yetus Terebra Porcellana 100 Peribolus Purpura Cerithium Vermetus Natica Ostreum Jataronus Perna Petunculus Corticularia Crocodilus Ctenites Cultellaria Ophiodontes Epiphiaria Falcatula Galeatula Gammarolithus Gammarolites Glandularia Gobio Grazirrhinchus Haliotites Hamellus Haeratula Hippurites LTimaculum Malacostraca Porus Mytiloides Musica Onychites Unguis Ornitoglossum Ostracia Ostracites Ostreites LItthostreon Timnostracites Tistronites Ovarium Carduus Aurantium Scolopendrites Ombrias Brontias Buffonita 52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Vol. II, p. 100 Pileus Vol. II, p. 147 Ceration Galea 150 Quadrella Hystrix 154 Quinquevalvula 102 Echinites 155 Retepora 103 Latoclythus Retes Conoideus 157 Rhombiscus Conulus Rhombites Echinometrites Ryncolithus Globulus Ricinus Placenta 159 Rostrago Laganum Plectorites Melita 160 Rutellum Rotula 164 Sacculus 104 Scutum 174 Saponella Cor Scalpellus Pleurocystus Scapula 107 Patellites Scapularia 108 Pectonculites 176 Scopula 109 Pentacrinos Scutulum Pentaphyllites 185 Serratula 117. Pholadites Serrella 122 Pes Siliquastrum 128 Pinnularia 186 Solearia Plagiostomos 190 Spatagoides 130 Platyrrhynchus Spatangus Plectronites 198 Spongiolithes Plectronita 205 Strigosula 137 Porpites 209 Sulcatula Portellaria 229 Tridentula 147 Psetites Trigonella Pseudocorallium ANNEXE 2 List of specific names published by Bertrand (E.), 1763 in accidental binominal combinations and requested in Paragraph 6(4) above to be rejected. Vol. I, p. 14 corallofungitae in the binominal combination Alcyonia corallofungitae lapidet Pori lapidet 42 Noachi Arca Noachi 53 punctata Arquatula punctata 60 columnares Asterias columnares Stellatum Corallium Stellatum 62 modiolus Stellarum modiolus 64 lamellatum Xylosteon lamellatum 89 Cancellius Soldat. [us] Cancellius 111 Indicus Calamus Indicus Vol. I, p. 183 192 263 Vol. II, p. 44 61 80 100 102 103 104 109 122 128 155 174 176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53 petrefactus in the binominal combination Melitenses corallinus anguineus lapideus lapideus marinus marinum mammillaris ovarius Rotularis Clypeatus Histrixz mammillaris coronalis miliaris variolata mammillata — mauri assulata fibularis galeatus discoideus spatagoideus cordatus marinum Lachmundi Aldrovandi asint depressus marina linteiformis vulgaris littoralis Crocodilus petrefactus Ophiodontes Melitenses Hippurites corallinus Porus anguineus Mytilus lapideus Unguis lapideus Carduus marinus Aurantium marinum Echinites mammillaris Echinites ovarius Echinites Rotularis Echinites Clypeatus Echinites Histrix Cidaris mammillaris Echinites coronalis Cidaris miliaris Cidaris variolata Cidaris mammillata Cidaris maurt Cidaris assulata Echinites fibularis Echinites galeatus Echinites discoideus Echinites spatagoideus Echinites cordatus Cor marinum Pentacrinos Lachmundi Pentaphyllites Aldrovandi Pes asint Echinites depressus Retes marina Eschara linteiformis Scapula vulgaris Scopula littoralis 54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAME WESTENOCERAS FOERSTE, 1924, SO AS TO PRESERVE THE NAME WESTONOCERAS FOERSTE, 1924 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA). Z.N.(S.) 1226 By Rousseau H. Flower (Bureau of Mines, Socorro, New Mexico) and Curt Teichert (Golden, Colorado, U.S.A.) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission to take the action needed to validate the generic name Westonoceras and to suppress the generic name Westenoceras, variant spellings of the same name proposed in the same publication by A. F. Foerste, 1924. 2. Foerste, 1924 (Denison Univ. Bull., Sci. Lab. J. 20 : 253-4) formally proposed the nominal genus Westenoceras and designated as type-species Cyrtoceras manitobense Whiteaves, 1890 (Proc. Trans. roy. Soc. Canada 7(4) : 80) of the Ordovician of Manitoba, Canada. However, in his Introduction (: 196), Foerste said ‘‘ Finally, the genera Westonoceras and Cyrtogomphoceras are here proposed for the very aberrant species, Cyrtoceras manitobense Whiteaves and Oncoceras magnum Whiteaves ”’. 3. It is thus evident that the names Westonoceras and Westenoceras were proposed for the same species in the same publication. The detailed description was published under Westenoceras only. No derivation of the name was indicated. 4. The spelling Westenoceras was used again by Foerste, 1926 (Denison Univ. Bull., Sci. Lab. J. 21 : 331), by Troedsson, 1926 (Medd. om Gronl. 71 : 90) and by Foerste & Savage, 1927 (Denison Univ. Bull., Sci. Lab. J. 22 : 54). In 1928, however, (Michigan Univ., geol. Mus. Contrib. 2(3) : 48) Foerste used the spelling Westonoceras for what was obviously a species of the same genus, and he adopted the same spelling in 1929 (Denison Univ. Bull., Sci. Lab. J. 24 : 219) and 1930 (ibid. 24 : 312). Furthermore, in 1930 Hoesste & Teichert (ibid. 25 : 280) explained that Foerste had intended to name this genus after one T. C. Weston. 5. Between 1930 and 1952 the name Westonoceras was generally used (by Foerste, Teichert, Strand, Flower, Flower & Kummel) in all papers dealing with species belonging to this genus with the exception of Roy, 1941 (Field Mus. nat. Hist., geol. Mem. 2 : 140) and Teichert & Glenister, 1952 (J. Paleont. 26 : 744). 6. In the meantime, Teichert, 1933 (Palaeontographica 78, Abt. A : 216) had proposed the family WESTONOCERATIDAE, based on the generic name Westonoceras which he then used. This family-name was used by all subsequent authors. 7. The name Westonoceras was again used by Teichert & Glenister, 1954 (Bull. amer. Paleont. 35 (No. 150) : 150) and by Miller, Youngquist & Collinson, 1954 (Mem. geol. Soc. Amer. 62 : 84). 8. From the foregoing, it is clear that Westenoceras and Westonoceras were two names proposed for the same type-species in the same publication (Foerste, 1924). It is, furthermore, clear that the first subsequent user was Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55 Foerste, 1926, who selected the name Westenoceras, and that this name thus became validly established as the spelling to be used for the name of the genus of which the type-species is Cyrtoceras manitobense Whiteaves. Nevertheless, when the intention of the author to name this genus after T. C. Weston became known, the name Westonoceras was generally adopted in the literature and a family-name was based on it. 9. In view of these facts, and particularly because the stabilisation of the spelling Westenoceras would involve emendation of the family-name wEsTon- OCERATIDAE to WESTENOCERATIDAE (notwithstanding the fact that this name, as published by Teichert in 1933, was based upon the correct spelling of the patronymic in question), the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is asked :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers to direct that of the two original spellings used by Foerste in 1924 for a generic name based upon the surname of the palaeontologist T. C. Weston, the spelling Westonoceras be accepted as the valid original spelling and the spelling Westenoceras be rejected as an invalid original spelling ; (2) to place the generic name Westonoceras Foerste, 1924 (gender : neuter), type-species, by original designation, Cyrtoceras manitobense Whiteaves, 1890 (validated as the valid original spelling of this name under the Plenary Powers in (1) above) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name manitobense Whiteaves, 1890, as published in the binomen Cyrtoceras manitobense (type-species, by original designation, of Westonoceras Foerste, 1924) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the generic name Westenoceras Foerste, 1924 (suppressed as an invalid original spelling of Westonoceras under the Plenary Powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (5) to place the family-name ffizstoNocERATIDAE Teichert, 1933 (type- genus Westonoceras Foerste, 1924) on the Official List of Family-group Names in Zoology. 56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE NAME SACCHARIVORA PETERKIN, 1790 (PHALAENA), AND TO PLACE THE GENERIC NAME DIATRAEA GUILDING, 1828, ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 1315 By Harold E. Box (Trinidad, B.W.I.) The ultimate aim of the present application is to ensure that the oldest name subjectively available for the type-species of Diatraea Guilding (Lepidoptera : PYRALIDAE, CRAMBINAE) shall be Phalaena saccharalis Fabricius, 1794. 2. A very considerable literature has accumulated, in the fields of systematic and applied entomology, on the insect concerned, which in its larval stages is a major pest of sugar-cane, maize and other cultivated Gramineae throughout tropical and subtropical America. It has been recorded under the vernacular name “the borer ”’ for one hundred and sixty years, and also as “‘ sugar- cane or sugarcane borer ”’, ““ sugar-cane moth borer ” in English and American literature ; as “ le borer ae la canne & sucre ”’ in French ; ‘‘ Zuckerrohr-bohrer ”’ in ee ; “barreno”’, ‘“barrenador”’, ‘‘chupador”’, “ perforador ”’ “taladrador ”’ or “ el borer de la cana de aziicar ” in Spanish speaking countries in Latin America ; and “‘ a broca de cana ”’ in Brazil. 3. The first binominal name given to this insect appears to be that applied by J. Peterkin in 1790. He published “A Description of the Borer, or the Phalaena saccharivora, According to the systemae [sic] naturae ”’ in an extremely rare and obscure work entitled “‘A Treatise on Planting ...”’, a second edition of which was printed at St. Christopher’s (St. Kitts) in the British Colony of the Leeward Islands, West Indies.1 Though there is a brief mention of the existence of Peterkin’s description (but without citing the binomen) in a book by Noel Deerr (1921, ‘‘ Cane Sugar, A Textbook . . . etc.”’, ed. 2, London : 141, 172)? there is no reference to it in any other publication known to me and no transfer of Phalaena saccharivora Peterkin to a modern genus has at any time been made. The name appears to have been lost in complete obscurity ever since it was published. 1 The title-page in full reads as follows : “A Treatise on Planting, from the Origin of the Semen to Ebullition ; with a correct Mode of Distillation, and a Melioration of The Whole Process Progressively. Dedicated to the Planters of the Leeward Charribbee Islands. The Second Edition Improved. By Joshua Peterkin, Planter.—St. Christopher’s. Printed by Edward Luth R Low, Cayon-street, Basseterre, M, DCC, XC.” The only copy known to me is the one in the British Museum Reading Room, London, for tracing which I am deeply obliged to Mr. A. E. V. Barton, C.B.E., Secretary of the West India Committee. Serious efforts to trace the first edition through the principal libraries in the United Kingdom and the U.S.A. to date have failed, but continue. A photostat reproduction of the title-page and pertinent text (Pages 6-10) of the ‘“‘ Treatise ”’, from the British Museum copy of the second edition, has been presented to the Library of the Royal Entomological Society of London. 3” 2 Peterkin’s “ Treatise” is not mentioned in the first edition of Noel Deerr’s “Cane sugar , + +”, published at Manchester, 1911, ' lL ee a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 57 4, At a meeting of the Société Philomatique in Paris, September 1792 (not published, however, until 1803, Bull. Sci. Soc. philomat., Paris 1 : 28) an announcement appeared: ‘‘M. Fabricius, correspondant, écrit 4 la Société qu’il a recu des Indes Orientales [sic], de M. Rohr de Ste-Croix, deux insectes remarquables. Le premier est une petite phaléne, appelée dans les colonies Anglaises The-Borer”’. To this insect Fabricius applied the binomen Phalena saccharalis, followed by a specific diagnosis in Latin. This name (as Phalaena saccharalis), the Latin description somewhat modified, and a figure showing the larva, pupa and imago, were published in a paper (in Danish) upon insect pests of sugar-cane and cotton in the West Indies by Fabricius in 1794 (Skr. naturh. Selsk. Kbh. 3(2) : 63-67, Tab. vii) and in the same year almost verbatim (but without the figure) in Ent. syst. 3(2) : 238. The year 1794 is therefore the valid date of publication of saccharalis Fabricius. 5. In 1798 Fabricius reprinted the description in Suppl. Ent. syst. : 469, but he changed the name to Crambus sacchari, citing as synonym : “‘ Phalaena saccharalis, Ent. Syst. 3(2) : 238, 411 Act. Soc. Hist. Nat Hafn. 3 tab. fig.”’. Crambus sacchari Fabricius, 1798 is therefore a junior objective synonym of Phalaena saccharalis Fabricius, 1794, and a junior subjective synonym of Phalaena saccharivora Peterkin, 1790. 6. An almost literal German translation of Fabricius’s original Danish article in the Skrifter, but with the description of Phalaena saccharalis retained in Latin, appeared also in 1798 (Goett. J. Naturw. 1 : 137-140, pl. III, abb. 1) over the name I. G. L. Blumhof. 7. In 1806, W. Turton (Gen. Syst. Ent. 2 : 283) published an English translation of the Fabrician description, referring saccharalis F. to Pyralis Gmelin. The combination Pyralis saccharalis (F.), however, was only occasion- ally used in the later literature, e.g. P. C. Zeller (1872, Ent. Zig. Stettin 33 : 466 ; 1881, Hor. Soc. ent. ross. 16 : 11). 8. In 1828, Lansdown Guilding (Trans. Soc. Encour. Arts 46 : 148-149, one plate with eleven figs.) described the same insect from the West Indies (presumably the Island of St. Vincent) giving it the singularly appropriate name Diatraea sacchari (‘a 5vatpew, perforo’’) and this name, with Guilding as author, was in current usage for the sugar-cane borer for a number of years, until the identity of the two nominal species described by Fabricius and Guilding respectively became assured. In the legend to Guilding’s plate, the generic name is spelled Diatrea, but the spelling Diatraea was used by Guilding in an abstract of his 1828 paper (1832, Mag. nat. Hist. J. Zool. 5 : 466-469), so that he is himself the First Subsequent User of the name. The first author other than Guilding to use the name was Westwood (1833, Mag. nat. Hist. J. Zool. 6 : 411) who also adopted the spelling Diatraea. This spelling has been used by all subsequent writers with the exception of Grote (see paragraph 12 below). 9. Although it is clear from other evidence in the same work that Guilding knew of Fabricius as an entomologist, there is no evidence that he knew of the names (Phalaena saccharalis and Crambus sacchari) which Fabricius had published in 1794 and 1798, respectively, for the species which both authors referred to by the same vernacular name of ‘‘ The Borer”. If it could be concluded that Guilding was aware of these names, then it would follow that 58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature he was citing Crambus sacchari Fabricius, 1798 in combination with his new generic name Diatraea ; and Diatraea sacchari (Fabricius, 1798), Guilding, 1828, would then fall as a junior objective synonym of Phalaena saccharalis Fabricius, 1794. It is, however, unlikely that this was the case, for Fabricius’s Ent. syst. of 1794 (a work in which the name Phalaena saccharalis was published) was much better known to the early entomologists than the Suppl. Ent. syst. of 1798 (where Crambus sacchari appeared), which was frequently overlooked in those times. It must therefore be concluded that Guilding was proposing both a new generic name and a new specific name when he published the binomen Diatraea sacchari in 1828. 10. The second of the two alternative views expressed in the foregoing paragraph has been accepted by nearly all authors who have discussed the species, as the following quotations will show : Westwood (1840, Introd. mod. classif. Ins. 2 : 411): “ The Rev. Lansdown Guilding described an insect . . . under the name of Diatraea sacchari . . . This insect, however, evidently is identical with the Phalaena saccharalis Fabr.”’. Kirby and Spence (1843, Introd. Entom., Ed. 6, 1 : 149) : “ This insect . . . has been described by the Rev. L. Guilding . . . under the name of Diatraea sacchari, which, however, Mr. Westwood (1840) conceives is identical with Phalaena saccharalis Fab.’’. Comstock (1881, Rep. Entom. U.S. Dep. Agric. 1880 : 240): “‘ The borer moth was first scientifically described by Fabricius, in 1793 [sic:], as Pyralis [sic:] saccharalis (Ent. Syst., III, ii, 238) and was afterwards re-described by Rev. Lansdown Guilding . . . as Diatraea sacchari ...”. Howard (1891, Insect Life 4:95): “ He (Rev. Lansdown Guilding) described the insect as Diatraea sacchari. ..”’. Cockerell (1892, Bull. bot. Dep. Jamaica, no. 30 : 2): “ Mr. Guilding described the borer as a new genus and species, Diatraea sacchari ...’’. Box (1948, Bol. Ent. venez. 7 : 47) : ‘‘ Guilding was a clergyman resident in the island of St. Vincent ; he was also a scholar and an ardent naturalist, and apparently familiar with the works of the older systematists. It is curious, therefore, that he did not know of the work of Fabricius mentioned above, for he elaborated technical generic and specific descriptions, in Latin and English, of the Borer, proposing for it the name Diatraea sacchari”. The same view was expressed in systematic papers by C. H. Fernald (1888, Ent. Amer. 4 +119), J. B. Smith (1891, List Lepid. Bor. Amer. : 86), H. Druce (1896, Biol. Centr.-Amer., Ins. Lep.-Het. 2 : 295) and myself (1931, Bull. ent. Res. 22 : 23 ; 1948, Bol. Ent. venez.7 : 53), and the species was cited in a number of economic works published between 1833 and 1900 as Diatraea sacchari Guilding. The only author who is known to have adopted the first of the two views expressed in the preceding paragraph (9) is: Ragonot (1895, Ann. Soc. ent. France 64 : cexxii): “ Guilding avait crée, en 1828, le genre Diatraea pour l’espéce saccharalis Fabr.”’. 11. It must therefore be accepted that Diatraea sacchari Guilding, 1828 is both (a) a junior subjective synonym of Phalaena saccharalis Fabricius, 1794, and (b) a junior secondary homonym of Crambus sacchari Fabricius, 1798, a ee ee Se Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59 itself a junior objective synonym of Phalaena saccharalis Fabricius, 1794. Under the revised Code adopted by the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology, London, 1958, junior secondary homonyms cannot be permanently suppressed, hence no request is now made for the addition of sacchari Guilding (Diatraea) to the Official Index. Under this Code, the name remains an available name, although it is not the valid name for any known taxon. 12. J. O. Westwood in 1840 (Introd. mod. classif. Ins. : 411) and again in 1856 and 1857 (Gard. Chron. (No. 27) July 5, 1856 : 453 ; J. Proc. linn. Soc. (Zool.) 1 : 103) stated his opinion that D. sacchari Guilding was identical with Phalaena saccharalis F., but he did not make a formal generic transfer. This synonymy was accepted by several other entomological writers in the ensuing years but so far as is known to me it was not until 1881 that the combination Diatraea saccharalis (F.) was actually used, when J. H. Comstock applied it to the sugar-cane borer and (with an interrogation) to the cornstalk borer in the United States (1881, Rep. Ent., U.S. Dep. Agric. 1880 : 240, 243). This combination was formally recognised by A. R. Grote (1882, New Check List N. American Moths : 56 ; wherein the generic name is mis-spelled “‘ Diaraetria’’) and later by C. H. Fernald (1888, Ent. Amer. 4 : 119). 13. At this same time, the combination Chilo saccharalis (F.), apparently first used by C. V. Riley and L. O. Howard (1888, Insect Life 1 : 185), came into vogue in a number of economic papers and was in usage side by side with Diatraea saccharalis (F.) during the next ten years, after which the latter name became universally used for the type species of Diatraea. Other synonymy concerning this species is not related to the present issue. 14. Between 1881 and 1900 the Fabrician specific name saccharalis, prefixed either by Diatraea or Chilo, had been used in 48 scientific papers by 35 different authors, including such prominent entomologists as Ashmead, Blandford, Busck, Chittenden, Cockerell, Comstock, Coquillett, Druce, Fernald, Grote, Hampson, von Hedemann, Howard, Maxwell-Lefroy, Morgan, Quaintance, Ragonot, Riley, J. B. Smith and Townsend ; and in texts published in the Danish, English, French, German, Portuguese and Spanish languages. 15. Since 1900 the number of scientific papers in which the name Diatraea saccharalis is used to designate the common American sugar-cane moth borer amounts to approximately 920 titles, by 260 different authors, and in addition there are more than 200 references to it in the entomological reports of agricul- tural experiment stations, departments of agriculture and similar institutions throughout the Americas. The said combination has been accepted without question by systematic and economic entomologists in Europe and virtually every country in America from the U.S.A. south to Argentina, including Mexico, Central America and all countries and dependencies in the West Indies. 16. The Committee on Common Names of the American Association of Economic Entomologists and the Entomological Society of America have officially approved the vernacular name “ sugarcane borer ”’ for the scientific name Diatraea saccharalis (F.) and vice versa (1931, J. econ. Ent. 24 : 1290, 1298 ; 1937, id. 30 : 541, 549 ; 1942, cd. 85 : 91, 95 ; 1946, id. 39 : 436, 441). 17. The evidence leaves no doubt that in accordance with the existing 60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Rules the well established name saccharalis Fabricius requires to be suppressed as a junior subjective synonym of the resurrected name saccharivora Peterkin. However, the above summary of usage of the Fabrician name shows equally clearly that such a change would be contrary to the interests of stability and universality and could serve no useful purpose. 18. The present case is exactly covered by the observation of P. Bonnet (1952, Trans. 9th int. Cong. Ent. (Amsterdam, 1951) 1 : 196): “‘ Dans le cas ou une espéce ancienne viendrait 4 étre reconnue, et que son nom remplacerait un nom plus récent mais trés employé, il faut demander 4 la Commission de Nomenclature de suspendre dans ce cas 1a la loi de priorité, pour que le nom utilisé soit maintenu contre le nom jusq’ici inconnu ”’. 19. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested : (1) to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the specific name saccharivora Peterkin, 1790, as published in the binomen Phalaena saccharivora for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the following name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :—Diatraea Guilding, 1828 (gender : feminine), type-species by monotypy : Diatraea sacchari Guilding, 1828 ; (3) to place the following name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :—saccharalis Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Phalaena saccharalis (the oldest name subjectively available, through the use of the Plenary Powers in (1) above, for the type-species of Diatraea Guilding, 1828) ; (4) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (i) Diatrea Guilding, 1828 (gender : feminine) (an Incorrect Original Spelling of Diatraea Guilding, 1828) ; (ii) Diaraetria Grote, 1882 (gender : feminine) (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling of Diatraea Guilding, 1828) ; (5) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— (i) saccharivora Peterkin, 1790, as published in the binomen Phalaena saccharivora, suppressed under the Plenary Powers in (1) above ; (ii) sacchari Fabricius, 1798, as published in the binomen Crambus sacchari (a junior objective synonym of Phalaena saccharalis Fabricius, 1794). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In the initial preparation of this Application I am grateful for valued advice from Dr. W. J. Hall, C.M.G., late Director, Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London, and Mr. R. G. Fennah, formerly of the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture, Trinidad, now Assistant Director, Commonwealth Institute of Entomology. : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61 REQUEST FOR A RULING ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NOMINAL SPECIES UNIO PHILLIPSII WILLIAMSON, 1836 (CLASS PELECYPODA) IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCUSTOMED USAGE. Z.N.(S.) 1398 By J. Weir (The University, Glasgow, Scotland) The purpose of the present application is to stabilise the interpretation of the nominal species Unio phillipsii Williamson, 1836 (type-species, by original designation, of the nominal genus Anthraconauta Pruvost, 1930) in the sense in which the name has been used for the last sixty-six years. The case is one in which it is impossible to identify the original type-material with sufficient certainty for the selection of a lectotype, and equally impossible to demonstrate its loss or destruction sufficiently to justify the designation of a neotype. The species in question is a non-marine lamellibranch found in abundance at a number of horizons in the Upper Coal Measures (Morganian) of Britain. It is the index-fossil of the zone of Anthraconauta phillipsii in that country and of the strata known as Westphalian C (upper part) in Western Europe, and it is found in homotaxially equivalent strata in the Donetz Basin in the Soviet Union. It has considerable stratigraphical and economic importance in all these areas in the location of coal-bearing strata at the surface and in deep borings. Modern taxonomic work has led to the recognition of a number of species closely related to Anthraconauta phillipsit, and the point of departure for these advances has been the interpretation given to this species by Wheelton Hind in 1893. It is in that sense that it is now sought to stabilise the interpretation of the species, in the interests of the stratigraphical, taxonomic and economic considerations outlined above. ; 2. W. C. Williamson (1836, Phil. Mag. (3) 9 : 350-351) first described the species (without illustration) as follows, naming it in a conditional manner : “ The black bass is literally filled with fragments and perfect shells of a species of Unio of small size. It bears a considerable resemblance to Hibbert’s Unio nuciformis from the Burdiehouse limestone, but is of a less globular form. This shell varies considerably in size, being sometimes one and a half inches in length, and at others not more than three quarters of aninch. The depressed and crushed state in which these fossils are found would indicate a shell of a thin and fragile nature, and such it has doubtless been . . . My friend Mr. Joshua Alder, of Newcastle, informs me that he has met with an Unio, closely resembling our specimens, in the coal strata at the above place. This shell differs from the U. nuciformis of Burdiehouse in being broader and wider in proportion to its length, as well as in being a more fragile and delicate shell. I am inclined to think it is an undescribed species ; if so, I would propose the name of Unio Phillipsii ...”. 3. Williamson taught geology and natural history at Owens College (the forerunner of Manchester University) from 1851 to 1892 and his collection is now, and always has been, housed in what is now the Manchester Museum. His paper from which a passage is quoted above is on the Upper Coal Measures of the Manchester District, but it is impossible now to identify specimens in 62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature his collection which were certainly in his hands in 1836. From the context, it appears that he is describing the species in connection with the description of the strata in the Pendlebury district, but no material certainly from that area can now be identified. He seems also to have had specimens from near Ardwick (about seven miles from Pendlebury on the other side of Manchester). No specimens from Newcastle-on-Tyne that could have assisted in the prepara- tion of the descriptions are known in Williamson’s collection. 4. It seems clear that Williamson had collected, or had at least seen, many specimens of his Unio Phillipsii, all of which would rank equally as syntypes. There are no @ priori grounds, however, for regarding any specimen as being a “type” in his estimation, and no certain means of identifying any of the original syntypes. 5. Murchison, 1839 (Silurian System : 84, fig. C) figured “‘A shell resembling Modiola from Ardwick, near Manchester ’’ and repeated the figure in a later work (Siluria) as ‘‘Anthracomya (Modiola Sil. Syst.) from Ardwick, Manchester, in a band of limestone of the same [i.e. Coal Measures] age”. It is almost certain that Murchison had the original of this figure from Williamson, and Jackson (1952, Catalogue Types figd. Species geol. Dept. Manch. Mus. : 79) thought it possible that specimen No. L10106 (discussed more fully below) might have been this specimen. The quality of the drawing neither forbids nor confirms this possibility. 6. The next author to discuss the species was T. R. Jones, 1870 (Geol. Mag. 7 : 216-217, pl. ix, part), but his interpretation, apart from being widely different from that currently accepted, is confused. Jones stated (under the heading of “‘Anthracomya Phillipsii Williamson sp.”) : ““ The Molluscan shells referred to above are very numerous, flattened and compressed, in layers. The chief form is similar to Prof. Williamson’s Unio Phillipsii from the Upper Coal-Measures at Ardwick, near Manchester... Fig. 1, Pl. IX represents the Anthracomya so abundant in the shales under notice ; specimens like Fig. 18 are rare.” The confusion lies in the fact that, in the Explanation of Plate IX, fig. 1 is said to represent ‘“‘Estheria Adamsii sp. nov.”, while fig. 3 is described as “Anthracomya Phillipsii Williamson sp., natural size” and fig. 18 as “Anthracomya (young of A. Phillipsii?) see fig. 3. Mag. 10 diam.”. His specimens, which came from South Wales, are not known to exist, and in any case they could only be used to alter drastically the current interpretation of Williamson’s species. 7. Jones gave no formal description of the species, but R. Etheridge jun., 1877 (Geol. Mag. (2) & : 221) described it accurately (as Anthracomya Phillipsit) and figured two specimens (pl. xii, figs. 6, 7). The original of the latter, from the “‘ Coal Measures, Ardwick, cabinet of Prof. W. C. Williamson ”’, is possibly No. L10106 mentioned in paragraph 5 above. 8. The basis of the modern interpretation of the species was laid down by Wheelton Hind in 1893 (Quart. J. Geol. Soc. London 49 : 264). He referred to “ the loan of Prof. Williamson’s type-specimen ” and described its illustration (pl. x, fig. 27) as ‘‘ Type-specimen from Owens College, Manchester”. In 1895 (Monograph of Carbonicola, Anthracomya and Naiadites: 121, Palaeont. Soc.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63 Hind said “ The original type of this species was named by Dr. W. C. Williamson, who obtained his specimen from the Spirorbis-limestone shale of Pendlebury - +. and continues “I am able to figure this shell in Pl. XVI, fig. 10”. In the explanation of this figure, however, the locality is given as “‘Ardwick ”. It thus seems clear that the Museum authorities had no doubt about the authenticity of the specimen and that Williamson had indeed regarded it as a morphologically satisfactory and typical example of the species, 9. In 1912, J. W. Jackson (Geol. Mag. (5) 9 : 453) correctly noted ‘“ The example described and figured by Hind (Manch. Mus. L10106) is labelled on its underside as coming from Ardwick and the matrix is a red shale, whereas Williamson in his original diagnosis . . . gives the Spirorbis limestone shale of Pendlebury as the horizon and locality whence Dr. C. Phillips obtained the specimens on which the species appears to have been founded. The Ardwick specimen, therefore, can only be regarded as the original of Hind’s figures and not as the type specimen.”. It has already been said in paragraph 3 above that Williamson may have had specimens from more than one locality. 10. In 1930 Pruvost (Mém. Mus. Hist. nat. Belg. 44 : 247) proposed the genus Anthraconauta to contain certain species hitherto placed in Anthracomya Salter (non Rondani) and designated the type-species as follows: ‘“ Espéce génotype Anthraconauta Phillipsi Williams.” [sic]. He treated the generic name as feminine by citing “‘Anthraconauta belgica Hind ” (first described as a species of Anthracomya) and “‘Anthraconauta minima Ludwig ” (first described as a species of Anodonta). Professor L. W. Grensted, Consulting Classical Adviser to the Commission, points out, however, that the generic name, which is a compound word ending in the Latin masculine noun nauta, is indisputably masculine by reference to any rule governing the gender of compound names of classical origin. 11. In 1931, Dix & Trueman (Quart. J. Geol. Soc. London 87 : 186, text-fig. 3, pl. xvii, figs. la, 1b) spoke of Manchester Museum L10106 as the “ holotype ” of Williamson’s species. Their paper is a thorough study on modern lines of the group of species to which Anthraconauta phillipsti belongs and is still in some respects the standard work on the subject. Jackson, 1952 (op. cit. : 79) again cited the specimen as the “ holotype ” of the species. 12. I am at present engaged in seeing through the press that part of a Monograph of the British Carboniferous non-marine Lamellibranchia (begun by the late Sir Arthur Trueman and myself in 1946 and published by the Palaeontographical Society) which deals with the genus Anthraconauta. I wish to interpret the type species of that genus in accordance with the usage initiated by Etheridge in 1877, confirmed by Hind in 1893 and 1895, and firmly established by Dix & Trueman in 1931. This usage has been followed by many other authors in Europe and the U.S.S.R. in stratigraphical studies and in Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Great Britain, and it has guided the identification of many hundreds of specimens in collections, I wish also to see the generic name Anthraconauta, as defined by the type species interpreted as indicated, placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 13. The genus Anthraconauta is currently placed in the family MyaLINIDAR and no family-group name problems arise in the present case. 64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 14. I therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature : (1) to give a ruling that the nominal species Unio phillipsit Williamson, 1836 is to be interpreted by reference to specimen No. L10106 in the Geological Department of the Manchester Museum, England ; (2) to place the generic name Anthraconauta Pruvost, 1930 (gender : masculine), type-species, by original designation, Unio phillipsia Williamson, 1836 on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name phillipsii Williamson, 1836 (as published in the binomen Unio phillipsii) (type species, by original designation, of Anthraconauta Pruvost, 1930) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. SUPPORT FOR THE REQUEST BY DR. J. WEIR FOR A RULING ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NOMINAL SPECIES UNIO PHILLIPSII WILLIAMSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCUSTOMED USAGE. Z.N.(S.) 1398 By R. M. C. Eagar (The Manchester Museum, Manchester, England) Since 1945 I have been in charge of the geological collections in the Manchester Museum. Amongst them I have found several slabs with numerous specimens of Anthraconauta phillipsii (Williamson), all but one (L.12049D) having been labelled as coming from Ardwick. The handwriting on the attached labels suggests the possibility. that all these slabs, including the unlocalised L.12049D, may have been in the hands of W. C. Williamson at an early date, possibly in 1836. None of the specimens, however, closely fits any figures of the species published before 1893. Nor is preservation, nor degree of completeness, so satisfactory amongst these specimens as in that registered as L10106 and labelled, possibly by E. W. Binney, as “Anthracomya phillipsii Owens College, Manchester. Type Specimen ”’. This latter shell, in my opinion, could be the original of the stylised drawing in Murchison’s “ Siurian System ”’, p. 84, Fig. C (1839), although perhaps it is worth pointing out that the matrix of L.10106 is a pink mudstone, whereas Murchison, repeating the figure in his Siluria, refers to it as coming from a band of limestone (see the foregoing Application, p. 62). I think there can be no reasonable doubt that L.10106 is the original of R. Etheridge jun., 1877, pl. xii, fig. 7. In short, although more Manchester Museum specimens than L.10106 may have been available to Williamson in 1836, or shortly before this time, and although there can be no certainty that even this specimen was in his collections then, there is no reason to suppose that any one of these specimens is a more authentic syntype than L.10106. Moreover none is so well preserved, nor so useful for stabilising the interpretation of the species Anthraconauta phillipsii, as this much- figured shell. For these reasons I wish fully to support Dr, Weir’s application to the International Commission for a ruling on the nominal species Unio phillips Williamson ; that the species be interpreted by reference to the specimen L.10106 in the Geological Department of the Manchester Museum ; that the generic name Anthraconauta Pruvost, 1930, with type species by original designation Unio phillipsit Williamson, 1836, be placed on the Official List o Generic Names in Zoology, and that the specific name phillipsii Williamson be pléced on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. nat j “ % CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) New Applications Page Personnel of the International Commission ... a $5 wf 2 Balance Sheet and Accounts of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, year ended 3lst December 1957 ... ae wa 3 Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the generic names Orthoceros Brimnich, 1771 and Orthocera Modeer, 1789 so as to stabilise the generic name Orthoceras eae 1789 ie ce Cephalopoda) (The Assistant Secretary) ... 9 Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Orthoceratites Lamarck, 1799 so as to conserve the generic name Hippurites Lamarck, 1801 (Class Pelecypoda) (L. R. Cox) we 25 Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the generic names Prothechus Rondani, 1856 and Alloneura Rondani, 1856 for the purpose of validating the generic names Verrallia Mik, 1899 and Témésvdryella Aczél, 1939 ies Insecta, Order Diptera) (D. Elmo Hardy) af 27 Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the generic name Dictyoconus Blanckenhorn, 1900 oe Rhizopoda, Order Foraminifera) (Don L. Frizzell) aa 30 Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate a type-species for the nominal genus Beraea Stephens, 1833 in harmony with current use (Class Insecta, Order Trichoptera) (D. E. Kimmins) ... td 32 Proposed addition of the generic name Chaetopteryx Stephens, 1829 to the Official List of Generic Names in poole ioe bawes o Order Trichoptera) (D. E. Kimmins) as 35 Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate as type-species of the nominal genus Apatania Kolenati, 1847 the species intended 4 the original author i Insecta, Order cs ie (D. E Kimmins) 55 xe ve te 37 Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate for the nominal genus Aphrophora Germar, 1821 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) a type-species in harmony with current use (F. Ossiannilsson) ... 39 Proposed addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the specific name casertanum Poli, 1791, as published in the binomen Cardiwm casertanum (Class Pelecypoda) (A. E. Ellis) ... 43 CONTENTS (continued from inside back wrapper) Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the generic name Spirontocaris Bate, 1888 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) (L. B. Holthuis) ... ies es ee nd Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the currently accepted emendation Drepanella for the genus introduced under the name Depranella Ulrich, 1890 (Class Crustacea, Order Ostracoda) (P. C. Sylvester-Bradley) ye Bg me R4 Proposed rejection for nomenclatorial purposes of Bertrand, E., 1763, ‘‘ Dictionnaire universel des fossiles propres et des fossiles accidentels ’’ (R. V. Melville) ves as ee Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Westenoceras Foerste, 1924 so as to preserve the generic name Westonoceras Foerste, 1924 (Class Cephalopoda) (R. H. Flower and C. Teichert) ard Ra a3 me nee aot Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the specific name saccharivora Peterkin, 1790 (Phalaena) and to place the generic name Diatraea Guilding, 1828 on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (H. E. Box) Request for a ruling on the interpretation of the nominal species Unio phillipsit Williamson, 1836 (Class Pelecypoda) in accord- ance with accustomed use (J. Weir) Sa uae vi fi Comment Dr. Weir’s request for a ruling on the interpretation of Unio Phillipsit Williamson, 1836 (R. M. C. Eagar) os a Me oe eee © 1959. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by METCALFE & Cooper LiMiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E.C.2. Page 47 49 56 61 Volume 17. Triple Part 3-5 pp. 65-160 15th December 1959 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 29DEC i959 PURCHAS ED The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by R. V. MELVILLE Assistant Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature CONTENTS Page Editorial Note % a : ae i 65 Notices prescribed by the International a of Pi sine Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on meg sges published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ... ; 67 Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its ri acd Powers in certain onleaind 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, 19, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1 1959 Price Three Pounds, Four Shillings (All rights reserved) be shea "INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL ea aie NOMENCLATURE : e Pons a3 A. The Officers of the Commission 9 m : Professor James Chester Pisisy {Comelt University, Tihaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) pry eas 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr, Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) a2 August 1953) Seeretary : Mr. N. D. Rite (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) — ie Mr. R. V. Metvitxe (c/o British rice (Natural History), sisos B. The eg of the Boas (Arranged in order pacar rernce hed bane Pere Benhor The Afranio do AmARAL (Ss. ‘Paula Brazil) a2 August 1953) (Fee Prasident) ae git R. Dymonp (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12 August 1953) J. Chester Brapiy (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) te ¢ ie v Onivertiwy of Tulane De pncabar Deolinii Orleans, Louisia ae ee ee ‘ad nstitute ing FE i (12 August 1953) — 3) ~ ‘ 3 Ry De L. B. Horrauis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12 August Sosy ope i asinimivealihe Bieta and Industrial Research sation, Canberra, =e ite aes yet teri mia sate ok 2 MruuEr (Museum rni Prise) (39 tas aay of Vererate Zola, University of California, Berkeley, California, ; Pann, (Nérodni Musewn v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30 October Dr. Bie 8 fessor Dr. i i Kiet (Zoologisches Institut der ‘Universitat, Vienna, Austria) ie Never 18 M Ce parati Zoology at Harvard College, Cambri M m om 9 pe ori. Rane Poa cael iowa i! ae Enrico ToRTONESE (Museo ai Storia Naturale “ G. Doria” » Genova, Italy) (16 Dsceraiae ) Dr. Per. Brryox (Lunds Universitets, Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958) Dr. Max Pout (Musée du Congo Belge, Tervuren, Belgium) (12 July 1958) Profi 23 ; ay ae (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) Senor Dr. Angel Caprura (La Plata, Argentina) (23 July 1958) , ts tact England) (23 July whee ; Dr. Henning Lemcne (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958) _ Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Mr. Norman Denbigh Rixy (British Musewm (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) (Secretary) i es? Dr. Tadeusz Jaczewsxr (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, ee a July 1958) Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum 1. Forschw Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt . oe. Germany) (23 July at G ae ~ SP Oe Dr. Erich Martin Herta (Zoologisches Museum der Humbolit-Universitat zu Berlin, Le ia¢ Pema) 8 ly 8) oe V. Osrvcney (Palacontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-71, USSR) FRE “et alee “in ovember 1958) Rass os bia oe ae (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March 1959) S. Se) 5 a : x phi MES Ke ¢ oe Sr: 5s 5 Ss % ac G&G J » aren 4ncn : : Jw purchAS=°RUTTETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 17, Triple Part 3-5 (pp. 65-160) 15th December, 1959 An Editorial Note By the time this issue of the Bulletin is published, another change will have taken place in the affairs of the Commission. Mr. R. V. Melville, whose services the Commission was so fortunately able to secure, through the action of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, when Mr. Hemming found himself unable to carry on through ill-health, returned to the Geological Survey on 1 November. On him fell the full burden of the final preparations for the Colloquium, the Colloquium itself and the subsequent task of reducing its findings to a form presentable to the Editorial Committee appointed to prepare the revised Code of Nomenclature. Between times he has also found opportunity, as is evidenced by this issue of the Bulletin, and previous parts of the same volume, to continue the regular work of preparing cases for the consideration of the Commission and the rendering of their Opinions. It is gratifying to have Mr. Melville’s assurance that, although his formal link with the Commission is now severed, his willing co-operation will still be available. In particular he will be supervising the final stages in the presenta- tion of the revised Code. The Editorial Committee appointed by the Fifteenth International Zoological Congress was enabled, through a grant of 6,000 Swiss francs made available to it by the International Union of Biological Sciences through the kind offices of Professor Baer, to meet in London. Composed of Dr. Stoll (Chairman) and Mr. Sabrosky (U.S.A.), M. Forest and M. Dollfus (France), and Messrs. C. W. Wright and N. D. Riley (U.K.) with Mr. Melville as secretary, the Committee started work on Sunday, 17 May. It had before it an English draft prepared by Mr. Melville and a parallel French draft prepared by M. Forest, together with detailed comments thereon by Dr. Stoll and Mr. Sabrosky. By working very long hours it completed its task late on Monday, 25 May. Subsequent work has been conducted by post and has been concerned solely with minor points of phraseology, presentation, etc. The text was sent to the printer on 29 October. Proofs will be circulated to Commissioners as soon as available, under the three months rule, and it is hoped that publication (French and English texts simultaneously on facing pages) should be possible by about the middle of 1960. In furtherance of the instructions of the London Congress of July 1958, the Commission’s officers and the International Trust for Zoological Nomen- clature have given careful consideration to ways and means of simplifying the style, and reducing the cost, of the Commission’s publications. The elimination from the Opinions of all matter published previously on the case in question would so far reduce the bulk of many of the Opinions that it would 66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature be uneconomic to maintain the Opinions and Declarations series as a separate Serial. It was thought that users of the publications would wish to have the Opinions paged separately from the applications even though merged in a single Bulletin, so that they could be bound up on the completion of the volume either separately from the applications although still in the same cover, or as a separate book. Proposals on these lines were submitted to the Commission in April 1959, and were approved by 22 votes, with 4 abstentions, and one qualified dissent. In practice, however, it is proving difficult to follow this plan, for technical reasons. It is proposed therefore to publish Opinions as and when they are ready, together with applications, in normal Bulletin parts, and the increased flexibility thus gained should reduce costs and allow a smoother and quicker flow of publication of both applications and decisions. It will have been noticed that the Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History) have been so kind as to make office accommodation available for the Commission’s small staff. They have now placed the Commission further in their debt by permitting Dr. W. E. China to take over from Mr. Melville the duties of Assistant Secretary to the Commission, as from 2 November 1959. Dr. China is at present Keeper of the Department of Entomology in the British Museum (Natural History), and has already commenced work on some of the early cases still awaiting presentation and decision. This brief report must, unfortunately, end on a note of regret. Commissioner Professor F. §. Bodenheimer died in London on 4 October after a short illness. Commissioner Professor Béla Hanké died suddenly in Toronto on 16 November. Obituary notices will be published later. N. D. RILEY Hon. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Bias ——~— - CO Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 67 NOTICES (a) Date of Commencement of Voting—In normal circumstances the Commission starts to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications in the present part is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretariat before the close of the six-month period. (b) Possible use of the plenary powers.—The possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers is involved in the following applications published in the present part of the Bulletin :— (1) Designation of a type-species for the nominal genus Bolitochara Mannerheim, 1831 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). Z.N.(S.) 243 ; (2) Designation of type-species for the nominal genera Ischnopoda Stephens, 1835 and T’achyusa Erichson, 1837 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). Z.N.(S.) 244; (3) Suppression of the generic name Southernia Filipjev, 1927 (Class Nematoda). Z.N.(S.) 940. c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary London, 8.W.7, England. International Commission on lst October, 1959. Zoological Nomenclature 68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENTS ON PROPOSALS RELATING TO BERAEA STEPHENS, 1833 (Z.N.(S.) 395) ; CHAETOPTERYX STEPHENS, 1829 (Z.N.(S.) 426); AND APATANIA KOLENATI, 1847 (Z.N.(S.) 427) (see this volume, pages 32-38) By D. C. Denning (Moraga, California, U.S.A.) I concur in his proposals regarding the generic name: Chaetopteryx and Phacopteryx ; to designate wallengreni type-species of Apatania; to designate maurus type-species of Beraea, and urge the Commission to accept all the proposals made by Dr. Kimmins. By L. Botos4neann (Jnstitutul de Speologie al R.P.R., Bucarest) En étudiant avec attention ces trois notes, je suis arrivé 4 la conclusion que les opinions de M. Kimmins son entiérement fondées. Je suis trichoptérologiste et je puis pleinement m’en rendre compte. J’espére que la International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature usera de ses Pouvoirs Pléniers pour faire adopter les propositions contenues dans les trois notes mentionnées. By Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) I would like to make an alternative proposal for Z.N.(S.) 395 which will not alter the object of the proposal but only the method of achieving it. The basic object of the proposal is to stabilize the important genus Beraea of which quite unambiguously 7’. pygmaea Fabricius is the type-species. The Fabrician name is essentially equivalent to hundreds if not thousands given at that period. The diagnosis was considered adequate for its day. Indeed, Fabricius was perhaps the world’s leading animal taxonomist of his day. Yet, in view of many subse- quently discovered species his diagnosis is no longer adequate. A type-specimen is needed for unequivocal identification. I doubt that it is proper to call Fabricius’s name a nomen dubium in the sense in which this term is usually employed in the literature. The danger is that this might make most of the older names nomina dubia. The proposal before us has the further weakness that it bases the type designation for the genus Beraea on the subjective identification of maurus with pygmaea. It seems to me that a far simpler, less arbitrary, solution would be simply to designate a neotype for 7’. pygmaea provided pygmaea had not become a nomen oblitum. If the type of maurus is still in existence, otherwise the whole proposal before us would make no sense, I suggest that this type-specimen be designated the neotype of 7’. pygmaea. It would seem to me that the advantages of this proposal over that of Mr. Kimmins are evident. By D. E. Kimmins, (British Museum (Natural History), London) I cannot, at the moment, give a definite answer about the existence of the type of maurus Curtis. The Curtis Collection of British Insects is oddly enough not in this country but on the opposite side of the globe, in the Melbourne Museum. It will therefore be necessary to apply for the loan of all the specimens labelled Thya maurus in that collection and from them select and designate one as the lectotype of Thya maurus and neotype of Beraea pygmaea Fabricius. I trust that such action (if the loan of the specimens is granted) will not in any way affect the various sections of paragraph 8 of my application to the International Commission. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE A TYPE- SPECIES FOR THE NOMINAL GENUS BOLITOCHARA MANNER- HEIM, 1831, IN HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED USAGE (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 243 By C. E. Tottenham (University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge, England) The nominal genus Bolitochara was established by Mannerheim, 1831 (Mém. Acad. imp. Sci. St. Pétersb. 1(5) : 489) to include 57 species which have subsequently been distributed amongst numerous genera. The first two species cited by Mannerheim were Staphylinus collaris Paykull, 1789 (Mon. Staph. : 50) and Staphylinus lunulatus Paykull (ibid. : 58). 2. Westwood, 1838 (Introd. mod. Classif. Ins. (Synopsis) : 20) designated Aleochara collaris Gravenhorst (i.e. Staphylinus collaris Paykull) as the type- species of Bolitochara. This is a valid type designation, but if it be accepted, then the well-known generic name Zyras Stephens, 1835, becomes a junior synonym of Bolitochara Mannerheim, 1831, and the latter name would replace the former for a group of insects to which it has never been applied since 1837. Although the name Bolitochara has been consistently used since that date for a small genus of insects, including Staphylinus lunulatus Paykull, the transfer of the name to another genus would not cause confusion here, for the genus is small and the subgeneric name Ditropalia Casey, 1906, is available to replace the generic name, although a new name would have to be formed for Bolitochara s.str. The transfer of the name Bolitochara, however, to the well-known genus Zyras Stephens is open to the strongest objection. Zyras is a very large genus, it has a wide distribution, and since the species are generally associated with other insects, e.g. Hymenoptera (Formicoidea) and Isoptera, confusion is likely to be caused in a far wider field of literature than the literature of Coleoptera alone. . 3. The species described as Staphylinus lunulatus by Paykull in 1789, with a reference to Linnaeus, is not the same insect as Staphylinus lunulatus Linnaeus, 1767 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(2) : 684). Paykull’s species therefore requires a validname. The oldest available name for it is Aleochara pulchra Gravenhorst, 1806 (Mon. Col. micr. : 164). It is recommended that the plenary powers be used to set aside Westwood’s original type-designation and to designate this species as the type-species of Bolitochara Mannerheim, 1831, and at the same time to place the generic name Zyras Stephens, 1835 (Ill. brit. Ent. (Mand.) 5 : 430) (type-species, by monotypy, Aleochara haworthi Stephens, 1832 (ibid. : 126) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 4. The genera Bolitochara Mannerheim (as defined in paragraph 3 above in harmony with general usage) and Zyras Stephens are both referred to the family STAPHYLINIDAE, subfamily ALEOCHARINAE ; the former is in the tribe BOLITOCHARINI, subtribe BOLITOCHARAE, and the latter is in the tribe MYRME- DONUNI, subtribe MYRMEDONIAE. The only family-group name, therefore, involved is BOLITOCHARINI. This was first published by Thomson, 1859 Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 17, pts. 3-5. December 1959, 70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Skand. Col. 1 : 31) in the form BotrrocuaRipES. It has also been used by Mulsant & Rey, 1871 (Ann. Soc. linn. Lyon (n.s.) 19 (1872) : 91) in the form BOLITOCHAIRES and again (ibid.: 92) in the form BOLITOCHARATES and by Sharp, 1883,(Biol. centr-Amer. 1(2) : 240) in the form BOLITOCHARINA. 5. The following erroneous spellings of Bolitochara and Zyras are to be found, and it is proposed that these should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: Balitochara Hamilton, 1894, T'rans. Amer. ent. Soc. 21 : 365; Boletochara Westwood, 1838, Introd. mod. Classif. Ins. (Synopsis) : 20; Bolitachara Mulsant & Rey, 1872, Ann. Soc. linn. Lyon (2) 19: 215; Bolithochara Laporte, 1835, Etudes ent. : 136 ; Bolitophaga Mulsant & Rey, 1874, Ann. Soc. agric. Lyon (4) 6 : 295 ; Bolotochara Mulsant & Rey, 1872, Hist. nat. Col. France (Brév., Aléo.) : 210 ; Lyrus Brullé, 1837, Hist. nat. Ins. 6 (Col. 3) : 108 ; Zyrus Cameron, 1939, Fauna Brit. Ind., Col. Staph. 4(2) : 688. 6. I therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature :— (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Bolitochara Mannerheim, 1831, prior to the Ruling now sought and to designate Aleochara pulchra Gravenhorst, 1806 (=Staphylinus lunulatus Linnaeus of Paykull nec Linnaeus) as the type-species of the genus ; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Bolitochara Mannerheim, 1831 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above : Aleochara pulchra Gravenhorst, 1806 ;- (b) Zyras Stephens, 1835 (gender: masculine), type-species by monotypy : Aleochara haworthi Stephens, 1832 ; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) pulchra Gravenhorst, 1806, as published in the binomen Aleochara pulchra (specific name of type-species of Bolitochara Mannerheim, 1831) ; (b) haworthi Stephens, 1832, as published in the binomen Aleochara haworthi (specific name of type-species of Zyras Stephens, 1835) ; (4) to place the following name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology : BOLITOCHARINI (correction of BOLITOCHARIDES) Thomson, 1859 (type-genus : Bolitochara Mannerheim, 1831) ; (5) to place the eight erroneous subsequent spellings of Bolitochara and Zyras specified in paragraph 5 above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (6) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology : (a) BOLITOCHARIDES Thomson, 1859 (type-genus Bolitochara Manner- heim, 1831) (an incorrect original spelling for BOLITOCHARINI) ; (b) BoLrrocHaRINA Sharp, 1883 (type-genus Bolitochara Mannerheim, 1831) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for BOLITOCHARIN]) ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 71 (c) BoLirocHatres Mulsant & Rey, 1871 (type-genus Bolitochara Mannerheim, 1831) (an erroneous subsequent [vernacular] spelling for BOLITOCHARINI) ; (d) BotrrocuaraTes Mulsant & Rey, 1871 (type-genus Bolitochara Mannerheim, 1831) (an erroneous subsequent [vernacular] spelling for BOLITOCHARINI). COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO STABILISE THE GENERIC NAME ORTHOCERAS BRUGUIERE, 1789. Z.N.(S.) 44 (see this volume, pages 9-24) By A. H. Smout (Iraq Petroleum Company, London) Thank you for the separate on Orthoceras. Your proposals have my support. I am glad to see that you have been able to reconcile the practical needs with the Rules to such a large extent and have avoided interference with foraminiferal genera. 72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE TYPE- SPECIES FOR THE NOMINAL GENERA JSCHNOPODA STEPHENS, 1885 AND TACHYUSA ERICHSON, 1837, IN HARMONY WITH CURRENT USAGE (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 244 By C. E. Tottenham (Museum of Zoology, University of Cambridge, England) The nominal genus Ischnopoda was established by Stephens, 1835 (Ill. Brit. Ent. (Mand.) 5 : 430) with a reference to : 110 for the species included in the genus. These were Aleochara aterrima Gravenhorst, 1802 (Col. micr. Brunsv. : 83), Staphylinus leucopus Marsham, 1802 (Coleopt. Brit. : 506), Staphylinus aitenuatus Marsham, 1802 ? and five undescribed species attributed to “ Kirby MSS.”. The only species eligible for selection as type-species are Aleochara aterrima Gravenhorst and Staphylinus leucopus Marsham, 1802, for S. attenuatus Marsham was only doubtfully referred to the genus and the other species were at that time based on nomina nuda. 2. Westwood, 1840 (Introd. mod. Classif. Ins., Synopsis : 19) designated Aleochara aterrima Gravenhorst as the type-species of Ischnopoda and this is the oldest valid type selection. It is clear, however, from the characters given by Stephens for separating Ischnopoda from the other species then included in Aleochara that he intended the genus for a group of species far removed from the true A. aterrima, and this is further shown by the descriptions of the species included in Ischnopoda. It is also clear that the species he determined as aterrima was in fact Aleochara atra Gravenhorst, 1806 (Mon. Coleopt. micr. : 162), as has been recognised by later authors in their synonymies. This species is type-species of T'achyusa Erichson, 1837 (Kaf. Mark Brandenb. 1 : 307) by selection by Shuckard, 1839 (EI. brit. Ent. 1 : 140), while the true aterrima is now placed in the genus Atheta Thomson, 1858 (Ofvers. K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Férhandl., Stockholm 15 : 36), of which the type- species, by monotypy, is Aleochara graminicola Gravenhorst, 1806 (Mon. Coleopt. micr.: 176), and is the type-species, by monotypy, of the subgenus Acrotona Thomson, 1859. 3. Ifit be assumed, under the Rules, that Westwood has correctly identified the insect which he designated as type-species, namely, Aleochara aterrima Gravenhorst, then Ischnopoda Stephens, being the senior name, would become the valid name for Acrotona Thomson, 1859, and furthermore, if Acrotona Thomson is only given subgeneric status, as has usually been done, then also Ischnopoda Stephens would become the valid name for Atheta Thomson. Atheta is an exceedingly large genus with a great number of subgenera and it is a matter of opinion whether some of these should be regarded as genera. There is little or no confusion, however, among the names used for these subgenera, but the size of the genus and the close similarity of many of its species already present sufficient difficulties. It would be a pity to add to Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 17, pts. 3-5. December 1959. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 73 these difficulties by making avoidable nomenclatorial changes. 4. There are thus strong taxonomic reasons for rejecting Westwood’s type designation as a source of confusion. The next author to select a type- species for Ischnopoda was Thomson, 1859 (Skand. Col. 1 : 35), who designated Staphylinus leucopus Marsham, 1802. This species is referred to the genus Tachyusa Erichson, 1837, which would therefore be replaced by Ischnopoda if this selection were adopted. The same result would follow if the species intended by Stephens when he cited Aleochara aterrima Gravenhorst were designated, for this species (A. atra) is the type-species of T'achyusa (see para- graph 2 above). This change would not produce much confusion, for T'achyusa is a small genus, with only a small number of subgenera ; there is already some confusion among these subgeneric names and a change of the genericname would be quite a small matter. Moreover, Ischnopoda has been cited in the synonymy of Tachyusa and even (incorrectly) as a subgenus of it. The question is whether Westwood’s type designation is to be taken in its literal sense as referring to the true Aleochara aterrima Gravenhorst, a species not included by Stephens in his genus except erroneously by name, or whether it is to be taken, as undoubtedly intended, as referring to the insect placed in the genus by Stephens under that name, namely, Aleochara atra Gravenhorst. The latter course would maintain to some extent existing usage, for it would mean the application of the name Ischnopoda either to the whole group of insects included by Stephens, or to a small section of them, as has been done for more than 100 years. Such authors as have divided the genus into two genera, namely, Mulsant and Rey, 1873 and Reitter, 1909 (i.e. into [schnopoda and Tachyusa) have included the species Aleochara atra Gravenhorst in the former, but in the subgenus Thinonoma Thomson, and not in Ischnopoda s.str. 5. Thomson (1850, Skand. Col. 1 : 35) divided the species for which Ischnopoda and Tachyusa had been proposed into three genera, namely, Thinonoma Thomson (type-species, by monotypy, Aleochara atra Gravenhorst), Ischnopoda Stephens, 1835 (for which he designated Staphylinus leucopus Marsham, 1802, as type-species) and J'achyusa Erichson, 1837 (for which he cited Tachyusa constricta Erichson, 1837, as type-species). The effect of this division is that Tachyusa Erichson, 1837, and Thinonoma Thomson, 1859, are objective synonyms, having the same type-species Aleochara atra Graven- horst. Furthermore, if it be assumed that the type-species of Ischnopoda Stephens is the insect undoubtedly intended by Westwood when he cited as type Aleochara aterrima Gravenhorst, namely, Aleochara atra Gravenhorst (=Aleochara aterrima Gravenhorst of Stephens nec Gravenhorst), then both the generic names named above become junior objective synonyms of Ischnopoda Stephens. Nevertheless, most subsequent authors have followed Thomson’s misuse of Ischnopoda and Tachyusa. 6. In 1939, having recognised the misapplication of these generic names, I proposed the new subgenus Pischnopoda, with type-species Staphylinus leucopus Marsham, 1802, for Ischnopoda Thomson, non Stephens (Proc. roy. ent. Soc. Lond. (B) 8 : 226) and in 1945 (ibid. (B) 14 : 70) the subgenus Chyusata, with type-species T'achyusa constricta Erichson, 1837, for Tachyusa Thomson, non Erichson. In 1949 (Generic Names brit. Ins. (9), Staphylinidae : 445-447), 74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature I set out a case asking the International Commission to designate Aleochara atra Gravenhorst as the type-species of Ischnopoda. This would have involved the rejection of Tachyusa as a junior objective synonym and the transfer of Ischnopoda to a subgenus to which it has never been applied. In the light of the present discussion, however, it seems to me that current usage would be best preserved and confusion avoided, if Thomson’s invalid type designations are confirmed. This involves the corollaries set out below. 7. No family-group names have been based on the generic names involved in this case, for all of the. genera concerned are referred to the family STAPHYLINIDAE, subfamily ALEOCHARINAE. 8. I therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature :— (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to set aside all designation of type-species for the nominal genera Ischnopoda Stephens, 1835 and Tachyusa Erichson, 1837 made prior to the ruling now asked for ; (b) to designate Staphylinus leucopus Marsham, 1802 as the type- species of Ischnopoda Stephens, 1835 ; (c) to designate Tachyusa constricta Erichson, 1837 as the type- species of T’achyusa Erichson, 1835. (2) to add the following generic names to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Ischnopoda Stephens, 1835 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Staphy- linus leucopus Marsham, 1802 ; (b) Tachyusa Erichson, 1837 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above, T'achyusa constricta Erichson, 1837 ; (c) Thinonoma Thomson, 1859 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Aleochara atra Gravenhorst, 1806 ; (d) Atheta Thomson, 1858 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Aleochara graminicola Gravenhorst, 1806 ; (e) Acrotona Thomson, 1859 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Aleochara aterrima Gravenhorst, 1802 ; (3) to add the following names to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) leucopus Marsham, 1802, as published in the binomen Staphylinus leucopus (specific name of type-species of Ischnopoda Stephens, 1835) ; (b) constricta Erichson, 1837, as published in the binomen Tachyusa constricta (specific name of type-species of T’achyusa Erichson, 1837) ; (c) atra Gravenhorst, 1806, as published in the binomen Aleochara atra (specific name of type-species of Thinonoma Thomson, 1859) ; (d) graminicola Gravenhorst, 1806, as published in the binomen Aleochara graminicola (specific name of type-species of Atheta Thomson, 1858) ; EEE eS Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 75 (e) aterrima Gravenhorst, 1802, as published in the binomen Aleochara aterrvma (specific name of type-species of Acrotona Thomson, 1859) ; (4) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Pischnopoda Tottenham, 1939, a junior objective synonym of Ischnopoda Stephens, 1835, as here defined ; (b) Chyusata Tottenham, 1945, a junior objective synonym of Tachyusa Erichson, 1837, as here defined. COMMENT ON REQUEST FOR A RULING ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NOMINAL SPECIES UNIO PHILLIPSII WILLIAMSON, 1836. Z.N.(S.) 1398. (see this volume, pages 61-64) By M. A. Calver (Geological Survey 4: Museum, London) I wish to support the application by Dr. J. Weir, The University, Glasgow, Scotland, to stabilise the interpretation of Unio phillipsii Williamson, 1836, on the grounds that the name has been widely used in Coal Measures literature for a considerable number of years and revised interpretation would lead to much confusion. In the interests of nomenclatorial stability I recommend that the name should be interpreted in the manner suggested by Dr. J. Weir. COMMENT ON THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE SPECIFIC NAME SACCHARIVORA PETERKIN, 1790 (PHALAENA). Z.N.(S.) 1315 By T. W. Kirkpatrick (Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture, St. Augustine, Trinidad, W.I.) Reference Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 17, pp. 56-60, I very strongly support the proposals contained in paragraph 19. 76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSAL TO STABILISE THE SCIENTIFIC NAME OF THE CEREAL-ROOT EELWORM (CLASS NEMATODA). Z.N.(S.) 375. By Mary T. Franklin (Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, England) ; G. Thorne (University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A.) ; and M. Oostenbrink (Landbowwhogschool, Wageningen, Netherlands) The object of the present application is to stabilise the nomenclature of the cereal-root eelworm, a widespread species of great economic importance which is now known by two different names in different countries. 2. The Nematode genus Heterodera A. Schmidt, 1871* contains several species, all of them parasitic on the roots of plants, and all having a cystic stage in the life-history. They were at one time considered to be a single species, H. schachtii A. Schmidt, 1871, mainly parasitising sugar-beet, but having biologic races on other crop plants, notably (in the present connection) on cereals. 3. From time to time workers in this subject have raised one or other of the biologic races of H. schachtii to the rank of variety, subspecies or species, but these opinions were not generally accepted until one of us (M.T.F.) in 1940 described slight morphological differences between three of these races and raised them to specific rank under the names H. major O. Schmidt (the cereal ‘“‘race”’), H. rostochiensis Wollenweber (the potato “race”’) and H. goettingiana Liebscher (the pea “‘race”’). The splitting of the wider concept of H. schachtii is now generally accepted among nematologists, but there is a lack of uniformity of usage in the name applied to the cereal-root eelworm. American, Canadian, Dutch, German, Israeli, Russian and some Italian authors use the specific name avenae for this pest, while British, Danish, Japanese and other German and Italian authors use the specific name major O. Schmidt, 1930. The analysis of usage since 1940 given in Appendix I to the present paper shows that the specific name major has been used in 44 works and the specific name avenae in 21 works published in the period reviewed, and that usage is divided cleanly on national grounds except that some Italian and German authors use one name and some the other. 4. German and Danish workers were the first to recognise that the cyst- forming Heterodera which damaged cereals behaved differently from other known forms of the genus, especially from the beet eelworm, H. schachtw (see Voigt, 1892 ; Hansen, 1904). Voigt recorded morphological differences between the “‘ Hafernematode” and the “ Riibennematode ” which enabled him to distinguish between the two taxa, but he did not publish a name for the former. In Danish publications, occurrences of the oat eelworm (‘‘ Havreaal’’) were frequently reported from 1895 onwards and Mortensen, Rostrup & * The generic name Heterodera A. Schmidt, 1871 was added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in Opinion 104 and the specific name schachtii A. Schmidt, 1871 to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology in Direction 77. Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 17, pts. 3-5. December 1959. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature a Kolpin Ravn (1908, Tidsskr. Landbr. Planteavl, 15 : 145-158, see p. 151) were the first to use for it the name Heterodera schachtii var. avenae, but they gave only a record of the occurrence of the worm without any description. The oat eelworm had in fact been described. by Hansen in the same Journal in 1904, but he gave no name and his description is not referred to by Mortensen, Rostrup & Kolpin Ravn. 5. The subspecific name avenae was regularly mentioned as a nomen nudum in the annual reviews of the occurrence of plant diseases and pests in Denmark for the years 1907 to 1925. Wollenweber (1934, IJllustr. Land- wirtsch. Z. No. 12 : 101) stressed the physiological and morphological differences between H. schachtii var. avenae (Haferiilchen) and H. schachtii (Riibenalchen) and gave a table of measurements showing the size-differences between the “female worms (cysts) ” of H. radicicola (Greeff) Miller [= Meloidogyne spp.], H. rostochiensis Wollenweber, H. schachtii var. avenae and H. schachtii A. Schmidt. A translation of his description read : ‘‘ Heterodera schachtii var. avenae, the oat eelworm, clearly occupies a middle place between the beet and the root [-knot] nematodes, but which [place] has yet to be decided’. Wollenweber is here evidently referring to the figures given in his table which indicate that in the ratios of body length/width and body plus neck length/width the cereal eelworm cysts resemble cysts of H. schachtii and differ from those of H. rostochiensis and from females of root-knot eelworm, whereas in neck length and ratio of body length/neck length the cereal eelworm cysts are nearer H., rostochiensis than H. schachtii (see Table). Female eelworms (cysts) Species or Host Eggs Bod Neck Stylet rartety iqatentsie ctl nel) cs Body otal L -: . Badydana., L WwW L W_= width width Neck L Heterodera radicicola Potato 80 44 553 479 V2 1.4 137 4.0 15 H. rostochiensis Potato 97 46 655 640 1.0 L2 137 5.0 — HI. schachtii var. avenae Oats — — 526 334 1.6 1.6* 120 4.4 23 H. schachtii Beet 106 45 686 440 1.6 1.7 84. 8.2 29 H., schachtii Cabbage 115 43 667 425 1.6 1.9** 81 8.2 28 * This is an error and should read 1.9. ** This is an error and should read 1.76 Measurements in p. We hold that by using the name in connection with differential measurements of the cysts of the females, coupled with a reference to the host plants, Wollen- weber gave the status of availability to the subspecific name avenae. Cyst measurements alone are now known to be of little use for identification in this case, particularly when there is no indication of the number of measurements made and when immature female cysts are taken. (Stylet measurements are given, but in mature cysts the stylet is no longer visible.) Mention of the host plants alone (such as had frequently been given in the past by other writers) would not have sufficed for this purpose, though this evidence was, and still is, sufficient to identify the cereal root eelworm in practice without ambiguity. 78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Wollenweber, however, appears to have recognized that there were morpho- logical differences between beet and oat eelworms, and he attempted to indicate what these differences were. 6. In 1930 Schmidt (0.) (Pflanzenbau 3 : 420-464) published a thorough analysis of the differences between the larvae of the beet eelworm and the oat eelworm, based on 40,000 measurements of larvae from 60 populations, and described the morphological, host-preference and hatching-rhythm differences between the two. He divided the larvae into two groups, named H. schachtii var. major and var. minor respectively, and there is no doubt of the availability of both names as from‘his work. In 1934 Filipjev ([Nematodes beneficial and harmful to agriculture] in Russian, see p. 237) summarized O. Schmidt’s work and reproduced some of his illustrations. He used the name avenae as a specific name. Neither O. Schmidt nor Filipjev quoted Wollenweber’s work, but whereas Schmidt gave no indication that he knew of the earlier Danish records, Filipjev specifically mentions them. According to correspondence with Bovien in 1937, however, Filipjev was uncertain about the availability of the name avenae. 7. In 1940 Franklin (J. Helminth. 18 :.193-208) used the binomen H. major O. Schmidt for the oat eelworm, being at that time unaware of Wollenweber’s work in which the name avenae had first been published as an available name. In 1957 (Nematologica 2 : 149-151), still without having seen Wollenweber’s work, she held that H. major was the first name to have been validly published for the species, but noted the extensive prior use of avenae, and added: “ It should, however, be emphasised that the important point is not so much which name should be adopted, but that only one name should be used, and that that one should be chosen in accordance with the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. Unless, therefore, some relevant publication or reference has been overlooked, it is clear that the correct name for the cereal-root eelworm is Heterodera major (O. Schmidt, 1930) Franklin, 1940”. In the same year she enquired of Mr. Hemming, then Secretary to the Commission, whether that name or Heterodera avenae should be used for the cereal-root eelworm and she repeated her enquiry in February, 1958 (having then seen Wollenweber’s paper and drawing the Secretary’s attention to it), but at that time the resources of the Commission’s office were devoted to the preparations for the London Colloquium and the publication in book-form of the Official Lists and Indexes, 8. In June, 1958, the two other authors of the present application approached the Commission (independently of Dr. Franklin) for a ruling on the validity of the name avenae as the name of the cereal-root eelworm, and correspondence between the three applicants and the office of the Commission has resulted in this joint application. 9. While it is obvious that Schmidt’s work appears to be thorough and careful, it is in fact of less practical use to agricultural nematologists. The majority of these workers, when confronted with females and brown cysts associated with the roots of cereals, find that the criteria given by Wollenweber are practical and satisfactory aids to identification, coupled with his statement that the species infests oats, barley, wheat and rye. Schmidt based the name major on the greater length of “‘ oat eelworm”’ larvae compared with “ beet Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 79 eelworm’”’ larvae and supported this with numerous measurements which were later confirmed by Fenwick & Franklin (1951). But statistical analysis of great numbers of larvae is not a feasible method of identification for the ordinary worker. An experienced worker can judge by eye, on releasing larvae from a cyst, whether they are those of the oat eelworm or of the beet eelworm, if he has to choose between those two. One of us (M.O.), however, indicates that a strain of Heterodera schachtii on Spergula arvensis, which is found at different localities in the Netherlands and also occurs in Germany, has larvae which are as long as or longer than the oat eelworm (522-600 1), though it can be separated from the oat eelworm on cyst form and other characters. It is therefore advisable to rely on the practical application of cyst-form and other characters as indicated under paragraph 11, in addition to host plant, and to use larval length with caution as an additional character. 10. It will be seen from the figures given in Appendix I that most of the references to H. major are from England, where most of the work on the species has been done. If workers in that country could be persuaded to adopt the name avenae, world usage would be preponderantly in favour of that name. It may also be pointed out that one of us (M.O.) has used the name avenae in describing morphological characters overlooked by previous authors by which the cereal-root eelworm can be readily recognized (Oostenbrink & den Ouden, 1954). 11. The material described by Wollenweber and O. Schmidt cannot be traced, and it is unlikely that the older Danish records were based on material stored in collections. It is therefore proposed to designate a neotype for the species. This specimen, which is shortly described in Appendix II, is deposited in the nematology collections of the Plantenziektenkundige Dienst, Wageningen, Netherlands, where specimens agreeing with the neotype will be kept available for distribution to other nematology centres on request. The oat eelworm, Heterodera avenae Wollenweber, 1924, as described from the type material mentioned above, differs from other known Heterodera species by the following characters: A broad lemon-shaped cyst with a low, tapering vulval cone and with an extremely short vulval slit (12 1). Cyst wall thick (+9 ,.), brown to black, with conspicuous irregular punctation ; young cysts with a thick subcrystalline layer. Larvae on an average well above 500 yu long, with a slightly curved, long tail (+14 x stylet length) and with a distinctly tapering head which appears rounded owing to the narrow (8-9 ,2) lip. 12. We therefore request the International Commission :— (1) to rule that neither the name minor O. Schmidt, 1930, as published in the combination Heterodera schachtii subsp. minor, nor the name major O. Schmidt, 1930, as published in the combination Heterodera schachtii subsp. major, is to be used in preference to the name avenae Wollenweber, 1924, as published in the combination Heterodera schachtti var. avenae, by those zoologists who consider that all of those names apply to the same taxon ; (2) to rule that the nominal species Heterodera avenae is to be interpreted by reference to the neotype described in Appendix ITI to this applica- tion and made available for further study as indicated. 80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (3) to place the subspecific name avenae Wollenweber, 1924, as published in the combination Heterodera schachtii A. Schmidt var. avenae, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. APPENDIX I Literature on the Cereal Root Eelworm I; Papers in which the cereal root eelworm is referred to as Heterodera avenae. (Numbers are the numbers given to the papers in the following list A.) Papers on Brief mention Country of Papers entirely Heterodera spp. of H. avenae Author about H. avenae including amongst other Total H. avenae nematodes Canada 1 aed 10 — 3 Germany 19 16, 21 4 Holland 3, 1,8 5, 15 12, 13, 14 8 Israel _ 9 _ 1 Italy — — 2 1 US.A. — — 17, 18, 20 3 U.S.S.R. = -— 6 1 Totals 6 6 9 21 ——-,-—_ 12 papers by 10 authors from 4 countries II. Papers in which the cereal root eelworm is referred to as Heterodera major. (Numbers are the numbers given to the papers in the following list B.) Papers on Brief mention Country of Papers entirely Heterodera spp. of H. major Author about H. major including amongst other Total H. major nematodes Britain 2,10, 12a, 16, FO I Be ei ia 6, 14, 22, 23, 32 | Wage: Pas be 21, 26, 30,37, 28, 31, 32 19a, 24, 33, 39, 40, 41 34, 35, 36, 38 Denmark 1, la, 3, 5 — 4 5 Germany 8,13 =_ — 2 Ireland 9 -- — 1 Israel — — 29 1 Italy 27 _ — 1 Japan oo 20 — 1 U.S.A. — — 25 1 Totals 22 12 10 44 I, —-—— 34 papers by 23 authors from 8 countries. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 81 Totals refer to the number of papers listed in the respective lines of columns. Columns 2 and 3 are the important ones: papers listed in column 4 are general ones. Distribution of the cereal root eelworm is in all countries in the first column, except the United States of America. A. Papers in which the name Heterodera avenae is used. C=Canada G=Germany H=Holland Is=Israel It=Italy : eae 6 Baker, A., & Chapman, L. J. 1946. “The oat nematode in Ontario.”” Processed Publication, Div. of Ento., Dept. Agric. Canada, No. 29, 4 pp. 2 ankt Baresi, F. 1955. “ La lotta contro le anguillule delle foglie dei crisantemi mediante l’insetticida sistemico selettivo ‘ Systox ’.” Notiziario sulle Malattie delle Piante, Milan, No. 29, 3-7. (General paper on control.) or Dijkema, L. R. 1947. ‘‘ Eenige waarnemingen met betrekking tot eenzijdige graanbouw.” Tijdschr. PlZiekt. 53(1) : 16-18 4 G Goffart, H. 1951. “ Methoden zur Untersuchung von Boden auf Kartoffelalchen.” NachrBl. dtsch. PflSchDienst, Stuttgart 3(2) : 25-27. (Chief subject is H. rostochiensis, H. avenae is mentioned incidentally.) BE Hijner, J. A., Oostenbrink, M., &den Ouden, H. 1953. ‘“‘ Morpho- logische verschillen tussen de belangrijkste Heterodera- soorten in Nederland.” Tijdschr. PlZiekt. 59 : 245-251 6 USSR Kirjanova, E.8. 1951. [Variations in plant nematodes under the influence of food specialization.] Trud. zool. Inst. Akad. Nauk SSSR 9(2) : 378-404 [In Russian] (apap = | Kort, J. 1957. ‘‘ Het voorkomen van het havercystenaaltje (Heterodera avenae Filipjev 1934=H. major Schmidt, 1930) in Nederland.” Versl. PlZiekt. Dienst Wageningen No. 130, 143-146 8 H Kort, J., & s’Jacob, J. J. 1956. ‘“‘ Een oriénterend onderzoek naar het voorkomen van en de schade veroorzaakt door het havercystenaaltje (Heterodera avenae=H. major) in 1955.” Tijdschr. PlZiekt. 62 : 7-11 9 Is Minz, G. 1956. “ Cyst-forming nematodes in Israel.” Pl. Dis. Reptr. 40(11) : 971-973 10 C Mulvey, R.H. 1957. ‘‘ Taxonomic value of the cone top and the underbridge in the cyst-forming nematodes Heterodera schachtii, H. schachtii var. trifolii and H. avenae (Nematoda : Heteroderidae).” Canad. J. Zool. 35(3) : 421-423 a ts Mulvey, R. H. 1959. “ Preliminary studies on oogenesis in a cyst-forming nematode, Heterodera avenae (Nematoda : Hetero- deridae).” Nematologica 4(1) : 1-2 82 12 cE: 13 H 14 H 15 H 16 G 17 USA 18 USA 19 G 20 USA 21 G B=British Is=Israel LaD la D 2 3 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Oostenbrink, M. 1953. ‘‘Actuele waarnemingen en meldingen op nematologisch gebied.”’ Versl. PlZiekt. Dienst Wageningen No. 120, 165-175. (H. avenae mentioned once in a para- graph on Heterodera species.) Oostenbrink, M. 1954. ‘‘ Ken overzicht van de nematologie als onderdeel van de plantenziektenkunde.”’ Landbouwvoor- lichting 11(5) : 215-226. (One paragraph deals with H. avenae in this general paper.) Oostenbrink, M. 1957. ‘‘ Das Vorkommen von Artgemischen bei pflanzenparasitiren Nematoden.” Nematologica 2 (Suppl.) : 342-346 (H. avenae mentioned once) Oostenbrink, M., & den Ouden, H. 1954. ‘‘ De structuur van de kegeltop als taxonomisch kenmerk bij Heterodera-soorten met citroenvormige cysten.” Tijdschr. PlZiekt. 60 : 146-151 Scherney, F. 1957. “ Morphologische und histologische Unter- suchungen an Heterodera-Arten.” Z. PflKrankh. 64(3) : 131- 139 Steiner, G., Taylor, A. L., & Cobb, G.S. 1951. ‘“‘ Cyst-forming plant parasitic nematodes and their spread in commerce.” Proc. helminth. Soc. Wash. 18(1) : 13-18 (H. avenae men- tioned once) USDA, Annual Report for 1950-51 of Bureau of Plant Industry, Soils and Agricultural Engineering. “‘ Nematology investiga- tions.” Year 1950-1951, pp. 425-427 Wagner, F. 1952. “Uber Auftreten und Bekampfung des Haferalchens (Heterodera avenae).”’ Pflanzenschutz, 4(7) : 83-85 Wheeler, W. H. 1949. ‘‘ Interceptions of the genus Heterodera in foreign soil.” Pl. Dis. Reptr. 33(12) : 446 Wieser, W. 1953. ‘On the structure of the cyst wall in four species of Heterodera Schmidt.” Medd. Vdaatskyddsanst. Stockh. No. 65, 15 pp. B. Papers in which the name Heterodera major is used. D= Danish G=German It=Italian J=Japanese Ir=Ireland USA=U5S.A. Andersen, 8. 1956. ‘‘ Collection of cysts of Heterodera major and estimation of the cyst content.” Nematologica 1(4) : 303-306 Andersen, S. 1959. ‘‘ Resistance of barley to various popula- tions of the cereal root eelworm (Heterodera major). Nemato- logica 4(2) : 91-98 Anon. 1957. ‘“‘Cerealrooteelworm.” Advisory Leaflet No. 421, Min. of Agric. Fish. & Food, pp. 4 Borg, A. 1952. ‘“‘Angrepp av nematoder pai havre.” Vdat- skyddsnotiser, Stockh., Year 1952 (5/6), 69-74 . Bovien, P. 1950. ‘‘ Plantesygdomme i Danmark 1947. 8. Skadedyr p& havebrugsplanter.” Tidsskr. Planteavl 53(2) : 212-223 12a 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 83 Bovien, P. 1953. ‘‘ Om havredlen (Heterodera major) og resulta- terne af nogle forsog pa smittet jord.” Tidsskr. Planteavl 56(4) : 581-591 Cameron, A. E. 1946. “Insect and other pests of 1945.” Trans. Highl. agric. Soc. Scot. Ser. 5, 58 : 101-120. (One paragraph on H. major) Cooper, B. A. 1955. ‘A preliminary key to British species of - Heterodera for use in soil examination.” Soil Zoology, Proce. Univ. Nott. 2nd Easter School in agric. Sci., 1955, pp. 269-280. Butterworths, London Dieter, A. 1958. ‘‘ Beobachtungen iiber Heterodera major O. Schm. an Hafer.” NachrBl. dtsch. PflSchDienst, Berl. N.F. 12(8) : 155-158 Duggan, J.J. 1958. ‘‘ Population studies on cereal root eelworm Heterodera major (O. Schmidt, 1930).” Econ. Proc. Roy. Dublin Soc. 4(6) : 103-118 Dunn, E. 1957. ‘Cereal root eelworm.” Scot. Agric. 36(3) : 146-148 Fenwick, D. W. 1956. ‘‘ Nematology Department.” Report of the Rothamsted Experimental Station, Year 1955, pp. 107-111 (see p. 111) Fenwick, D. W., & Franklin, M. T. 1951. ‘‘ Further studies on the identification of Heterodera species by larval length. Estimation of the length parameters for eight species and varieties.” J. Helminth. 25(1/2) : 57-76 Fidler, J. H., Church, B. M., & Southey, J. F. 1959. “ Field sampling and laboratory examination of cereal root eelworm cysts.” Plant Pathology 8(1) : 27-34 Goffart, H. 1939. ‘‘ Zur Lebensgeschichte von Heterodera schachtit maior (Nematodes).” Zbl. Bakt., Abt. 2, 99 : 394-399 Goodey, T. 1956. ‘‘ The nematode parasites of plants catalogued under their hosts.” Commonw. Bur. agric. Parasit. (Hel- minth.), St. Albans, Revised by J. B. Goodey & M. T. Franklin, 140 pp. Hague, N. G., & Hesling, J. J. 1958. “ Population studies on cyst-forming nematodes of the genus Heterodera.” Proc. linn. Soc. London 169(1/2) : 86-92 Hesling, J. J. 1956. ‘‘ Some observations on Heterodera major.” Nematologica 1(1) : 56-62 Hesling, J. J. 1957. ‘“‘The hatching response of Heterodera major (O. Schmidt) to certain root diffusates.” Nematologica 2(2) : 123-125 Hesling, J. J. 1957. “ Heterodera major O. Schmidt on cereals— a population study.” Nematologica 2(4) : 285-299 Hesling, J. J. 1958. “ Heterodera major O. Schmidt, 1930— Population changes in the field and in pots of fallow soil ”’ Nematologica 3(4) : 274-282 19a 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 USA It Is Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Hesling, J.J. 1958. ‘ The efficiency of certain grasses as hosts of cereal root eelworm.” Plant Pathology 7(4) : 141-143 Ichinohe, M. 1955. [Studies on the morphology and ecology of the soy bean nematode, Heterodera glycines, in Japan.] Report of the Hokkaido National Agricultural Experimental Station, No. 48, 64 pp. [In Japanese: English summary pp. 59-64] Jones, F.G. W. 1950. ‘‘ Observations on the beet eelworm and other cyst-forming species of Heterodera.”’ Ann. appl. Biol. 37(3) : 407-440 Jones, F.G. W. 1957. ‘‘ Nematology Department.’ Report of the Rothamsted Experimental Station, Year 1956, pp. 121-126, see p. 124 Jones, F.G. W. 1958. ‘‘ Nematology Department.” Report of the Rothamsted Experimental Station, Year 1957, pp. 124- 130, see p. 128 Jones, F. G. W., & Moriarty, F. 1956. “A preliminary experi- ment on the effect of various cereals on the soil population of cereal root eelworm, Heterodera major O. Schmidt.” Nemato- logica 1(4) : 326-330 Krusberg, L. R., & Hirschmann, H. 1958. “A survey of plant parasitic nematodes in Peru.” Plant Dis. Reptr. 42(5): 599- 608. (H. major mentioned amongst many other nematodes) Lapage, G. 1956. ‘‘ The potato-root eelworm and other species related to it.” Sch. Sct. Rev. 37(133) : 321-336 (Brief account of H. major) Mezetti, A. 1953. ‘‘ Osservazioni sull’anguillulosi radicale dei cereali in Italia.” Ann. Sper. agr., Nuova serie 7(3) : 743- 758 Miles, H., & Miles, M. 1954. ‘ Root eelworms.” New Biol. No. 16, 101-117. (General and popular account.) Minz, G. 1957. ‘Crop damage by nematodes in Israel.” Nematologica 2 (Suppl.) : 4058S. (H. major mentioned) Peters, B. G. 1952. “The eelworm problem: biological aspects. Plant eelworms of the genus Heterodera.” Chem. & Ind., London, Year 1952, No. 41, 994-995 Peters, B. G. 1954. ‘‘ Nematology Department.”’ Report of the Rothamsted Experimental Station, Year 1953, pp. 97-102 Peters, B. G. 1955. ‘‘ Nematology Department.’ Report of the Rothamsted Experimental Station, Year 1954, pp. 96-102 Southey, J. F. 1956. “‘ National survey work for cereal root eelworm (Heterodera major (O. Schmidt) Franklin).” Nemato- logica 1(1) : 64-69 Southey, J. F. 1956. ‘‘ The cereal root eelworm.” The Agri- cultural Review 2(7) : 39-40 Stone, L. E. W. 1956. “Cereal root eelworm : a farm survey.” Plant Path., Lond. 5(1) : 24-25 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 85 36 «6«B Thomas, I., Brown, E. B., & Willis, R. J. 1946. ‘‘ The cereals root eelworm, Heterodera major (O. Schmidt) Franklin, in North Wales.” Ann. appl. Biol. 33(1) : 63-65 ar,-« B Wallace, H. R. 1958. ‘“‘ Observations on the emergence from cysts and the orientation of larvae of three species of the genus Heterodera in the presence of host plant roots.” Nematologica 3(3) : 236-243 38 «iB White, J. H. 1957. ‘Cereal root eelworm in Durham, 1955.” Plant Path., Lond. 6(3) : 107-108 39 B Winslow, R. D. 1954. ‘“ Provisional lists of host plants of some eelworms (Heterodera spp.). Ann. appl. Biol. 41(4): 591-605 40 B Winslow, R. D. 1955. “The hatching responses of some root eelworms of the genus WHeterodera.” Ann. appl. Biol. 43(1) : 19-36 41 B Winslow, R. D. 1955. “A new method for the production and recovery of cysts of root eelworms (Heterodera spp.) for use in bio-assay.”” J. Helminth. 29(1/2) : 49-54 APPENDIX I Description of Neotype—by M. Oostenbrink. (Locality—Aschersleben, Germany.) A mature cyst with eggs and larvae on slide Heterodera f141. Neoparatypes on slides Heterodera f 133-140 and 142-152. The slides are deposited in the Nematology Collection of the Plantenziektenkundige Dienst, Wageningen, Netherlands, where they are available for study. The neotype cyst has been cracked open so that more differential characters are readily seen. The cyst is clearly lemon-shaped, has a typical short vulval slit (12 » long) and is brown to black with conspicuous punctation. The cyst wall is 9 » thick. About 250 eggs and 15 larvae are visible. The eggs measure 126 » long by 56 » wide (mean of 20 specimens) and the larvae average 530 » long (8 specimens). The larval tails are slightly curved and are about 13 times as long as the mouth stylet. The heads are tapering and rounded, with the lip region 3.9 » high and 8.5 yw broad (average of 10 specimens). The larval stylets average 25 yu long (10 specimens). 86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS FOR ALL PURPOSES THE GENERIC NAME SOUTHERNIA FILIPJEV, 1927, WITH OTHER RECTIFICATIONS OF NOMENCLATURE (CLASS NEMATODA). Z.N.(8.) 940 By Carl Allgén (Malmé, Sweden) The present application is designed to regulate certain problems in the nomenclature of the free-living Nematodes. In the first of the three cases presented, the plenary powers are invoked in order to suppress a senior homonym so as to stabilise a junior homonym in general use. The second case is concerned with a generic name which, though originally proposed as an oversight, is useful for taxonomic purposes, and which should therefore be preserved. The third case is concerned with a generic name which was at first wrongly, and then later, rightly found to be a homonym, and with the stabilisation of the replacement name. Case No. 1 2. Southern, 1914 (Proc. roy. Irish Acad. 31 (54) : 41) established the new genus Demania (Class Nematoda) and referred to it only the two new species Demania major and Demania minor. The generic name was, however, a junior homonym of Demania Laurie, 1906 in Herdman, Rep. Ceylon Pearl Fish. 5 : 396 (Class Crustacea). ; 3. In 1926 Baylis & Daubney (Syn. Fam. Gen. Nemat. : 112) proposed the generic name Rhabdodemania as a replacement name for Demania Southern, 1914, non Demania Laurie, 1906, and designated Demania major Southern as the type-species of their new genus. This species was eligible for subsequent designation as the type-species of Demania Southern, for which no earlier type- designation is known, so that under the Rules, it is the type-species both of Demania Southern and of Rhabdodemania Baylis & Daubney. 4. Filipjev, in 1927 (Arch. f. Naturgesch. 91 : 14, pl. 3, figs. 8, 9) proposed the new generic name Southernia as a replacement name for Demania Southern, 1914, and included in it only the species gracilis Ditlevsen, and Demania minor Southern. In the same paper, however (: 64, 90), Filipjev used, not his own new name Southernia, but Rhabdodemania Baylis & Daubney, 1926, and he quoted Demania major Southern as type-species. It seems probable that Filipjev had proposed the replacement name Southernia in the manuscript of his paper, and that he had later discovered the earlier replacement name Rhabdodemania, but that he had not corrected the proof to read Rhabdodemania on page 14 and in the explanation of pl. 3, figs. 8, 9. 5. In 1929 Allgén (Zool. Jahrb. 57 : 436) proposed the new genus Southernia for the single new species Southernia zosterae, from the west coast of Sweden, which is therefore the type-species by monotypy. The generic name is regarded as taxonomically valid and is in current use. It is, however, invalid as a junior homonym of Southernia Filipjev, which is itself a junior objective synonym of Rhabdodemania Baylis & Daubney (since both are replacement names for Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 17, pts. 3-5. December 1959 ee eee eee ee 1 3 1 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 87 Demania Southern, non Laurie). The Commission is therefore asked to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Southernia Filipjev, 1927 so as to validate the generic name Southernia Allgén, 1929. Case No. 2 6. Bastian, 1865 (Trans. linn. Soc. London 25 : 157) established the new genus Sphaerolaimus for the single new species Sphaerolaimus hirsutus Bastian (1bid. : 157-158, pl. 13, figs. 192-194), which is therefore the type-species by monotypy. 7. Ditlevsen, 1918 (Vid. Medd. dansk. naturh. Forend. 70: 149, 179, pls. 7, 8) described his new species paradoxus in the genus Sphaerolaimus Bastian. This species has since been found only once, in a fifty-year old sample from Greenland (Allgén, 1954). In his list of figures, however, Ditlevsen established the new genus Parasphaerolaimus, with paradoxus as the type- species, by monotypy. He probably named the new genus while his paper was in proof and neglected to change the generic name in the text, but in any case the name is accompanied by a reference to a figure and is therefore available under the rules relating to generic names published before 1931. 8. There are significant taxonomic differences between the old genus Sphaerolaimus and Parasphaerolaimus, and the latter ought to be preserved as the generic name for the species paradoxus Ditlevsen, 1918. Case No. 3 9. In 1894 Cobb (Proc. linn. Soc. N.S. Wales (2) 8 : 420) described the new genus Fimbria (Class Nematoda), with the new species Fimbria tenuis as the type-species, by monotypy. The generic name was, however, preoccupied by Fimbria Bohadsch, 1761 (Phylum Mollusca), and in 1905 Cobb (in Stiles & Hassal, Bull. U.S. Bur. anim. Ind. No. 79 : 107) proposed the new name Fimbrilla as a replacement for Fimbria Cobb, 1894, non Bohadsch. 10. In 1927 Allgén (Zool. Jahrb. (Syst.) 57 : 492) described a new genus Fimbriella, with Fimbriella kornéensis [sic] new species as the type-species by monotypy. ‘This generic name has been mistakenly rejected by some authors as a homonym of Fimbrilla Cobb. 11. Fimbriella Allgén, 1927, is nevertheless invalid, as a homonym of Fimbriella Stoliczka, 1871 (Class Pelecypoda). Strand therefore replaced Fimbriella Allgén by Allgenia Strand, 1934 (Folia zool. hydrobiol. 6 : 271). Fimbrilla Cobb, 1905, and Allgenia Strand, 1934 are thus the valid names involved in this case, and they should be placed on the Official List to prevent any further confusion. 12. In the light of the facts set out above I therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Southernia Filipjev, 1927, for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Names in Zoology : (a) Rhabdodemania Baylis & Daubney, 1926 (gender : feminine), type- species, by original designation Demania major Southern, 1914 ; (b) Southernia Allgén, 1929 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Sowthernia zosterae Allgén, 1929 ; (c) Sphaerolaimus Bastian, 1865 (gender : masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Sphaerolaimus hirsutus Bastian, 1865 ; (ad) Parasphaerolaimus Ditlevsen, 1918 (gender: masculine), type- species, by monotypy, Sphaerolaimus paradoxus Ditlevsen, 1918 ; (e) Fimbrilla Cobb, 1905, (gender : feminine), type-species, by mono- typy, through Fimbria Cobb, 1894, Fimbria tenuis Cobb, 1894 ; (f) Allgenia Strand, 1934 (gender : feminine), type-species, by mono- typy, through Fimbriella Allgén, 1927, Fimbriella kornoensis Allgén, 1927 ; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) major Southern, 1914, as published in the binomen Demania major (type-species of Rhabdodemania Baylis & Daubney, 1926) ; ; (b) zosterae Allgén, 1929, as published in the binomen Southernia zosterae (type-species of Southernia Allgén, 1929) ; (c) hirsutus Bastian, 1865, as published in the binomen Sphaerolaimus hirsutus (type-species of Sphaerolaimus Bastian, 1865) ; (d) paradoxus Ditlevsen, 1918, as published in the binomen Sphaero- laimus paradoxus (type-species of Parasphaerolaimus Ditlevsen, 1918) ; (e) tenuis Cobb, 1894, as published in the binomen Fimbria tenuis (type-species of Fimbrilla Cobb, 1905) ; (f) kornoensis Allgén, 1927, as published in the binomen Fimbriella kornéensis [sic] (type-species of Allgenia Strand, 1934) ; (4) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Southernia Filipjev, 1927, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above ; (b) Demania Southern, 1914, a junior homonym of Demania Laurie, 1906 ; (c) Fimbria Cobb, 1894, a junior homonym of Fimbria Bohadsch, 1761 ; (d) Fimbriella Allgén, 1927, a junior homonym of Fimbriella Stoliczka, 1871. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 89 DIRECTION 104 GRANT OF THE STATUS OF AVAILABILITY TO THE NAMES PUBLISHED BY C. A. CLERCK IN 1757 IN THE WORK ARANEI SVECICI AND ADDITION OF THE TITLE OF THAT WORK TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF WORKS APPROVED AS AVAILABLE FOR USE IN ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE RULING.—(1) In accordance with a decision of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 33-35, 98-100), the generic name Araneus (Class Arachnida) and the specific names published in combination with it in C. A. Clerck’s Aranei svecici are hereby ruled to be available as though they had been published subsequent to the starting point of zoological nomenclature and are to have priority as though they had been published in 1758 prior to the acres of the 10th edition of Linnaeus’s Systema Naturae. (2) In accordance with a decision of the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology, London, 1958, the title of the following work is hereby added to the Official List of Works approved as available for use in Zoological Nomen- clature with the Title No. 39 :— Clerck, C. A., [1758], Svenska Spindlar . . . Aranei svecici, descriptionibus et figuris illustrati (Stockholm). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 537) In 1947 Professor Pierre Bonnet published privately at Toulouse his Pétition adressée & la Commission de Nomenclature Zoologique en faveur de la priorité des noms d’ Araignées de Clerck. In this work, Professor Bonnet gave concrete evidence of the importance to arachnologists of Clerck’s names and of their usage by a large majority of authors in a large majority of works dealing with European spiders. Copies of this petition were sent to 62 specialists in various countries, and a report on the results of this survey was published in 1950 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 173-176). This showed that 48 specialists supported Professor Bonnet’s Pétition and only 4 opposed it. Of the remainder, 2 thought that they were not competent to express an opinion, and 8 (including 6 from eastern European countries) did not reply. Of these 8, it might be presumed from their published works that 6 would have supported and 2 opposed the Pétition. Professor Bonnet’s Pétition and report were considered by the Commission at its Paris (1948) meeting (Bull. zool. Nomencel. 4 : 274-277, 315-319) and by the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology (ibid. 5 : 33-35, 98-100). That Congress approved the endorsement by the Section on Nomenclature of the-Commission’s recommendation (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 319): “‘ that a proviso should be added to Article 26 [of Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 17, pts. 3-5. December 1959. 90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique] directing that notwithstanding the general provisions of that Article, the generic name Araneus and the specific trivial names for species of the Class Arachnida published in 1757 in Clerck’s Aranei svecici are to be treated as though they had been published subsequent to the starting point of zoological nomenclature and are to have priority as though they had been published in the year 1758 on some date prior to the publication of the 10th edition of Linnaeus’s Systema Naturae’’. . The preparation of a first draft of the text of the Régles as amended by the Paris (1948) and Copenhagen (1953) Congresses of Zoology was entrusted to Professor J. Chester Bradley, President of the Commission (Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 96-97). The decision regarding Clerck’s work recorded above was incorporated by Professor Chester Bradley into his draft English text of the revised Régles as Article 2, Section 2(i) (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 38 ; for the equivalent French text, see : 386). The Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature held in London in July 1958, in connection with the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology, acting under the mistaken impression (at its meeting on 9 July) that the title of Clerck’s work had already been placed on the Official List of Works approved as available for use in Zoological Nomenclature, recommended the deletion of Draft Article 2, Section 2(i) from the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature on the grounds that the Code should not include provisions dealing with individual cases. When it was pointed out (at the meeting held on 12 July) that the title of that work had not in fact been placed on the Official List, the Colloquium “ agreed to recommend that the work known as Aranei svecici and published by Clerck in 1757 be added to the Official List of Works available for use in Zoological Nomenclature with priority as from 1758”. Professor Chester Bradley pointed out (in lit. 12.11.59) that the above decision automatically causes Clerck’s work to rank after the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae, whereas the purpose of the Paris ruling was to give Clerck’s names priority over Linnaeus’s in this special case. The present Direction remedies the change unintentionally made by the London Congress in the Paris decision, while taking account of the fact that, in the draft Code approved by the Commission and the Congress at London in July 1958, the 10th edition of Linnaeus’s Systema Naturae is taken to be, in principle, the first work available for zoological nomenclature published in 1758. An application from Professor Bonnet for the placing of the valid names in Clerck’s Aranei svecici on the Official Lists has been registered in the Commission’s office with the number Z.N.(S.) 537. The present issue has been dealt with under the same reference number. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 12 March 1959 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote - under the One-Month Rule on Voting Paper (O.M.) (59)2 for or against the adoption of the present Direction. At the close of the Voting Period on 12 April 1959 the state of the voting was as follows : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 91 Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order: Lemche, Holthuis, Hemming, Vokes, Prantl, Boschma, Hering, Dymond, Bonnet, do Amaral, Bradley, Jaczewski, Key, Brinck, Mertens, Stoll, Mayr, Cabrera, Bodenheimer, Obruchev, Riley, Poll, Tortonese. Negative Votes—none (0). On leave of absence—none (0). Votes not returned four (4) : Uchida, Kiihnelt, Miller, Hanko (late affirmative votes were received from Commissioners Uchida and Kiihnelt). CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (O.M.)(59)2 were cast as set out above, that the proposal set out in the Voting Paper has been duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Direction No. 104. N. D. RILEY RICHARD V. MELVILLE Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 1 May 1959 92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 569 USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SET ASIDE FIRST REVISER SELECTIONS MADE FOR THE GENERIC NAME SELENE LACEPEDE, 1803, AND FOR THE SPECIFIC NAMES ROSTRATA LESUEUR, 1817 (MURAENA); LATIPINNA LESUEUR, 1821 (MOLLIENESIA) ; AND FUSCUS STORER, 1839 ((SYNGNATHUS) (CLASS PISCES) RULING.—(1) The following action is hereby taken under the plenary powers :— (a) All selections made by First Revisers as to the relative precedence of the names specified in Col. 1 and Col. 2 respectively are hereby set aside, the names comprised in each of the pairs concerned being published in the same work and on the same day and being currently regarded by zoologists as applicable to the same taxon :— Col. 1 Col. 2 (i) Selene Lacépéde, 1803 Argyreiosus Lacépéde, 1803 (ii) rostrata Lesueur, 1817, as pub- bostoniensis Lesueur, 1817, as lished in the binomen Muraena’ published in the binomen rostrata Muraena bostoniensis (iii) latipinna Lesueur, 1821, as pub- multilineata Lesueur, 1821, as lished in the binomen Mollien- published in the binomen Poecilia esta latipinna multilineata (iv) fuscus Storer, 1839, as published peckianus Storer, 1839, as pub- in the binomen Syngnathus fuscus lished in the binomen Syngnathus peckianus (b) It is directed that in the case of the names comprised in each of the pairs of names specified in (a) above the name specified in Col. 1 is to be accorded precedence over the name specified in Col. 2. (2) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1372: Selene Lacépéde, 1803, by direction under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, a name to be given precedence over the name Argyretosus Lacépéde, 1803 (gender : feminine) (type-species, by subsequent designa- tion by Jordan & Gilbert (1883) : Selene argentea Lacépéde, 1803). (3) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified :— (a) rostrata Lesueur, 1817, as published in the binomen Muraena rostrata, a name to be given precedence over the name bostoniensis Lesueur, 1817, as published in the binomen Muraena bostoniensis, under the Ruling given under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above (Name No. 1668) ; (b) latipinna Lesueur, 1821, as published in the binomen Mollienesia latipinna, a name to be given precedence over the name multilineata, Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 17, pts. 3-5. December 1959. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 93 as published in the binomen Poecilia multilineata under the Ruling given under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above (Name No. 1669) ; (c) fuscus Storer, 1839, as published in the binomen Syngnathus fuscus a name to be given precedence over the name peckianus, as published in the binomen Syngnathus peckianus under the Ruling given under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above (Name No. 1670) ; (d) vomer Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Zeus vomer (Name No. 1671). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 952) On 7 April 1955, Dr. Reeve M. Bailey (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.) informed the Secretary to the Commission by letter of his intention to request the preservation for four species of American fishes of names which would fall to be rejected under the Copenhagen decision (Copen- hagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 66-67) substituting the “first reviser ”’ principle for that of page and line precedence in deciding the relative priority of names published in the same work on the same day and applied to the same taxon. Dr. Bailey’s definitive application was sent to the printer on 2 July 1957 and was published on 30 December 1957 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13(10/11) : 303- 308. Public Notice of the possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers in this case was given in the part of the Bulletin in which Dr. Bailey’s application was published, as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56) and to one ichthyological serial. The following comments were received :— (a) Dr. A. H. Leim (Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Biological Station, St. Andrews, N.B.).—‘‘I favour the retention of Anguilla rostrata and Syn- gnathus fuscus because they are rather firmly established. I have no opinion on the other cases that are submitted. ” (b) Dr. EZ. Trewavas (British Museum (Natural History), London).—“< I support all Dr. Bailey’s proposals except that I have no opinion on Syngnathus fuscus.” (c) Dr. A. F. Bruun (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen).— “ T would like to support Dr. Bailey’s suggestions in all respects.” DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 7 July 1958 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (58)14 either for or against the proposals set out in points (1) to (3) on Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 306-307, paragraph 8. At the close of the Voting Period on 7 October 1958 the state of the voting was as follows :— (a) Affirmative votes—twenty (20) received in the following order : Holthuis, Boschma, Hemming, Bodenheimer, Vokes, Riley, Hanké, Prantl, Hering, Mayr, Lemche, Brinck, Jaczewski, do Amaral, Dymond, Cabrera, Stoll, Kiihnelt, Tortonese, Bonnet ; 94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (b) Negative votes—one (1): Mertens ; (c) On leave of absence—three (3): Bradley, Key, Miller ; (d) Votes not returned—none. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the generic and specific names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : Selene Lacépéde, 1803, Hist. nat. Poissons, 4 : 560 rostrata, Muraena, Lesueur, 1817, J. Acad. nat. Sct. Philad. 1(5) : 81 latipinna, Mollienesia, Lesueur, 1821, J. Acad. nat. Sct. Philad. 2(1) : 3-4 fuscus, Syngnathus, Storer, 1839, Fishes of Massachusetts : 162-163 vomer, Zeus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 266 The following is the original reference for the selection of a type-species for a nominal genus concerned in the present Ruling; For Selene Lacépéde, 1803 JORDAN & GILBERT, 1883, Bull. U. 8. nat. Mus. 16: 439 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (58)14 were cast as set out above, that the proposal set out in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 569. N. D. RILEY RICHARD V. MELVILLE Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 1 May 1959 : % 7 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 95 OPINION 570 DESIGNATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF A TYPE-SPECIES IN HARMONY WITH EXISTING USAGE FOR THE NOMINAL GENUS INDIANA MATTHEW, 1902 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER OSTRACODA) RULING.—Under the plenary powers (a) all selections of type-species for the nominal genus Indiana Matthew, 1902, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and (b) the nominal species Indiana lippa Matthew, 1902, is hereby designated to be the type-species of the foregoing genus. (2) The following generic name is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— Indiana Matthew, 1902 (gender: feminine), type-species by designation under the Plenary Powers in 1(b) above: Indiana lippa Matthew, 1902 (Name No. 1373) ; (3) The following specific name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— lippa Matthew, 1902, as published in the binomen Indiana lippa (type- species of Indiana Matthew, 1902) (Name No. 1672) ; (4) The following Generic Names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— Indianites Ulrich & Bassler, 1931 (a junior objective synonym of Indiana Matthew, 1902) (Name No. 1283) ; Indiana Tutt, 1903 (a junior homonym of Indiana Matthew, 1902) (Name No. 1284) ; Indiana Chakravatz, 1943 (a junior homonym of Indiana Matthew, 1902) (Name No. 1285) ; (5) The following family-group name is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology : INDIANIDAE Ulrich & Bassler, 1931 (type-genus : Indiana Matthew, 1902) (Name No. 274) ; (6) The following family-group name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :— INDIANITIDAE Ulrich & Bassler, 1931 (a junior objective synonym of INDIANIDAE Ulrich & Bassler, 1931) (type-genus: Indianites Ulrich & Bassler, 1931) (Name No. 305). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1159) On 27 August 1956, Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley applied for the use of the plenary powers to designate Indiana lippa Matthew, 1902, as the type-species of the nominal genus Indiana Matthew, 1902. Mr. Sylvester-Bradley’s applica- tion was sent to the printer on 25 October 1956 and was published on 25 January 1957 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18(1) : 29-31. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 17, pts. 3-5. December 1959. 96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Public Notice of the possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers in this case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56) and to three palaeontological serials. The following comments were received :— (a) Dr. C. J. Stubblefield (Geological Survey & Museum, London) (see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 190). As a result of this comment, Mr. Sylvester-Bradley submitted revised proposals in the form of two alternatives A and B (ibid. : 191-193). Revised Public Notices of the possible use of the plenary powers in connection with the amended proposals were given as before. (b) Professor H. B. Whittington (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.). “It seems to me that the Alternative B is the more desirable solution to this difficult problem.” (c) Dr. Valdar Jaanusson and Dr. Anders Martinsson (Paleontologiska Institution, Uppsala Universitets, Sweden). ‘‘ Both alternatives are good solutions of the problem. We are, however, slightly in favour of Alternative A as it seems more in accordance with Matthew’s intentions. IJndianites Ulrich & Bassler, 1931, functions as a direct substitute for the genus which Matthew felt the need to create, and is founded on the false premise that Indiana ovalis is the type-species of Matthew’s genus.” (d) Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, New York). “T concur with Mr. Sylvester-Bradley’s Alternative A. It should not be stated that Indiana lippa is type of Indianites by original designation which it is not... Ulrich & Bassler’s intention is irrelevant. By proposing Jndianites as a substitute name for ‘ Indiana’ it automatically acquired the type-species of the latter genus, which we are now asked to designate, under the plenary powers, as Indiana lippa.” (e) Mile. Colette Dechaseaux (Laboratoire de Paléontologie de la Sorbonne, Paris, France) and (f) Dr. G. Hemmingsmoen (Palaeontological Museum, Oslo, Norway) preferred Alternative A. FIRST VOTE OF THE COMMISSION On 30 December 1957 the Members of the Commission were asked to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (57)72, first for or against the use of the plenary powers to determine the name to be used for the genus of which Indiana lippa is the type-species, and secondly, for the acceptance of either (a) Indiana, or (b) Indianites as the name for that genus. The following report by Mr. Hemming (then Secretary to the Commission) was circulated with the Voting Paper :— “The purpose of the application submitted in this case was to provide, with the help of the Commission’s Plenary Powers, a type-species for the genus Indiana Matthew, 1902 (Class Ostracoda) in harmony with accepted usage. For this purpose the applicant (P. C. Sylvester-Bradley) asked the Commission to designate under the above Powers the nominal species Indiana lippa Matthew, 1902, to be the type-species of the genus Indiana Matthew, 1902 (Sylvester-Bradley, 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 29-31). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 97 “2. After the publication of the above application, C. J. Stubblefield (Geological Survey and Museum, London) drew attention to a nominal genus Indianites Ulrich & Bassler which had been established in 1931 for Indiana lippa Matthew on the ground that that species was without a valid generic name. This name had not been mentioned in the original application submitted in this case. Stubblefield gave examples of the usage of Indianites and, after stating that he could not accept the statement in the application that ‘The genus Indiana has been universally accepted as properly founded on J. lippa’, concluded as follows :—‘As far as the evidence from British literature is con- cerned, it would appear that 20 years usage of Indianites is material to con- sidering the possibility of legalising this name along with the family name INDIANITIDAE, so that stability of nomenclature may be maintained ’ (Stubble- field, 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 190). “3. Commenting on Stubblefield’s communication, Sylvester-Bradley, after explaining that he had not previously been aware of the paper by Ulrich & Bassler of 1931, reviewed the relative advantages of accepting Indiana lippa Matthew as the type-species of Indiana Matthew and Indianites Ulrich & Bassler respectively and expressed his belief that of the two contending names ‘the use of the name Indiana is more widespread’. He accordingly renewed his support for the acceptance of Indiana. This proposal he then styled Alternative ‘A’. At the same time he gave the style Alternative ‘B’ to Stubblefield’s opposing proposal that Indianites should be accepted in preference to Indiana (Sylvester-Bradley, 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 191-193). “4. Upon receipt of Dr. Stubblefield’s comment and Mr. Sylvester-Bradley’s rejoinder, I asked the latter, as the original applicant in the present case, to furnish the names and addresses of specialists who, in his view, might usefully be invited to comment on the present case. Five replies were received to the enquiry so sent out. Two (R. 8. Bassler (Washington, D.C.) and H. B. Whittington (Cambridge, Mass.) replying in place of P. E. Raymond (deceased) favoured the acceptance of Indianites ; two (V. Jannusson and A. Martinsson (both of Uppsala) expressed the view that both the Indiana solution and the Indianites one were ‘ good solutions of the problem’ but added: ‘ We are slightly in favour of Alternative “A” ’ [i.e. the Indiana solution] ; one (Mule. C. Dechaseaux (Paris) ) gave unqualified support to the Indiana solution. “5. The foregoing consultation cannot be regarded as conclusive by reason of the small number of replies received. It was of value, however, as showing that there is no opposition to the plan for the stabilisation of the generic name to be used for the species Indiana lippa Matthew, the only issue being (1) whether under the Plenary Powers that species should be designated as the type- species of the genus Indiana Matthew, or (2) whether, through the suppression of the name Indiana Matthew under the same Powers, Indianites Ulrich & Bassler should be made the undisputedly valid generic name for the species Indiana lippa Matthew. “6. Both the possible solutions involve the possible use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers and consideration has accordingly been given to the procedure to be adopted in the Voting Paper to be submitted to the Commission in this matter. Clearly what is required is that the Commission should be 98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature placed in a position to decide under the foregoing Powers whether the name to be accepted for the genus typified by Indiana lippa Matthew shall be Indiana Matthew (as proposed by Sylvester-Bradley) or Indianites Ulrich & Bassler (as proposed by Stubblefield). Such an opportunity would not necessarily be provided if the Commission were to proceed immediately to a vote on the foregoing alternatives, for such a vote might lead to a situation in which the alternative receiving the majority of the votes cast might nevertheless not receive two out of every three votes cast, with the result that, by reason of the two-thirds majority rule laid down in Plenary Powers cases, a situation of deadlock would arise, neither of the proposed solutions having obtained the approval of the Commission, the one because, although it secured a majority vote, that majority was not a two-thirds majority, the other because it received only a minority of the votes cast. In order to guard against the risk of such a situation arising in the present case, it has been decided to divide the Voting Paper (V.P.(57)72) now submitted into two Parts, namely :— *‘(a) Part 1, in which the Members of the Commission will be asked to decide whether, in order to obtain a solution in the present case, the Plenary Powers shall be used in one or other of the senses recommended, i.e. either in the sense recommended by Sylvester- Bradley (in favour of Indiana) or in the sense recommended by Subblefield (in favour of Indianites). “‘(b) Part 2, in which the Members of the Commission will be invited to decide, in the light of the Vote taken on Part 1, whether Indiana Matthew or Indianites Ulrich & Bassler is to be accepted as the name of the genus having Indiana lippa Matthew as type-species. ** Note: An affirmative vote by two-thirds of the Commissioners voting on Part 1 of the Voting Paper would put the Commission in a position to take a definite decision by a simple majority on the question submitted in Part 2, namely, whether Indiana (Sylvester-Bradley proposal) or Indianites (Stubblefield proposal) be accepted as the name for the genus typified by Indiana lippa Matthew.” At the close of the Voting Period on 30 March 1958 the state of the voting was as follows :— A. Question of the use of the Plenary Powers to determine the name of the genus of which Indiana lippa Matthew, 1902, is the type-species. Affirmative Votes—nineteen (19), received in the following order: Mayr, Holthuis, Riley, Boschma, Hering, Mertens, Lemche, do Amaral, Bonnet, Dymond, Jaczewski, Bodenheimer, Hemming, Chester Bradley, Sylvester- Bradley, Stoll, Tortonese, Kiihnelt, Hanko ; Negative Votes—two (2): Vokes, Key ; On leave of absence—one (1): Miller ; Votes not returned—two (2): Cabrera, Prantl. B. Acceptance of Indiana as the name for that genus :— Affirmative votes—twenty (20), received in the following order: Mayr, Holthuis, Riley, Boschma, Hering, Mertens, Lemche, do Amaral, Bonnet, Dymond, Jaczewski, Bodenheimer, Key, Hemming, Chester Bradley, Sylvester- Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 99 Bradley, Stoll, Tortonese, Kihnelt, Hanks. C. Acceptance of Indianites as the name for that genus :— None ; Votes not returned—one (1): Vokes. The following comments were sent by Commissioners with their Voting Papers :— (a) Dr. Ernst Mayr (4.1.58). “After a very careful study of the Indiana case I have come to the conclusion that lippa will have to be considered as the type-species until someone has found evidence that ovalis has been fixed as type previously. Iam voting for the use of the plenary powers only because I want to protect the name Indiana against subsequent upsets.” (b) Dr. H. EB. Vokes (13.i.58). “When I came to vote on this problem I took occasion to look up the Ulrich & Bassler papers concerned and, as a Commission has not been given all the facts. In their discussion of the ‘ Genus Indiana Matthew (emended) ’ these authors state (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus.78 : 68) : > . against the definite citation. of I. lippa that occurs in the immediately preceding paragraph (and which was not called to the attention of the Commission). it is stated in the original application that no other citation of a type-species has been found as a result of a search of the literature. It seems to me that only in the event that such another citation had been found could there be any valid excuse for an appeal to the Commission.” would want to vote for Indianites under the circumstances. There is an additional complication... The name INDIANIDAE has priority over INDIANIT- priorname. Under all these consideratia 1s, the only logical action would be to confirm Indiana. 100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature “Tf the vote of the Commission should come out in favour of Indiana, one may let the case rest right there. On the other hand, I feel the matter should be submitted to the Commission once more if the majority should be in favour of Indianites. In view of the new facts which show that Indiana has not only priority but is the valid name on every possible count, it is obvious that no plenary powers decision of the Commission is needed. However, it would certainly need such an action to suppress the name Indiana.” Dr. K. H. L. Key (10.ii.58) ‘‘I consider this to be a case that should never have been brought before the Commission. No evidence has been adduced that ovalis was ever validly selected as type-species of Indiana, for in the only paper that could be considered in this light (the first paper of 1931 by Ulrich & Bassler) those authors repudiated such selection and actually selected lippa. Thus the normal application of the Rules leads to the con- clusion that lippa is the type of Indiana. All that the Commission need to do is to rule that lippa was validly selected by Ulrich & Bassler and place the names concerned on the appropriate Lists and Indexes.” Professor J. Chester Bradley (21.ii.58). “‘Although I am voting in favour of alternative A it does not appear that alternative B is clearly set forth, so that those who vote for it may not realise what they are voting for. “As proposed (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 193, para. 2) B asks that Indiana and Indianites both be entered on the Official List with different type-species. This can only be done by exercise of the plenary powers (which is not asked for). The reason is that Indianites was proposed as a substitute name for Indiana (cf. p. 190, para. 2, lines 9 and 10) therefore has the same type-species, is and must remain an objective junior synonym, of the latter name. “The wording of the Secretary’s mimeographed sheet on this case, para- graph 5, is ‘ through suppression of the name Indiana’ to make Indianites the valid name. This is the correct necessary procedure, but is not what the applicant expected. It will carry with it suppression of the family name INDIANIDAE, which under alternative B was to be entered on the Official List.” On examining the present case with a view to the preparation of an Opinion, the Assistant Secretary took the view that it was not clear that the Vote recorded above had been taken on the basis of all the relevant information, and this view was confirmed by a fresh study of the original literature. It was clear that Ulrich & Bassler (1931, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 78(4) : 13) had (a) accepted that Indiana ovalis Matthew, 1902 was the type-species of Indiana, and (b) had attempted to “ transfer the rank of genotype ”’ to J. lippa Matthew, 1902. The situation thus disclosed as it affected the use of the plenary powers was explained in a report circulated by the Assistant Secretary on 1 November 1958 which summarized the history of the case and continued : “5. It would have been possible to declare that J. ovalis was the type- species of Indiana if Ulrich & Bassler had done ‘ no more than state that that species was the type-species of the nominal genus concerned, irrespective . . of whether they had stated or implied, either correctly or otherwise, that that nominal species had been selected by some previous author to be the type- species . . . or that the nominal species in question had become the type-species of that genus through the operation of some rule [in this case the ‘ first in order Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 101 Rule ’] not recognised in the Régles as a mandatory provision, provided in such a case that they made it clear that they themselves accepted, for whatever reason, the species in question as the type-species of the genus concerned ’ (see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 181-182). These conditions were in fact fulfilled, as I shall now show. “7, In the first Ulrich & Bassler paper referred to (1931, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 78(4) : 13) the following passage occurs (under Bradoria) : ‘The genus Indiana is noted above as synonym in part. But if it were insisted that when no genotype is designated the first species following the generic description is to be so regarded, the genus would not stand. The first species, namely, Indiana ovalis, is an unquestionable Bradoria, being in fact a close ally of B. rugulosa and B. robusta. In this case, however, we think it advisable to transfer the rank of genotype to J. lippa one of two or three clearly congeneric species referred to the genus when it was described by Matthew.’ “8. In the light of this passage, and of the quotations given in the three previous documents in this case, it is clear that : (i) Ulrich & Bassler believed (mistakenly) that Indiana ovalis was the type-species of Indiana by virtue of having been the first species cited by the original author ; (ii) The same authors also believed (mistakenly) that they could ‘ transfer the rank of genotype ’ to I. lippa ; (iii) On its being pointed out to them that this ‘ transfer’ was contrary to the Régles, they then proposed the nominal genus Indianites as a ‘substitute for Indiana Ulrich & Bassler, 1931’. Although they did not designate a type-species for Indianites, it is clear that it must have the same type-species as Indiana Ulrich & Bassler, 1931, non Matthew, 1902, namely, Indiana lippa. (iv) The fact that these authors proposed Indianites in this way makes it clear that they accepted Indiana ovalis as, under the Régles, the type- species of Indiana. The fact that they were mistaken is not signi- ficant in view of the Congress decision quoted in paragraph 6 of this report. “9. It therefore appears that it is, in fact, true that the use of the plenary powers to designate Indiana lippa as the type-species of Indiana is necessary, but that the same species can be designated as the type-species of Indianites without the use of the plenary powers. In other words, alternative A of Mr. Sylvester-Bradley’s revised proposals (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 191-193) cannot be approved except by the use of the plenary powers, whereas Alterna- tive B can be achieved without exercising those powers. “10, Viewed in this light, it is clear that, in terms of Voting Paper (57)72, an affirmative vote for the proposal in the first half of the Voting Paper (that is, a vote for the use of plenary powers) was tantamount to a vote in favour of Indiana as being the name to be added to the Official List as the name of the genus of which Indiana lippa is the type-species, since Alternative B of the second half of that Voting Paper could be achieved without the use of the plenary powers. This is the opposite of the view expressed by Dr. Vokes, 102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Dr. Mayr and Dr. Key, who held that it was Alternative A on the second half of that Voting Paper that could be achieved by automatic action. “11. The procedural question thus raised is one of some delicacy since those Members of the Commission (more than the necessary two-thirds) who voted for the use of plenary powers in this case did so in the belief that the use of those powers was necessary to achieve either of the objectives sought (see paragraph 6 of the note by Mr. Hemming circulated with V.P.(57)72 : ‘ Both the possible solutions involve the possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers ...’) whereas in the light of the present report, the question of whether the plenary powers are to be used or not is one of principle, the answer to which virtually decides the issue one way or the other. I therefore propose to disregard the vote taken on V.P.(57)72 on the grounds that it was taken on the basis of incomplete information, and that since the information necessary to an informed judgement has come to light before the publication of the previous decision, it is legitimate to resubmit the question to the Commission in a revised form. “12. In order that there may be no doubt in the mind of any Member of the Commission as to the issue depending on his vote, I append detailed proposals in respect of two alternatives. An affirmative vote for the first alternative will involve the use of the plenary powers (in favour of Mr. Sylvester Bradley’s proposals on behalf of Indiana) and will require a two-thirds majority. If a majority less than a two-thirds majority of members vote for this alterna- tive, the case will be dealt with under the terms of Declaration 34. An affirmative vote for the second alternative (in favour of Dr. Stubblefield’s proposal on behalf of Indianites) will require only a simple majority. I also enclose, for the information of Members of the Commission, a copy of V.P.(57)72 and of the accompanying note by Mr. Hemming. ALTERNATIVE “A” (1) The Commission to use its plenary powers (a) to set aside all type- selections for the genus Indiana Matthew, 1902, made prior to the Ruling now asked for, and (b) having done so, to designate Indiana lippa Matthew, 1902, as type-species of the foregoing genus ; (2) to place the following name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; Indiana Matthew, 1902 (gender: feminine) (type-species by designation under the plenary powers under (1)(b) above : Indiana lippa Matthew, 1902) ; (3) to place the following name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : lippa Matthew, 1902, as published in the combination Indiana lippa (specific name of the type-species of Indiana Matthew, 1902) ; (4) to place the following name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: INDIANIDAE Ulrich and Bassler, 1931 (type-genus : Indiana Matthew, 1902); (5) place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Indianites Ulrich & Bassler, 1931 (J. Wash. Acad. Sci.) (type- species by original designation : Indiana lippa Matthew, 1902 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 103 (a junior objective synonym of Indiana Matthew, 1902) ; (b) the under-mentioned junior homonyms of Indiana Matthew, 1902:— (i) Indiana Tutt, 1903 ; (ii) Indiana Chakravatz, 1943 ; (6) place the following name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :— INDIANITIDAE Ulrich & Bassler, 1931 (J. Wash. Acad. Sci.) (a junior objective synonym of INDIANIDAE Ulrich & Bassler, 1931 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus.). ALTERNATIVE “B” (1) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Bradoria Matthew, 1899 (gender: feminine) (type-species by selection by Ulrich & Bassler (1931, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus.) Bradoria scrutator Matthew, 1899) ; (b) Indiana Matthew, 1902 (gender: feminine) (type-species, by selection by Ulrich & Bassler, 1931, Indiana ovalis Matthew, 1902), (for use by those who may consider that Bradoria scrutator and Indiana ovalis represent generically distinct taxa) ; (c) Indianites Ulrich & Bassler, 1931 (gender: masculine) (type- species by original designation, Indiana lippa Matthew, 1902). (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) scrutator Matthew, 1899, as published in the binomen Bradoria scrutator (specific name of the type-species of Bradoria Matthew, 1899) ; (b) ovalis Matthew, 1902, as published in the combination Indiana ovalis (specific name of type-species of Indiana Matthew, 1902) ; (c) lippa Matthew, 1902, as published in the binomen Indiana lippa (specific name of the type-species of Indianites Ulrich & Bassler, 1931). (3) place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology :— (a) BRADORIIDAE Matthew, 1902 (type-genus: Bradoria Matthew, 1899) ; (b) NDIaNIDAE Ulrich & Bassler, 1931 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus.) (type- genus Indiana Matthew, 1902) (for use by any taxonomists who may consider that Bradoria scrutator and Indiana ovalis represent distinct family-group taxa) ; (c) INDIANITIDAE Ulrich & Bassler, 1931 (J. Wash. Acad. Sci.). (type- genus Indianites Ulrich & Bassler, 1931 (J. Wash. Acad. Sci.)). (4) place the following junior homonyms of Indiana Matthew, 1902, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Indiana Tutt, 1903 ; (b) Indiana Chakravatz, 1943.” 104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DECISION OF THE COMMISSION The above report was circulated with Voting Paper (O.M.)(58)6 issued under the One-Month Rule. At the close of the Voting Period on 1 December 1958 the state of the voting was as follows :— For Alternative ‘““A’’—fifteen (15), received in the following order : Boschma, Holthuis, Dymond, Hering, Hemming, Tortonese, Mayr, Key, Stoll, Jaczewski, Brinck, Hank6, Bonnet, Lemche, Cabrera ; For Alternative “‘B’’—five (5): Prantl, Mertens, do Amaral, Riley, Boden- heimer ; On leave of absence—two (2): Bradley (J.C.), Miller ; Votes not returned—two (2): Kiihnelt, Vokes. The following comments were sent by Commissioners with their votes :— (a) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (4.x.58). “As I see it, there are two possibilities, either (i) Ulrich & Bassler only selected J. lippa as the type for Indiana, in which case the plenary powers are not needed for Alternative ‘A’, but are to be used to validate Alternative ‘ B’, or (ii) there are two type-indications in Ulrich & Bassler’s paper, namely, both for J. ippa and I. ovalis, in this case probably the first reviser, namely, Ulrich & Bassler themselves (1931, J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 21 : 364) has to be followed which would make JI. ovalis the type of Indiana, now the plenary powers indeed have to be used as suggested by you. Though I personally do not think it necessary to use the plenary powers for validating Indiana lippa as the type-species of the genus Indiana, I am perfectly willing to let them be used to that end.” (b) Professor Ernst Mayr (21.xi.58).—‘*‘ I disagree with your interpretation. Ulrich & Bassler nowhere state what you claim under paragraph 8(1). They clearly say (: 7): ‘ If it were insisted . . .’, but their own actions clearly show that they do not follow this reasoning.” (c) Dr. K. H. L. Key (17.xi.58).—‘*I still do not regard it as established that Ulrich & Bassler accepted in their first 1931 paper that ovalis was the valid type-species. Their use of the subjunctive in the conditional clause quoted in your para. 7 suggests that their word ‘transfer’ means simply ‘transfer from the species to which the rank has been invalidly attached ’. However, I will vote any way that establishes Indiana and settles the matter.” ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the generic, specific and family- group names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : Indiana Matthew, 1902, Canadian Rec. Sci. Montreal 8 : 460 Indianites Ulrich & Bassler, 1931, J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 21 : 364 Indiana Tutt, 1903, Ent. Rec. 15 : 101 Indiana Chakravatz, 1943, Current Sci. 12 : 257 lippa, Indiana, Matthew, 1902, Canadian Rec. Sci. Montreal 8 : 461 INDIANIDAE Ulrich & Bassler, 1931, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 78 : 68 INDIANITIDAE Ulrich & Bassler, 1931, J. Wash. Acad. Sct. 21 : 364. ple ee A Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 105 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Papers (57)72 and (O.M.)(58)6 were cast as set out above, that the proposals set out in those Voting Papers have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the Ruling given in the present Opinion No. 570. N. D. RILEY RICHARD V. MELVILLE Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 1 May 1959 106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 571 DESIGNATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF LECTOTYPES FOR THREE SPECIES OF GRAPTOLITES RULING.—(l) The following action is hereby taken under the plenary powers :— All lectotype selections hitherto made for the nominal taxa specified in Col. 1 below are hereby set aside, and the specimens specified in Col. 2 are hereby designated as their respective lectotypes. Col. 1 Col. 2 (a) Monograptus fimbriatus var. similis The specimen illustrated by Elles Elles, G. L. & Wood, E. M. R., & Wood as text-fig. 339 now pre- 1913 served in the Sedgewick Museum, Cambridge (Regd. No. A21479). (b) Monograptus triangulatus var major The specimen illustrated by Elles Elles & Wood, 1913. & Wood as text-fig. 328b now preserved in the collection of the Geological Survey and Museum, London (Regd. No. 26326). (c) Monograptus communis var. rostratus The specimen illustrated by Elles Elles & Wood, 1913. .& Wood as fig. 2b on pl. xlix: (which is also the specimen shown in text-fig. 337) now preserved in the collection of the Geological Survey of Great Britain (Edin- burgh Office) (Regd. No. 2360). (2) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified below :— (a) similis Elles, G. L. & Wood, E. M. R., 1913, as published in the combina- tion Monograptus fimbriatus var. similis and as interpreted by the lectotype designated under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above (Name No. 1673) ; (b) triangulatus Harkness, R, 1851, as published in the binomen Rastrites triangulatus (Name No. 1674) ; (c) major Elles, G. L. & Wood, E. M. R., 1913, as published in the combina- tion Monograptus triangulatus var. major and as interpreted by the lectotype designated under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above (Name No. 1675) ; (d) communis Lapworth, C., 1876, as published in the combination Mono- graptus convolutus var. communis (Name No. 1676) ; (e) rostratus Elles, G. L. & Wood, E. M. R., 1913, as published in the combination Monograptus communis var. rostratus and as interpreted by the lectotype designated under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above (Name No. 1677). EEE EEE SEES EEE Bull. zool. Nomencl., vol. 17, pts. 3-5. December 1959. a a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 107 HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1248) On 2 August 1957, Professor O. M. B. Bulman (Department of Geology, Cambridge University, England) sent a preliminary enquiry to the Office of the Commission on the possible use of the plenary powers to set aside, in the interests of stability of nomenclature, injudicious lectotype-selections for three species of graptolites. Professor Bulman’s definitive application was sent to the printer on 11 September 1957 and was published on 30th December 1957 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13(10/11) : 313-317. Public Notice of the possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers in this case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56) and to three palaeontological serials. The following comments were received :— (a) Dr. C. J. Stubblefield. (Geological Survey and Museum, London).— “T support Professor O. M. B. Bulman’s application for the revised designation of lectotypes of the Silurian graptolites, Monograptus fimbriatus similis, M. triangulatus major and M. convolutus communis in accordance with the intention of the original authors of these species, the Misses Gertrude L. Elles and E. M. R. Wood, and with long usage, since I believe such lectotype designa- tions to be in the interests of stability of nomenclature.” (b) Dr. Alois Pribyl (Ceskoslovenské Akademie ved Horniky Ustav, Prague, Czechoslovakia).—‘‘ I request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to judge, before taking a decision, my comments as follows : “(i) In paragraph ‘Case No. 1’ Dr. O. M. B. Bulman states that the selection of lectotype from the syntypes figured by G. Elles and E. Wood (1913) on pl. 48, figs. 5a-d and text-fig. 339 was not correct when I, with A. Munch, in 1941 selected as the lectotype of this subspecies (Demirastrites jimbriatus similis) the specimen figured by Elles and Wood as fig. 5a (on pl. 48). Dr. Bulman asserts that the examined specimen (lectotype fig. 5a) ‘ is inaccurate and misleading, since the proximal end of this specimen does not in fact show the sicula, and it can only be identified as similis with reserve ’. “With Dr. O. Bulman’s view and proposal can neither I nor A. Munch agree because the specimen figured on fig. 5a (pl. 48) has a well developed sicular part and constitutes (according to the figure) the best representative of this subspecies that was then figured by both authors (1913). From that clearly follows that the figures in the Monograph of Elles and Wood are either correctly designed and pictured (for I do not know why both authors should have completed the design according to their imagination) or they completed the pictures, in fact, from imagination, and then that Monograph does not constitute an accurate scientific work on which a revising author could rely. Considering that the selection of lectotypes was carried out during World War II (1941), both revising authors (A. Pribyl and A. Munch) could not study directly the figured types. “Nevertheless it is, however, not necessary to replace the selected type (lectotype) by a different selection, as suggested by Dr. O. M. B. Bulman (1957 : 314), because the selected specimen possesses the typical features of subspecies similis, i.e. a larger number of thecae on 10 mm. and other charac- 108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature teristics. I recommend the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature not to approve Dr. Bulman’s suggestion as it is against the rules of the zoological nomenclature. “ (ii) To ‘Case No. 2’. Also in this case Dr. Bulman suggests that the lectotype selected by us (A. Pribyl and A. Munch) of subspecies Demirastrites triangulatus major (Elles and Wood, 1913) should again be replaced by the selection of a different specimen (text-fig. 328b). Dr. Bulman asserts that the type selected by us (specimen figured by Elles and Wood, pl. 47, fig. 5a) is not typically representative of this subspecies (major), but belongs according to him to the subspecies triangulatus triangulatus Harkness. “ Before the Commission takes a decision in this case, I request you to enable me to examine personally the lectotype selected by us (fig. 5a) by your kindly asking Dr. O. Bulman to lend this type for redetermination, eventually to lend me a photocopy of this type. Then perhaps (in case Dr. Bulman be right) there could be carried out a change in the new selection of lectotype. As far as I know it is the duty of every revising author, if he ascertains any mistakes of the previous author, to inform the latter thereof (if he still lives) and to ask him to correct the ascertained errors. “ (iii) To ‘Case No. 3’. In this case Dr. O. Bulman suggests something that is directly against all rules of zoological nomenclature by asking the Commission to approve a new lectotype (fig. 2b) instead of the lectotype chosen earlier by myself in 1946 (fig. 2a). His comment that this selection might lead to mistaking the new species for specimens known under the name of rostratus (communis rostratus) Elles and Wood, 1913, is quite absurd. Considering that the lectotype was selected as early as in the year 1946, it is necessary (to avoid confusion in the zoological nomenclature) to maintain the validity of this selection, and specimens belonging to the determined type will be named rostratus Elles and Wood, as both authors (G. Elles and E. Wood) considered the selected specimen as a ‘typical specimen’ and therefore as a representative of their new subspecies (communis rostratus). Whether some of the specimens figured by G. Elles and E. Wood (1913) may be considered as a new different species (as supposed by Dr. Bulman) is a matter of opinion and progress of science and its development, and such a new species may be selected out of the original syntypes, excepting of course the lectotype. The denomination of ‘ rostratus’’ may carry only that group of specimens which is grouped around the selected lectotype and different forms may be renamed or eventually transferred to another already known or new species, out of which the holotype (of the new species) may be then selected. “JT hope that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature will consider all my comments and take such a point of view as will confirm and strengthen the priority and nomenclature of our Zoological and Paleonto- logical Science. Already Dr. Bulman’s suggestion, first of all in ‘ Case No. 3’, is such a typical example of causing confusion in nomenclature.” ‘ (c) Dr. H. W. Ball (British Museum (Natural History) London).—‘‘ I wish to express my support for the proposal made by Professor Bulman regarding the designation of lectotypes for three taxa of Triangulate Monograptids. This proposal is based upon the results of a re-investigation of the type material a ee SS Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 109 itself and is, in my opinion, the most practicable method of preventing considerable confusion in the taxa concerned.” (d) Dr. Isles Strachan (University of Illinois, Department of Geology, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.).—‘“ I wish to give my full support to the application before the Commission concerning the lectotypes of three graptolite taxa. It is unfortunate that no types were designated in the ‘Monograph of British Graptolites ’ for the new species described in that work but the authors clearly distinguished on several occasions between ‘type specimen’ and ‘ typical specimen ’ so that the latter expression cannot be regarded as an unequivocal designation of a type. I feel also that designation of lectotypes of the British taxa should involve re-examination of the original material and should not be merely a passing reference without further illustration or discussion as is the case with these three taxa.”’ (e) Professor Leif Stormer (University of Oslo, Institute of Geology, Oslo, Norway).—‘‘ Since the lectotypes chosen by Dr. Pribyl do not correspond to the original description of the varieties, it seems justifiable to establish new ones among the originally figured specimens.” (f) Professor O. M. B. Bulman (University of Cambridge, Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge).—‘‘ I am surprised to learn that Dr. Pribyl is opposing the applica- tion which I made recently regarding the lectotypes of certain monograptids (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 313-317), for I cannot see what possible objection there can be to the selection of lectotypes which show the characters of the species they are intended to define, and which maintain the current usage of the names similis, major and rostratus. I am sorry if Dr. Pribyl considers any part of it to be lacking in courtesy ; no discourtesy was intended, any more than by himself, I imagine, in selecting lectotypes without consulting Dr. G. L. Elles (surviving author of the names concerned). “The Commissioners will, I am sure, realise that the whole purpose of Dr. Margaret Sudbury’s revision of this group of monograptid species has been to bring up to date the rather inadequate 45-year old descriptions and figures in the Monograph of British Graptolites. Anyone who has attempted to determine material of these triangulate monograptids will realise that such revision was necessary. To do this involves careful preparation and description of complete and well-preserved pyritised specimens in full relief, and the evaluation and interpretation of compressed examples (as many of those figured by earlier authors). This naturally may lead to some emendation as well as considerable amplification of the short original descriptions, and it can only be done by someone who has access to all the original material. “Case no. 1. Having examined all the specimens concerned (which Dr. Pribyl was unable to do) I can only re-affirm that the specimen he selected as lectotype (Elles & Wood, pl. 48, fig. 5a) does not provide any definitive indication of the sicula. It is therefore impossible to determine whether the first theca shown on the rhabdosome is really thl or th2. The characters of thl, which are diagnostic of the variety similis (according to Elles & Wood, and Dr. Sudbury’s revision) cannot therefore be precisely determined on this specimen. The number of thecae per centimetere is not in itself a reliable feature (being readily affected by preservation, and not easy to determine on 110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature a curved rhabdosome), and Dr. Pribyl does not state what ‘ other character- istics ’ he claims render any alternative selection unnecessary. There is no such uncertainty concerning the specimen represented in text-fig. 339, the interpretation of which is not open to doubt. “That fig. 5a should be inaccurate in the representation of the sicula is perhaps due to the quality of optical equipment available nearly fifty years ago. I would repudiate any suggestion that the figure was deliberately mis- leading, and I would hardly expect any experienced palaeontologist to suggest that inaccuracy in this particular detail in one figure detracts appreciably from the value of the Monograph, or reflects on the ability of the authors. “ Case no. 2. This again seems to me a straightforward case. The variety major was erected for forms in which ‘ the thecae [are] much longer than in the typical form, approximately seven-eighths of the total length being isolate ’. Now the thecae of the specimen illustrated (Elles & Wood, pl. 47, fig. 5a) are in the early part of the rhabdosome triangular and well spaced, and the later ones are even broader. They are, in fact, not more than 2.0 mm. in height, compared with 1.9 mm. in triangulatus and 2.25 to 3.0 mm. in var. major. This is why we suggest that the specimen selected by Dr. Pribyl is not typical, but on the contrary is very nearly true triangulatus ; in the lectotype we propose (text-fig. 328b), the thecal height is 2.2. mm. I am unable to offer any explanation as to why the other was ever figured by Elles & Wood as major. “ Case no. 3. I cannot see what has so incensed Dr. Pribyl about this proposal, or why it is contrary to all rules. The specimen selected by him as lectotype (Elles & Wood, pl. 49, fig. 2a) is, in its detailed thecal characters, quite distinct from the others figured and from what has been taken to represent rostratus. The difference lies in the apertural parts of the metathecae, which are slender and more like those of Tornquist’s M. nobilis than the broad apertural ‘hooks’ of the M. communis group. No great weight need be attached to Elles & Wood’s comment ‘ typical specimen ’ (in reference to fig. 2a), since the specimen we propose (fig. 2b) as lectotype is not only a ‘ typical speci- men ’, but is also ‘ well preserved ’. “Here again I think the disparity in thecal form passed unnoticed by the authors of the Monograph, who were perhaps not drawing their species and varieties so precisely and were using optical equipment which would be judged inefficient by modern standards. What we suggest can cause no confusion whatever, but if the Commission decides that Dr. Pribyl’s selection must stand, then a new name will have to be found for what is currently accepted as rostratus, and to my mind this does introduce confusion.” DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 7 July 1958 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (58)15 either for or against the proposals set out in points (1) and (2) on Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 315-317, paragraph 8. At the close of the Voting Period on 7 October 1958 the state of the voting was as follows :-— (a) Affirmative Votes—twenty (20), received in the following order: Holthuis, Boschma, Bodenheimer, Hemming, Vokes, Riley, Hankd, Hering, _. ee Tee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 111 Mayr, Lemche, Mertens, Jaczewski, Brinck, Dymond, do Amaral, Stoll, Cabrera, Kiihnelt, Tortonese, Bonnet ; (b) Negative Votes—one (1): Prantl; (c) On leave of absence—three (3): Bradley, Key, Miller ; (d) Votes not returned—none. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original reference for the specific names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— similis, Monograptus, Elles, G. L. & Wood, E. M. R., 1913, Mon. Brit. Grapt., Palaeont. Soc. (9) : 483, pl. xlviii, figs. 5a—d, text-fig. 339 triangulatus, Rastrites, Harkness, R., 1851, Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond. 7 : 59, pl. 1, figs. 3a—d major, Monograptus triangulatus, Elles, G. L. & Wood, E. M. R., 1913, Mon. Brit. Grapt., Palaeont. Soc. (9) : 472, pl. xlvii, figs. 5a—d, text-figs. 328 a, b. communis, Monograptus convolutus, Lapworth, C., 1876, Geol. Mag. 13 : 358, pl. xii, figs. 4a, 4b. rostratus, Monograptus communis, Elles, G. L. & Wood E. M. R., 1913, Mon. Brit. Grapt., Palaeont. Soc. (9) : 481, pl. xlix, figs. 2a—c, text-fig. 337 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (58) 15 were cast as set out above, that the proposal set out in the Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion 571. N. D. RILEY RICHARD V. MELVILLE Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 1 May 1959 112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 572 SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE GENERIC NAME CALANDRA CLAIRVILLE & SCHELLENBERG, 1798, AND VALIDATION UNDER THE SAME POWERS OF THE SPECIFIC NAME ABBREVIATUS FABRICIUS, 1787, AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMEN CURCULIO ABBREVIATUS (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA) RULING.—(1) The following action is hereby taken under the plenary powers : (a) the following names are suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy : (i) the generic name Calandra Clairville & Schellenberg, 1798 ; (ii) the specific name elegans Fourcroy, 1785, as published in the binomen Curculio elegans ; (b) the specific name abbreviatus Fabricius, 1787, as published in the bi- nomen Curculio abbreviatus (a junior primary homonym of Curculio abbreviatus Linnaeus, 1758), is hereby validated ; (c) the emendation to oryzae of the specific name oryza Linnaeus, 1763, as published in the binomen Curculio oryza, is hereby validated. (2) The following generic names in the Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera, are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Diaprepes Schoenherr, 1823 (gender : masculine), type-species, by original designation, Curculio spengleri (emend. of sprengleri) Linnaeus, 1767 (Name No. 1374) ; (b) Sitophilus Schoenherr, 1838 (gender: masculine), type-species, by original designation, Curculio oryzae Linnaeus, 1763 (Name No. 1375) ; (c) Sphenophorus Schoenherr, 1838 (gender: masculine), type-species, by original designation, Curculio abbreviatus Fabricius, 1787 (Name No. 1376). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the name numbers specified : (a) abbreviatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Curculio abbreviatus (Name No. 1678) ; (b) granarius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Curculio granarius (Name No. 1679) ; (c) oryzae (emend. under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above of oryza) Linnaeus, 1763, as published in the binomen Curculio oryzae (type- species of Sitophilus Schoenherr, 1838) (Name No. 1680) ; (d) abbreviatus Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Curculio abbreviatus, validated under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above (type-species of Sphenophorus Schoenherr, 1838 (Name No. 1681). (4) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the name numbers specified : a SS eS eS Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 17, pts. 3-5. December 1959. 4%-~( dvb —— ee? Eee ee - e ns ne) dae 7 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 113 (a) Calandra Clairville & Schellenberg, 1798, suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a)(i) above (Name No. 1286) ; (b) Calendra Clairville & Schellenberg, 1798, an invalid original spelling for Calandra through the action of J. C. Fabricius, 1801 as “ first subsequent user ’’ (Name No. 1287) ; (c) the following junior homonyms of Calandra Clairville & Schellenberg, 1798 : (i) Calandra Rafinesque, 1815 (Name No. 1288)!; (ii) Calandra Oken, 1817 (Name No. 1289) ; (iii) Calandra Brookes, 1830 (Name No. 1290) ; (iv) Calandra Lesson, 1837 (Name No. 1291) ; (v) Calandra Gistl, 1848 (Name No. 1292) ; (d) the following junior homonyms of Sphenophorus Schoenherr, 1838 : (i) Sphenophorus Newberry, 1890 (Name No. 1293) ; (ii) Sphenophorus Breitfuss, 1898 (Name No. 1294). (5) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) elegans Fourcroy, 1785, as published in the binomen Curculio elegans (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a)(ii) above) (Name No. 598) ; (b) oryza Linnaeus, 1763, as published in the binomen Curculio oryza (ruled under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above to be an invalid original spelling for oryzae) (Name No. 599) ; (c) sprengleri Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Curculio sprengleri (an invalid original spelling for spengleri) (Name No. 600) ; (d) decurtatus Gmelin, [1790], as published in the binomen Curculio decurtatus (a junior objective synonym of abbreviatus Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Curculio abbreviatus) (Name No. 601). (6) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology, with the Name Numbers specified : (a) CALANDRINI (correction of CALANDRAEIDES) Schoenherr, 1826 (invalid under Declaration 20 because the name of its type-genus (Calandra Clairville & Schellenberg, 1798) has been suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a)(i) above) (Name No. 306) ; (b) CALANDRAEIDES Schoenherr, 1826 (an invalid original spelling for CALANDRINI) (Name No. 307) ; (C) CALANDRADAE Guilding, 1828 (invalid under Declaration 20) (Name No. 308) ; (d) cALANDRIDES Schoenherr, 1837 (an incorrect spelling for CALANDRINI) (Name No. 309) ; (e) CALENDRINAE Leng, C. W., 1920 (an erroneous subsequent spelling for CALANDRINI) (Name No. 310). 1 The item “ Calandra Fitzinger, 1815” in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 16: 46 was a lapsus calami.— Editor. 114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S8.) 255) The present case began in 1944 with attempts by the then Secretary to the Commission, Mr. Francis Hemming, to obtain information to elucidate a state- ‘ment by G. A. K. Marshall, 1940 (Bull. Ent. Res. 31 : 125) to the effect that an application was about to be made to the Commission for the preservation of the generic name Calandra Clairville & Schellenberg, 1798. The difficult and complicated steps which led finally to its submission to the Commission are fully explained in the Secretary’s report (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 16 : 5-47). Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in this case was given in the part of the Bulletin in which the Secretary’s report was published as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56) and to seven entomological serials. The Secretary’s report was based in part on a questionnaire sent to specialists in Coleoptera. Of the 28 replies, 16 were in favour of the proposals put forward, while 10 and 2 respectively supported other possible alternative solutions. Three comments were received after the publication of the report, as follows : (a) J. Balfour-Browne (British Museum (Natural History), London).— In his report . .. Hemming has listed (: 41) the views of specialists on the question whether it is desirable that the specific name abbreviatus Fabricius, 1787— a junior homonym of the Linnean species Curculio abbreviatus (1758)—should be validated under the plenary powers. The majority opinion was in favour of such validation and accordingly Hemming proposes (: 45) that the name be validated. As the record shows (: 43-44) I first approved and then retracted from this proposal. Since that correspondence the Draft Rules to be con- sidered at the forthcoming Congress in London have been circulated. In these Draft Rules a new ‘Article 5’ has been included concerning Continuity and Universality of Usage, and Section 3 of this Article, entitled ‘ Principle of Conservation ’, appears to me to be strictly relevant to this matter. The principle states : ‘If a name for a taxon that is not an invalid homonym is in general current use...’ In my retraction of my original standpoint in this matter I used the words ‘I think the principle of primary homonymy should be preserved . . . convenience should here give way to principle.’ I earnestly desire to submit to the Commission that they should give profound considera- tion, when the case is before them, whether there is, in this matter, sufficient ground for overriding both the principle of primary homonymy and that enunciated in the new Article containing the principle of conservation. It appears to me to be a matter of serious concern that principles which are so soon to be re-affirmed at Congress should be so easy to reject by the proposed exercise of plenary powers and that such action may tend to bring the Rules themselves into disrepute.” (b) Dr. F. Zacher (University of Berlin|Charlottenburg, Germany).—“‘ I am still of the opinion that the name Calandra granaria Linnaeus has to be retained for the corn weevil, since this name has been used for a long time in literature, and especially in papers dealing with stores-destroying pests [references quoted in support].” (c) F. J. Gay (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Canberra, Australia)—“‘ Having considered all the evidence presented in this SHAE pcan OEE BI re W5,, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 115 report, I find no reason to change my original opinion, and accordingly, am in favour of the International Commission following the course of action laid down in Appendix 4 of the report.” DECISION OF THE COMMISSION An unusual factor in the present case is that it is proposed to validate a junior homonym (Curculio abbreviatus Fabricius, 1787) without suppressing the senior homonym (Curculio abbreviatus Linnaeus, 1758). In accordance with an undertaking given by Mr. Hemming, this issue was treated separately from the other issues involved in submitting the case to the Commission for a vote. Two Voting Papers were therefore sent to the Members of the Commission on 1 November 1958. The first (Voting Paper (58)17) called for a vote for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 16 : 45-47 with the exception of proposal 1(b) (the abbreviatus question). At the close of the Three-Month voting period on 1 February 1959, the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: Boschma, Holthuis, Dymond, Hering, Prantl, Mertens, do Amaral, Hemming, Mayr, Key, Riley, Bonnet, Lemche, Bodenheimer, Hank6, Jaczewski, Bradley, Tortonese, Cabrera, Brinck, Vokes. Negative Votes—one (1): Kiihnelt. On leave of absence—two (2) : Stoll, Miller. Votes not returned—none (0). Voting Paper (58)18, distributed at the same time, called for a vote for or against the use of the Plenary Powers to validate the junior homonym abbreviatus Fabricius, 1787 (Curculio). At the close of the voting period, the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—seventeen (17), received in the following order : Dymond, Hering, Prantl, Hemming, Mayr, Key, Riley, Bonnet, Lemche, Hank, Jaczewski, Bradley, Tortonese, Cabrera, Kiihnelt, Brinck, Vokes. Negative Votes—five (5): Boschma, Holthuis, Mertens, do Amaral, Bodenheimer. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : abbreviatus, Curculio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 386 abbreviatus, Curculio, J. C. Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa Ins. 1 : 99 Calandra Brookes, 1830, Mus. Brookes : 93 Calandra Clairville & Schellenberg, 1798, Ent. helv. 1 : pl. 2 Calandra Gistl, 1848, Nat. Thierr. : 136 Calandra Oken, 1817, Isis (Oken), 1817 : 1184 Calandra Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse Nat. : 68 CALANDRADAE Guilding, 1828, Trans. Soc. Encour. Arts 46 : 143 CALANDRAEIDES Schoenherr, 1826, Curcul. Disp. meth. : 23, 323 CALANDRIDES Schoenherr, 1837, Gen. Spec. Curcul. 4(2) : 790 CALANDRINI (correction of CALANDRAEIDES) Schoenherr, 1826, Curcul. Disp. meth. : 23, 323 116 Bulletin-of Zoological Nomenclature Calendra Clairville & Schellenberg, 1798, Ent. helv. 1 : 62 CALENDRINAE C. W. Leng, 1920, Cat. Col. America N. of Mexico : 335 decurtatus, Curculio Gmelin, [1790], in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1(4) : 1747 Diaprepes Schoenherr, 1823, Isis (Oken), 1823 : 1140 elegans, Curculio, Fourcroy, 1786, Ent. paris. (1) : 118 granarius, Curculio Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 378 oryza, Curculio, Linnaeus, 1763 (an invalid original spelling for oryzae) oryzae, Curculio, Linnaeus, 1763 (emend. of oryza), Amoen. acad. 6 : 395 Sitophilus Schoenherr, 1838, Gen. Spec. Curcul. 4(2) : 967 Sphenophorus Breitfuss, 1898, Wém. Acad. Sci. St. Petersburg (8) 6 : 4, 5 Sphenophorus Newberry, 1890, Monogr. U.S. Geol. Surv. 16 : 91 Sphenophorus Schoenherr, 1838, Gen. spec. Curcul. 4(2) : 874 sprengleri, Curculio, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(2) : 609. CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Papers (58)17 and 18 were cast as set out above, that the proposals set out in those Voting Papers have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decisions so taken, being the decisions of the International Commission, are truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 572. N. D. RILEY RICHARD V. MELVILLE Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 1 May 1959 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 117 OPINION 573 DETERMINATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF A LECTO- TYPE FOR THE NOMINAL SPECIES HELIX VIVIPARA LINNAEUS, 1758, AND ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LISTS OF THE GENERIC NAME VIVIPARUS MONTFORT, 1810, AND THE FAMILY-GROUP NAME VIVIPARIDAE GRAY, 1847 (CLASS GASTROPODA) RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers : (a) all previous selections of lectotypes for the nominal species Helix vivipara Linnaeus, 1758, are hereby set aside, and (b) the specimen selected by H. Watson, 1955, is designated as lectotype of that nominal species ; (c) the family-group name PpaLtupinipaE J. E. Gray, 1840, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Viviparus Montfort, 1810 (gender : masculine), type- species, by original designation, Helix vivipara Linnaeus, 1758 (as interpreted under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above) is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1377. (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) vivipara Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Helix vivipara, and as determined under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above (type- species of Viviparus Montfort, 1810) (Name No. 1682) ; (b) contectum Millet, 1813, as published in the binomen Cyclostoma contectum, and as interpreted by the lectotype selected by Forcart, 1957 (Name No. 1683). (4) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Paludina Lamarck, 1812 (a cheironym) (Name No. 1295) ; (b) Paludina Férussac, 1812 (a junior objective synonym of Viviparus Montfort, 1810) (Name No. 1296) ; (c) Vivipara J. Sowerby, 1813 (an erroneous subsequent spelling of Viviparus Montfort, 1810 (Name No. 1297) ; (d) Viviparella Rafinesque, 1815 (an unjustified emendation of Viviparus Montfort, 1810) (Name No. 1298) ; (e) Viviparous Collinge, 1891 (an erroneous subsequent spelling of Viviparus Montfort, 1810 (Name No. 1299) ; (f) Vivipara Kobelt, 1906 (an erroneous subsequent spelling of Viviparus Montfort, 1810) (Name No. 1300). (5) The specific name fluviorum Montfort, 1810, as published in the binomen Viviparus fluviorum (a junior objective synonym of Helix vivipara Linnaeus, 1758), is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology (Name No. 602). Bull. zool. Nomencl., vol. 17, pts. 3-5. December 1959. 118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — (6) The family-group name vivipaRIDAE J. E. Gray, 1847 (type-genus Viviparus Montfort, 1810) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology (Name No. 275). (7) The family-group name PALUDINIDAE J. E. Gray, 1840 (type-genus Paludina Férussac, 1812) (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family- Group Names in Zoology (Name No. 311). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 857) In July 1950, Mr. A. E. Ellis (Epsom, Surrey, England) submitted a list of names of non-marine Molluscan genera for addition to the Official List. Thirty-four of these names were dealt with in Opinion 335 (Ops. Decls. I.C.Z.N. 10 : 45-76), but the present case presented special problems and was therefore postponed for separate treatment. Eventually, the following papers were sent to the printer on 2 January 1957 and published on 29 March 1957 : Ellis, A. E., “‘ Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the generic name Viviparus Montfort, 1810, and proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of the family-group name VIVIPARIDAE Gray (J.E.), 1847 ”, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 38-43 ; Forcart, L., ‘“ Proposed determination of interpretation of, and addition of to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of, (a) vivipara Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix vivipara and (b) contectum Millet, 1813, as published in the combination Cyclostoma contectum, and proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of the family-group name VIVIPARIDAE Gray (J.E.), 1847, ibid. : 44-49 ; Boettger, C. R., ““ Proposed addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the specific name vivipara Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix vivipara, as interpreted by Miiller (O.F.) in 1774”, ibid. : 50-52 ; Watson, H., “ Which of the two common British species of Viviparus Montfort, 1810, should be named Viviparus viviparus (Linnaeus) (=Helix vivipara Linnaeus, 1758) ?”’, ibid. : 53-66 ; Baily, J. L., jr., ““ Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Paludina Feérussac, 1812, by suppressing the name Viviparus Montfort, 1810.”’, ibid. : 67-72. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin, as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56) and to two serials dealing with Mollusca. Mr. Ellis’s application was supported by Dr. Horace B. Baker (University of Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 205) and by Mrs. W. S. S. van der Feen (Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam, Netherlands) (ibid. : 250). Comments received too late for publication are given below. The principal point of controversy in this case concerned the interpretation of the specific name Helix vivipara Linnaeus, 1758. Distinct from this was the question of whether the genus to which that species is referred is to be called Viviparus Montfort, 1810, or Paludina Férussac, 1812 ; and the question of whether the family name involved should be vivipaRIDéE Gray, 1847, or 7 ert ag Ss ee, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 119 PALUDINIDAE Gray, 1840, depended on the answer to the latter question. There was eventually a total of sixteen documents in the case, of which the first seven were the five papers and two comments published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 (see above). The other nine documents were circulated to the Commission with the following report on 12 March 1959. I. IntTRopvucTION “ This report is designed to show in condensed form the matters of principle involved in this case and the means adopted in devising, for the purposes of obtaining a Vote from the Commission, a series of alternative propositions to represent the conflicting and overlapping requests put forward. The Voting Paper is divided into three parts, in each of which a vote is requested for one or the other of two alternatives. This has been found necessary because the problems at the specific name level are independent of those at the generic and family name levels. “2. There are sixteen separate documents before the Commission in the present case. Seven of these have been published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 and the other nine are circulated herewith. For the sake of convenience, they have been given Document Numbers by which they are referred to in this report. The references are: Document 1. Ellis, A. E., Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 38-43 2. Forcart, L., ibid. : 4449 3. Boettger, C., ibid. : 50-52 4. Watson, H., ibid. : 53-66 5. Baily, J. L., ebid. : 67-72 6. Baker, H. B., ibid. : 205 7. van der Feen, W.S.S., zbid. : 250 8. Statement by Commissioner Mayr, 16.7.57 9. Letter from Dr. H. A. Rehder, 23.9.57 10. Letter from Dr. Bengt Hubendick, 25.10.57 11. Letter from Dr. I. C. J. Galbraith, 11.2.58 12. Statement by Dr. Boettger, 11.11.58 13. Letter from Commissioner Mertens, Dr. A. Zilch and Dr. O. Kraus, 24.11.58 14. Statement from Mr. Ellis, 28.11.58 15. Letter from Mr. M. P. Kerney, 3.12.58 16. Letter from Commissioner Mayr, 22.1.59. II. Sprecrric Name PRoBLEeMs “3. The specific name vivipara Linnaeus, 1758 (Helix) has been used for two distinct, though nearly related species of freshwater snails, referred to below as the “narrow” and the “ ventricose ’’ species respectively. The Commission has conflicting proposals before it, (a) as to the species to which the name vivipara is in future to be applied, and (b) as to the valid name of the other species. “4. Ellis (1), supported by Forcart (2), Watson (4), Baily (5), van der Feen (7), Rehder (9), Hubendick (10), Galbraith (11), and Kerney (15), all 120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of them specialists in the field concerned, ask that the specific name vivipara Linnaeus, 1758 be applied to the “‘ narrow ” species, as defined by the lecto- type selected by Watson, 1955 (Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond. 31 : 163-174). Com- missioner Mayr, who is not a specialist in Mollusca, has impartially examined all the evidence and concludes (16) that this view is supported by the weight of the evidence. Forcart (2), Watson (4), Rehder (9), Galbraith (11) and Kerney (15) further hold that contectum Millet, 1813 (Cyclostoma) should be accepted as the name for the “ ventricose ” species. Boettger (3), on the other hand, supported by Commissioner Mertens, Zilch and Kraus (13) ask that vivipara Linnaeus be applied to the “ ventricose”’ species and that fasciata O. F. Miller, 1774 (Nerita) be adopted as the name for the “‘ narrow ” species. The arguments adduced on each side are, however, technically defective, as is explained in the following paragraphs. “5. Watson (4) claims that the Linnean species is homogeneous, whereas Boettger alleges that it is a composite. Thus, for Watson, there can be no question of restriction of the original concept by later revisers, while Boettger’s case rests on the identification of the author who acted as “ first reviser ”’. Helix vivipara Linnaeus, 1758 is based on nine elements (listed below), so that any author is at liberty to apportion these elements among different species according to his subjective opinion. As with any nominal species that is not based on a single, originally designated holotype, a statement that the original concept is a composite cannot be disproved. The way in which these two authorities differ in interpreting each of the elements is shown in the following table. Element Watson’s view Boetiger’s view Description in Syst. Nat. The words “imperfor- Agrees better with the (ed. 10) : 772, 1758 ata, obtusa”’ refer to ‘‘ narrow” but does not two charactersdiagnos- exclude the “‘ ventricose ” tic of the “narrow” species. species Habitat cited by Linnaeus Habitat is not a sound The “ ventricose ” (ibid.) basis for differentiating species the two species Citation of Fauna svecica The locality cited isthe Includes both species river Sala, where only the ‘“‘ narrow ”’ species occurs Lister, Hist. anim. Angl. Indeterminable Indeterminable pl. 2, fig. 18 Lister, Exerc.,p.17,tab.2 The page is that where Both species Lister describes only the “narrow ”’ species (the other is dealt with on pp. 263-265). The plate has figures of a species of Lymnaea besides those here discussed Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 121 Element Watson’s view Boettger’s view Lister, Conch. 2 : pl. 126, The “narrow” species The “narrow’”’ species fig. 26 Gualtieri, Test. pl. 5, fig. A Animmature specimen The “ ventricose ”’ (cited by Linnaeus as of the ‘narrow’ species Sigs 1") species Swammerdam, Bibl.:pl.9, A poor figure of the Probably the “narrow ” fig. 13 (cited as “ fig.3’) “narrow ”’ species species Two original specimens in The ‘“‘narrow”’ species The “narrow’”’ species the Linnean collection “6. It will be seen that Watson’s claim that the species is not a composite is weakened by his admission that one of the synonyms cited by Linneaus is indeterminable, and that Boettger admits that the greater number of the elements of which the original nominal species is composed belong to the “narrow ’”’ species. It therefore seems futile to prolong the argument as to the composite or non-composite nature of the species, since the evidence is too indefinite for a solution to be reached on that basis. Boettger’s statement that the species is composite, whether true or not, cannot be disproved absolutely. “7, One further flaw in each argument should be mentioned. Watson (4) claims that only the specimens in the Linnean collection are to be regarded as syntypes, while the cited synonyms can be ignored. This is, of course, contrary to the Rules. On the other hand, Boettger claims that the two species can be distinguished by their habitat, but Ellis (14) quotes from the literature to show that this view is misleading. “8. The next step is clearly to consider in what way the original concept of Helix vivipara Linnaeus has been restricted or given objective definition, and to decide on the evidence whether such a restriction or definition is in accord with current usage, or whether the plenary powers should be invoked in the interests of stability of nomenclature. Boettger (4, 12) and his supporters claim that the Linnean species was first validly restricted by O. F. Miiller, 1774 (Verm. terrestr. fluv. 2 : 182-184). I have compared this reference with the original Linnean reference, and find no evidence that Miiller restricted the Linnean species in any way. He quoted (under Nerita vivipara) the Linnean description verbatim, with five of the six synonyms cited by Linnaeus, and with additional synonyms. These synonyms are such as to enlarge rather than reduce the extent of the nominal species. Boettger’s claim that Miiller transferred that part of Linnaeus’s composite Helix vivipara which represented. the “narrow” species to his Nerita fasciata finds equally little support, for there is no link, direct or implied, between the two concepts, while Miiller’s description clearly applies to some other species. Those authors who have assumed that Miiller effectively restricted the species have therefore been acting on a false premise. Many important authors adopted this assumption before 1850, although even in that period there were some who did not ; and Watson has clearly shown that since 1850 that idea has been followed only in Germany and some Central European countries. For the last hundred 122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature years, the specific name vivipara Linnaeus, 1758 has been used for the “‘ narrow ” species in a majority of countries where the species occurs (as well as in the U.S.A.) and in a large majority of published works. “9. The first valid restriction of Helix vivipara known to me is Watson’s selection of a lectotype (op cit. 1955). Professor Mayr (16), claims that this is invalid because of Watson’s error in refusing to treat the synonyms cited by Linnaeus as of equal syntype-rank with his specimens, and because he did not take all the syntypes into consideration in selecting his lectotype. I respectfully disagree with the learned Commissioner on this point, for on a literal reading of the Rules, any author is at liberty to choose any one of the original syntypes as lectotype. There are doubtless very many cases where lectotypes of unquestioned validity have been chosen without every syntype having been examined. Professor Mayr concludes that the specimen chosen by Watson should indeed be the lectotype, but he holds that this can only be brought about through the use of the plenary powers. I am unwilling to impose my view on the Commission in any way and feel that each Member should decide for himself whether or not the plenary powers must be used to secure this end. In order to simplify the procedure, it is, I think, legitimate to conclude that a Commissioner who agrees with the view expressed by Ellis, Watson and their supporters (and endorsed by Commissioner Mayr) will consent to the use of the plenary powers in this connection ; while a Com- missioner of the opposite view will not hesitate to use the plenary powers to secure the end sought by Boettger and his supporters. “10. It should be clear that the stabilisation of Helix vivipara as the name for the ‘“ ventricose ”’ species can only be secured by the use of the plenary powers : for the case presented by Boettger for regarding O. F. Miiller as the valid “first reviser’ has been shown to have no foundation in fact. “11. A vote is therefore called for in the first part of Voting Paper V.P.(59)1 (a) either for the use of the plenary powers to set aside all previous type-selections for Helix vivipara Linnaeus, 1758, so as to designate in effect the specimen selected by Watson in 1955 as the lectotype of that species ; or (b) to use the plenary powers in the same manner to rule that that species is to be interpreted in accordance with the alleged restriction by O. F. Miiller in 1774. A vote for the use of the plenary powers in alternative (a) will entail the adoption of the proposals of paragraphs (2) and (4) of Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 43 with those of paragraphs (1) and (2) of :48 and of paragraphs (2), (4) and (6) of : 69-70. A vote for alternative (b) will entail the adoption of Dr. Boettger’s proposals on : 52. III. GEneEric NaME PROBLEMS ““12. The problem at this level is to decide what name is to be used for the genus to which both the ‘‘ narrow” and the “ ventricose ” species of fresh- water snails just discussed are referred, and of which Helix vivipara Linnaeus, 1758, is the type-species. Three generic names, all of them objective synonyms of one another, are mainly involved, namely, Viviparus Montfort, 1810, Vivipara J. Sowerby, 1813, and Paludina Férussac, 1812. ‘13. Ellis (1), supported again by Forcart (2) and Watson (4), as well as $ Vee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 123 by Baker (6) and Rehder (10), proposes that Viviparus Montfort, 1810, be accepted as the name of this genus. All the other authors listed in paragraph 2 above (with the exception of Baily) have used that generic name in their communications with this Office, so that it is legitimate to assume that they too would prefer to see Viviparus stabilised rather than either of the other generic names. Baily (5) proposes that the generic name Paludina Férussac, 1812 be adopted for the genus in question. He quotes references to show that Paludina has been used more often than either Viviparus or Vivipara, and that the last-mentioned has been used more often than the second. (Vivipara J. Sowerby, 1813, is in fact an erroneous subsequent spelling of Viviparus Montfort, 1810, and has only been preferred by some authors because it agrees in its feminine gender with the original gender of the specific name, and because they thought it objectionable to use a masculine name for a “ viviparous ” species.) “14, Ellis (1) has shown that, while Paludina was the generic name most widely used in the nineteenth century, it has been quite superseded in the twentieth century by Viviparus. His claim that current (as opposed to past) usage would be best protected from disturbance by adopting the name Viviparus is not disputed. Moreover, no support is forthcoming for Baily’s proposal, and Rehder (9) has shown that Dr. Baily has not cited a number of references opposed to his purpose. “15, The alternatives at the generic name level (see Part B of the Voting Paper) are thus, either (1) to place Viviparus Montfort, 1810, on the Official List and to reject and place on the Official Index the names listed by Ellis (1 : 40, 43) ; this alternative does not involve the use of the plenary powers ; or (2) to use the plenary powers to suppress the generic name Viviparus Montfort, 1810, and to validate Paludina Férussac, 1812. IV. Famiry-Group NAME PROBLEM “16. Two family-group names fall to be considered in this case, PALUDINIDAE Gray, 1840, and vivrpaRIDAE Gray, 1847. Under the revision of the Rules relating to family-group names adopted at Copenhagen in 1953 (and confirmed in London in 1958), it would be possible to retain the older of these two names (PALUDINIDAB) at the same time as the generic name Paludina was suppressed. This would, however, be contrary to established usage in the Mollusca, where family-group names are always made to follow the valid name of the type-genus. It is, therefore, strongly urged that the Commission should place on the Official List whichever of the two family-names mentioned accords with the generic name which is established at the same time. Thus, if Viviparus Montfort, 1810 is placed on the Official List of Generic Names, and if Paludina Férussac, 1812 is placed on the Official Index, then the plenary powers should be used to suppress PALUDINIDAE for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy and vivipaRiDaE should be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names. If on the other hand, the plenary powers are used to suppress the generic name Viviparus Montfort, 1810, then VIVIPARIDAE should be rejected and placed on the Official Index and PALUDIN- IDAE should be placed on the Official List. It will be noticed that the relative 124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature priority of the family-group names is the reverse of that of the corresponding generic names, so that the alternative which can be adopted at the generic level without using the plenary powers entails the use of those powers at the family level, and vice versa. It will also be observed that, if Viviparus is placed on the Official List, then Paludina is automatically rejected as a junior objective synonym. If the plenary powers were needed to suppress Paludina, then PALUDINIDAE would be automatically invalid by that action. Because that is not the case, the rejection of PALUDINIDAE can only be brought about by the use of the plenary powers. V. Nore on ARRANGEMENT OF VoTING PAPER “17. In presenting a series of alternatives for the votes of Commissioners in the three parts of the accompanying Voting Paper, the alternative which has attracted the most support and which is favoured by the weight of the evidence is placed as Alternative ‘A’ in each case, and the alternative with less support and less favoured by the evidence is placed as Alternative ‘ B’. It will thus be possible to vote in a consistent manner in each of the three issues presented by striking out that numbered ‘A’ in each part. At the same time, it will also be possible to vote for Alternative ‘ B’ in Part 1 and for Alternative ‘A’ in Parts 2 and 3, or for Alternative ‘A’ in Part 1 and Alterna- tive “B’ in Parts 2 and 3 without inconsistency.” APPENDIX Documents 8 to 17 Document 8. Statement by Commissioner Mayr, 16.7.57.—In the various applications concerning the interpretation of Helix vivipara Linnaeus a number of statements are made concerning the Linnean method and certain principles of nomenclature, which call for comment. (1) It is well known that many, if not the majority of the Linnean species, were composite. In order to establish these names unequivocally a subsequent author (“first reviser ”’?) has to restrict the name to one of the components. Linnaeus himself, in later editions of his works, has often been the first reviser of his own composite earlier names. (2) Linnaeus did not have the concept of types in the modern nomenclatorial sense of the word. He considered the cited references, illustrations, descriptions and specimens as equivalent bases of his concept of the respective species. “Authoritative ’, ‘“‘reference” or “original” specimens in the Linnean collection were not necessarily given special treatment by Linnaeus. He merely considered them to “ typify ” his concept of the species. How little Linnaeus appreciated the nomenclatorial significance of such specimens is indicated by the fact that he repeatedly revised his herbarium and replaced specimens (which in part had served as basis of descriptions) by “‘ better ”’ ones. (3) In the case of Linnaeus and other early authors who based their names in part or totally on previously published description or figures, these are as legitimate syntypes as specimens in their collections. A lectotype selection may be made from any of these bases of the name, as was indeed done in several recent decisions of the Commission. The statement by Watson (1957, Bull. , atone! ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 125 zool. Nomencl. 13 : 56) “the only undoubted syntypes of Linnaeus’s Helix vivipara are the two numbered shells in his collection” is therefore in error. The two specimens were not the exclusive basis of Helix vivipara Linnaeus. (4) A first reviser can act only if the original basis of a name is composite. Boettger (op. cit. 54-55) presents seemingly convincing evidence that descrip- tions and all references refer to the “ narrow ” species. The burden of proof now rests with Boettger. (5) The unequivocal establishment of whether or not JH. vivipara is a composite species is the crucial point in the entire question. If this is a com- posite species, it must be determined who is the first legitimate reviser, and if his choice would produce confusion rather than stability and universality, the Commission may have to vote to suspend the rules. In the applications now before us, some of these important matters do not seem to have been brought out with sufficient clarity. I would not want to have this case brought to a vote until this is clarified. Document 9. Letter from Dr. H. A. Rehder, Curator, Division of Molluska, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., 23.9.57.—I am in complete agree- ment with the views expressed by both A. E. Ellis and Lothar Forcart regarding the generic names and family names involved in the question of the usage of Viviparus versus Paludina, and I am opposed to the application of Joshua L. Baily, Jr. As both Ellis and Forcart have pointed out, the name Viviparus (or the invalid emendation Vivipara) have been in almost general use by everyone for the last 70 years or so. Baily, in his list of workers using the various generic names, has omitted many works using Viviparus or Vivipara. I have checked through most of the important molluscan faunal works and monographic studies published since the turn of the century, and have found that since 1900, 19 workers have used Viviparus, 12 have used Vivipara, and only 5 have used Paludina. I have included in this count those references cited by Baily (except his “1904 Jeffreys (J.G.)” which is non-existent ; the date should be 1862), and I have omitted many of the publications listed by Watson because I have not seen them... Many important faunal works using Vivipara published in the late nineteenth century are also not listed by Baily. I support the petition of Lothar Forcart, and hope that the Commission will rule on it favourably. Hugh Watson’s discussion of the name Helix vivipara Linnaeus is perfectly clear and logical, and I agree with his conclusions and recommendations, as opposed to those brought forward by Dr. Boettger. I disagree, however, with Watson’s statement in his “Addendum 2 ” regarding the type of Paludina. Ellis is correct in his discussion of this matter in para- graph 4 of his petition, and the type-species of Paludina must be the same as that of Viviparus. Document 10. Letter from Dr. B. Hubendick, Naturhistoriska Ricksmuseet, Stockholm, 25.10.57.—It is quite definitely clear that Linné gave the name vivipara to the narrower species. This is the only one which occurs in the locality or area given by Linné as the type-locality. The specimens of the more 126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ventricose species which are mixed with the real type in the Linnean collection must have been mixed in by accident and must originate from some other geographical area. All this is definitely settled by Watson in Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 31 : 163 ff., and Ellis’s application to the Commission is in accord- ance with the realfacts. The German nomenclatorial confusion of the Viviparus species is most unfortunate. It is important to get rid of this confusion and not to conserve it, as Boettger suggests. Document 11. Letter from Dr. I. C. J. Galbraith, British Museum (Natural History), London, 11.2.58.—I feel it most desirable that vivipara Linnaeus should apply to the narrower species and contectus Millet to the ventricose one, under the generic name Viviparus Montfort. As for the family name, I hope that the view will prevail that the Copenhagen Decision about family-group names based on junior generic synonyms does not involve changing currently accepted family names based on valid generic names. Boettger’s contribution is curiously at fault in not citing Watson (1955) whose conclusions seem entirely just ; and I think Baily’s proposal about Paludina is mistaken. Document 12. Statement by Dr. Boettger, 11.11.58—As the original description of Helix vivipara Linnaeus must be accepted the publication in the Syst. Nat. (ed. 10), 1758. Linnaeus cited references, illustrations and descriptions ; also there are specimens as equivalent basis of his concept in the Linnean collection. Of his earlier books the Fauna Svecica (3) is cited by Linnaeus [Dr. Boettger quotes from the first and the 1751 editions to show that the species lived both in running and in stagnant water]... The note of Linnaeus that the snail is common in the river Sala (about 100 km. W. of Uppsala) is not at all the nomination of a terra typica as Westerlund believed (1871, Nova Acta Reg. Soc. Sci. Upsal. (3) 8). Westerlund was of the opinion that Linnaeus was thinking only of the running water species, because in the river Sala only this species occurs, while the stagnant water species has its northern limit in Sweden two degrees further south. Linnaeus states, however, that his species lives also in swamps, Westerlund’s restriction of Helix vivipara to the species living in the river Sala had been preceded by that of other authors for many years. [Dr. Boettger then discusses the Linnean synonyms and their identification with the species of running water and stagnant water respectively. ] The description of Helix vivipara, as most of the descriptions given by Linnaeus, is meagre. I agree with Hugh Watson that it conforms more with the river species, but it does not exclude the swamp species, considering the fact that in the time of Linnaeus the differentiations were not so exact as in our times. Obviously Hugh Watson is right when he declares that in the Linnean collection there are only specimens of the river species. But these specimens have not more nomenclatorial value than the references given by Linnaeus in describing his species. If we now had to revise this species, we might have taken the specimens as types ; but this is not possible, as earlier revisions have priority. [Dr. Boettger reiterates his claim that O. F. Miller, 1774, restricted the Linnean species to the ventricose form, naming the narrow % g « te p oe ese Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 127 one Nerita fasciata, and states that this was followed by Gmelin, 1788, Draparnaud, 1801, O. Pfieiffer, 1821, Lamarck, 1822, Rossmassler, 1835, Gray, 1840 and Kiister, 1850]. In 1850, Forbes & Hanley created the slender form as the type of Helix vivipara Linnaeus after having pointed out that only the slender form was represented in the Linnean collection. That these specimens are not the only basis for Helix vivipara has been recognised by Ernst Mayr (Document 8, paragraph 3). Document 13. Letter from Commissioner Mertens, Dr. A. Zilch and Dr. O. Kraus, Senckenberg Museum, Frankfurt a.M., Germany.—Undoubtedly it is a fact that Helix vivipara Linnaeus, 1758 is a composite species. Repeatedly and over many years we have studied this question, and we came to the same result as Dr. Boettger in his paper of 1931 (Arch. Moll. 63 : 253-254). Dr. Forcart also wrote to Dr. Zilch (23.7.52) “I also have re-examined the figures and I came to the same conclusion as Boettger’’. Therefore the state- ment of Watson is unintelligible to us... Already Kobelt (1908, Viviparus Monographie in Martini-Chemnitz, Syst. Conch.-Cab. 1 (21a) : 303) stated “The name Helix vivipara Linné unquestionably comprised both the northern species ; O. F. Miller divided them, and he restricted the name Nerita vivipara to the species before us... In any case it is not useful and leads to severe confusion when, based on such insecure circumstances, the name vivipara Linné is transferred from that species which has been so named for more than 100 years, to another, closely allied species ”’. (The writers list the authors cited by Boettger (see Document 12) who followed Miiller’s alleged restriction.] Therefore we are of the opinion that in the interests of stability and con- tinuity of nomenclature no change in such a long-established and historical usage must be made. Helix vivipara Linnaeus, 1758, is a composite species. We find it only necessary for the Commission to confirm the restriction by O. F. Miiller (1774) and to decide that it is to be regarded as a valid first reviser action (or not). All other questions seem to us as of secondary value. Document 14. Mr. Ellis’s reply to Dr. Boettger’s statement (see Document 12) 28.11.58.—Any arguments based on habitats are of no significance either way, and it is misleading to refer to one species as inhabiting flowing water and the other as inhabiting still water, as the following quotations show : Boycott, A. E., 1936, J. Anim. Ecol.: 139. ‘‘ Both occur in England as far north as Yorks., in slow fair-sized rivers, canals and large draining ditches. Neither occurs naturally in stagnant water or closed ponds, though they will sometimes live, apparently permanently, in ponds into which they have been introduced ... Roughly speaking their habits seem to be identical and the two are often found together. Watson, H., 1955, Proc. malac. Soc. 31 : 164. ‘‘ Both may occur in the same types of habitat, and it is a mistake to suppose that we can identify the species of an old author by the type of habitat in which he says that he has found it. In some districts the narrower species seems to 128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature prefer the moving water of rivers, and the more ventricose one the still water of ponds and marshes, but it is misleading to imply that this is always the case and to term the one species fluviatile and the other lacustrine.” Draparnaud, J. P. R., 1805, Hist. nat. Moll. terr. fluv. France : 36. Cyclo- stoma viviparum “ dans les eaux stagnantes, les fosses, les riviéres, etc.”’. C. achatinum “ habite ordinairement avec la précédente.” Watson (op. cit.: 163 and Document 4:53) shows that Linnaeus only cited figures or descriptions of the narrower species, not of the more ventricose species. That Helix vivipara was not a composite species has been con- clusively shown by Watson in these papers. Boettger’s tendentious statement that “it is a well-known and undeniable fact that Helix vivipara Linnaeus is a composite species’ is not in fact true, and he is wrong in saying that ‘‘ only a few subsequent authors have adopted this view ”’, i.e. that of Forbes & Hanley, that the narrow species represented by the shells in the Linnean collection is the true Helix vivipara Linnaeus. Boettger’s contention that Linnaeus’s description of Helix vivipara could equally apply to both species is manifestly incorrect, as “ imperforata ” and ‘‘obtusa”’ are both diagnostic characters whereby the narrower species is distinguished from the more ventricose species. The unsoundness of his argument is shown by this mis-statement. Document 15. Letter from Mr. M. P. Kerney (Imperial College of Science, London), 3.12.58.—I find Watson’s arguments for applying the name V. viviparus to the narrower European species and V. contectus to the more ventricose thoroughly conclusive, and that any attempt to reverse this usage would only cause confusion. To my knowledge, every British writer on Quaternary fossil Mollusca for the last 60 years has also followed this usage, and this again is true of most continental palaeontological literature outside Germany. Document 16. Statement by Commissioner Mayr, 22.1.59. (1) Is the Linnean species composite? There is no doubt that the majority of the indications, such as the description, the two specimens in the Linnean Collection and part of the literature references refer to the narrow, river species. Others, on the other hand, clearly refer to the pond species. First, the habitat descriptions both in the Tenth Edition and in the Fawna Svecica refer either to both species or more exclusively to the globose species of ponds and swamps (e.g. ‘In Europae stagnis ”, and “in paludibus, lacubus .. .”’). Secondly, the species figured by Gualtieri, first figure on Table 5, is in my opinion, and that of Drs. W. J. Clench and R. Turner of this museum, clearly an immature specimen of the globose species. As a third element of the globose species among the Linnean indications of H. vivipara must be considered the reference to Lister, Exerc. Table 2. In all other cases where Linnaeus wanted to limit himself to specific figures on tables, he stated this succintly in his bibliographic reference, as in his two other Lister references, as well as in his citations of Gualtieri and Swammerdam. It is quite immaterial for this argument that Lister himself clearly distinguished several species among those which he via ig Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 129 figured on this Table 2. Linnaeus in his citation made no such distinction. On the basis of this evidence, it seems to me incontrovertible that the nominal species Helix vivipara Linnaeus, 1758 has a composite basis. Better proof than anything else for the conclusion that Helix vivipara was for Linnaeus a composite species is the fact that he did not establish a separate species for the clearly defined and described ventricose species of Lister (nor for that of Gualtieri and in the 12th ed. for that of Seba) but included the references to published descriptions and figures of the ventricose species, that were known to him, in the nominal species Helix vivipara together with the references to the narrow species. (2) Who is the first reviser ?—The next question to be answered is to determine who qualifies as the first reviser. I checked in the 12th edition of the Syst. Nat. but Linnaeus—instead of eliminating the few references to the globose species—has added a new one, namely, to Seba (Volume 3, Plate 38, figure 12). Although this is of no relevance to the question of the first reviser, it confirms the conclusion that Linnaeus considered the narrow and globose forms as conspecific. The claim has been made that O. F. Miiller (1774) has restricted the components of the composite species of Linnaeus. This view is not supported by the facts. There is no evidence whatsoever that Miller was aware of the composite nature of the Linnean species, he simply used the name vivipara and re-defined it. As a matter of fact it remained a composite, as correctly poointed out by Watson (Bulletin, 13 : 55). A search through the subsequent literature has failed to reveal a single author who would qualify as a first reviser. Watson’s restriction (1955 : 171) does not qualify because he denies the composite nature of the Linnean species and secondly because he did not consider all of the Linnean syntypes. He states that “‘the only undoubted syntypes of Linnaeus’s Helix vivipara are the two numbered shells in his collection in London ’”’. This is not correct. Linnaeus did not have our modern concept of the type as a name-bearer and indeed all specimens on which his descriptions are based and those figured in his cited illustrations are equally qualified as syntypes together with specimens in his collection. It might be important in this connection to emphasize, as has been stated repeatedly by the foremost scholars of the Linnean method, that Linnaeus considered the synonymy as important, if not more so, than his descriptions and specimens. Indeed Linnaeus was so little aware of the nomenclatorial significance of the specimens in his collection that he repeatedly replaced specimens in his herbarium which had formed the basis of his early descriptions when he found “more typical specimens”’ which permitted a “better” description. The concept of the nomenclatural type, the “ name-bearer”’, has only gradually come to the fore in the post-Linnean period. It is known that as late as 1850, types were replaced in several museums by new specimens whenever the original types were lost, eaten by moths, or had become mildewed. In short, I fail to find in the entire existing literature a clear-cut unam- biguous first reviser action. Consequently I herewith propose that the Commission clearly designate one of the components of the composite Linnean species as the lectotype of Helix vivipara, thereby giving the name an unambiguous basis. I suggest that the Commission set aside “all previous 130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature first-reviser actions and lectotype selections ” in order to make sure that there is no further disturbance of nomenclature. (3) Zo which of the two components should the name vivipara be restricted ~— It is not possible to find a solution that will please everybody. The name vivipara is applied to the narrow river species in the north area and western parts of Europe and to the ventricose pond species in central Europe. What- ever course is adopted it will necessitate a switching of names in some part of Europe. It is therefore important to weigh all the arguments pro and con carefully to arrive at a decision that will be best supported by the facts of the case. It seems to me that Forcart and Watson have presented a far stronger case for restricting the name to the narrow, river species than has Boettger (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 50-52) in favour of the ventricose species. To begin with, the majority of the Linnean indications in the original description refer to the narrow species. Secondly, the name viipara is applied to the narrow species not only in Scandinavia, Linnaeus’s own country, but in much of the remainder of the world. Except for central Europe, the name vivipara is almost universally applied to the narrow species. A third reason is that Montfort when establishing the genus Viviparus in 1810 “ clearly designated Linnaeus’s Helia vivipara as the type-species of his genus, but equally clearly showed by his description and figures that he meant the narrower species ”’. (Watson, L. C., 58). Without ignoring the fact that the ventricose species is recorded under the name H. vivipara in many of the standard monographs, it seems to me that the total weight of the evidence favours the narrow species. I therefore propose that the Commission restrict the name Helix vivipara Linneaus to the narrower species and designate as lectotype from all the syntypes on which Linnaeus’s name was based the specimen in his collection figured on Plate 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, Volume 13 (next to page 56). In its consequences, my proposal coincides closely with the earlier one made by Mr. Watson. In view of the fact, however, that the Linnean species is clearly a composite I consider it impossible to arrive at a binding solution without invoking the plenary powers of the Commission. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION Voting Paper (59)1 was circulated under the Three-Month Rule to the Members of the Commission with the above report and Appendix on 12 March 1959. This Voting Paper was divided into three parts: Part 1 called for a vote for either Alternative ‘A’ (use of the plenary powers to set aside all previous selections of a lectotype for Helix vivipara Linnaeus, 1758, and to designate the specimen figured in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : pl. 1) or for Alter- native ‘ B’ (use of the plenary powers to secure the application of the specific name vivipara to the more ventricose of the two species included by Linnaeus under that name) ; Part 2 called for a vote either for Alternative ‘A’ (to place Viviparus Montfort, 1810, on the Official List) or for Alternative ‘B’ (to use the plenary powers to suppress that name for priority but not for homonymy so as to place Paludina Férussac, 1812, on the Official List) ; Part 3 called for a vote either for Alternative ‘A’ (use of the plenary powers to suppress the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 131 family-group name PALUDINIDAE Gray, 1840 for priority but not homonymy so as to validate vIVIPARIDAE Gray, 1847) or for Alternative ‘B’ (to place PALUDINIDAE on the Official List, and vIVIPARIDAE on the Official Index, of Family-Group Names in Zoology. At the close of the Voting Period on 12 June 1959, the state of the voting was as follows : Part 1. For Alternative ‘A’—seventeen (17) votes, received in the following order: Lemche, Holthuis, Hemming, Vokes, Boschma, Bonnet, do Amaral, Dymond, Mayr, Riley, Jaczewski, Obruchev, Key, Stoll, Brinck, Bradley, Poll. For Alternative ‘B ’—four (4) votes: Hering, Mertens, Boden- heimer, Kiihnelt. Part 2. For Alternative ‘A’—eighteen (18) votes: Lemche, Holthuis Hemming, Vokes, Boschma, do Amaral, Mertens, Dymond, Mayr, Bodenheimer, _Riley, Jaczewski, Obruchev, Key, Stoll, Brinck, Bradley, Poll. For Alternative ‘ B ’—three (3) votes : Hering, Bonnet, Kiihnelt. Part 3. For Alternative ‘A’—eighteen (18) votes (as in Part 2). For Alternative ‘ B ’—three (3) votes (as in Part 2). A late affirmative vote for Alternative ‘A’ in each part was received from Commissioner Miller. Commissioners Hankéd, Prantl, Tortonese, Cabrera and Uchida did not vote. > ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : contectum, Cyclostoma, Millet, 1813, Moll. terr. fluv. obs. Dépt. Maine et Loire : 5 fluviorum, Viviparus, Montfort, 1810, Conch. syst. 2 : 247 Paludina Feérussac, 1812, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris 19 : 253 PALUDINIDAE, J. E. Gray, 1840, Synopsis Cont. Brit. Mus. (ed. 42): 117 and Man. Land & Freshwater Shells brit. Is. (ed. 2) : 79, 89 vivipara, Helix, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 772 Vivipara Kobelt, 1906, Nachr. Bl. deutsch. malak. Ges. 38 : Inhalt [2] Vivipara J. Sowerby, 1813, Min. Conch. 1(6) : 75 Viviparella Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse Nature : 144 VIVIPARIDAE J. E. Gray, 1847, Proc. zool. Soc. London 15(178) : 155 Viviparous Collinge, 1891, Conchologist 1 : 31 Viviparus Montfort, 1810, Conch. syst. 2 : 246 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (59)1 were cast as set out above, that the proposals set out as Alternative ‘A’ in each of the three parts of the Voting Paper have been adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decisions so taken, being the decisions of the International Commission, are truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 573. N. D. RILEY RICHARD V. MELVILLE Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 1 July 1959 132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 574 VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE SPECIFIC NAME GEMMASCENS ESPER, [1794], AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMEN MADREPORA GEMMASCENS (CLASS HYDROZOA, ORDER STYLASTERINA) RULING.—(1) The following specific name is hereby suppressed under the plenary powers for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy : (a) gemmascens Wilkens, 1787, as published in the binomen Madrepora gemmascens ; (b) gemmascens, all uses of, in the binomen Madrepora gemmascens, subse- quent to Wilkens, 1787, and prior to Esper, [1794]. , (2) The specific name gemmascens Esper, [1794], as published in the bnomen Madrepora gemmascens, and as interpreted by the holotype figured by H. Boschma, 1955, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1684. (3) The following specific names are placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) gemmascens Wilkens, 1787, as published in the binomen Madrepora gemmascens (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above) (Name No. 603). (b) gemmascens, all uses of, in the binomen Madrepora gemmascens, subse- quent to Wilkens, 1787, and prior to Esper, [1794]. (Name No. 604). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 950) On 28 April 1955, Professor H. Boschma applied for the use of the plenary powers to validate the specific name of the stylasterine coral known as Stylaster gemmascens (Esper, [1794]), and sent with his application a copy of his paper “The type-specimen of Stylaster gemmascens (Esper, 1794)” (1955, Proc. k. nederl. Akad. Wetensch. (C) 58 : 22-31). Professor Boschma’s application was overlooked for some time, but it was sent to the printer on 28 January 1958 and was published on 6 June 1958 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 16 : 71-72. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in this case was given in the same part of the Bulletin and was sent to the other prescribed periodicals (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56). No comments were received from any source. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 12 March 1959 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (59)2 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 16:72. At the close of the Voting Period on 12 June 1959 the state of the voting was as follows : Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 17, pts. 3-5. December 1959. da ded fw i Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 133 Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order : Lemche, Holthuis, Hemming, Vokes, Prantl, Boschma, Hering, Bonnet, do Amaral, Jaczewski, Mertens, Dymond, Mayr, Bodenheimer, Riley, Obruchev, Key, Stoll, Brinck, Bradley, Kiihnelt, Cabrera, Tortonese. Negative Votes—one (1): Poll. Votes not returned—three (3): Hanko, Miller, Uchida (late affirmative votes were received from Commissioners Miller and Uchida). In returning his negative vote, Dr. Poll said: ‘‘ I] ne me semble pas que l’exposé des faits du Bulletin 16 : 71-72 démontre que Madrepora gemmascens Wilkens, 1787 est une espéce qui préte a confusion. D’autre part, il est clair que M. gemmascens Esper, [1794], est homonyme. Il ne me semble pas non plus que l’on puisse invoquer une confusion grave résultant d’un changement de nom de la Stylastérine décrite par Esper.”’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the specific names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : gemmascens, Madrepora, Esper, [1794], Die Pflanzenthiere, Fortsetzung, 1(2) : 60 gemmascens, Madrepora, Wilkens, 1787, in Pallas, Charakteristik der Thier- pflanzen 2 : 144. CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (59)2 were cast as set out above, that the proposals set out in the Voting Paper have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 574. N. D. RILEY RICHARD V. MELVILLE Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 1 July 1959 134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 575 ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY OF SIX FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN THE CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA RULING.—(1) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Amaltheus Montfort, 1808 (gender : masculine), type-species, by original designation, Amaltheus margaritatus Montfort, 1808 (Name No. 1378) ; (b) Oxynoticeras Hyatt, 1875 (gender: neuter), type-species, by selection by S. S. Buckman, 1909, Ammonites oxynotus Quenstedt, F. A., 1843 (Name No. 1379) ; (c) Phymatoceras Hyatt, 1867 (gender : neuter), type-species, by monotypy, Phymatoceras robustum Hyatt, 1867 (Name No. 1380) ; (d) Pleuroacanthites Canavari, 1883 (gender: masculine), type-species, by selection by Haug, 1889, Ammonites biformis J. de C. Sowerby, 1831 (Name No. 1381) ; (e) Polymorphites Haug, 1887 (gender : masculine), type-species, by selection by S. S. Buckman, 1892, Ammonites polymorphus Quenstedt, F. A., 1845 (Name No. 1382) ; (f) Olcostephanus M. Neumayr, 1875 (gender : masculine), type-species, by original designation, Ammonites astierianus d’Orbigny, 1840 (Name No. 1383). (2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) margaritatus Montfort, 1808, as published in the binomen Amaltheus margaritatus (type-species of Amaltheus Montfort, 1908) (Name No. 1685) ; (b) oxynotus Quenstedt, F. A., 1843, as published in the binomen Ammonites oxynotus (type-species of Oxynoticeras Hyatt, 1875) (Name No. 1686) ; (c) robustum Hyatt, 1867, as published in the binomen Phymatoceras robustum (type-species of Phymatoceras Hyatt, 1867) (Name No. 1687) ; (d) biformis J. de C. Sowerby, 1831, as published in the binomen Ammonites biformis (type-species of Pleuroacanthites Canavari, 1883) (Name No. 1688) ; (e) polymorphus Quenstedt, F. A., 1845, as published in the binomen Ammonites polymorphus (type-species of Polymorphites Haug, 1887) (Name No. 1689) ; (f) astierianus d’Orbigny, 1840, as published in the binomen Ammonites astierianus (type-species of Olcostephanus M. Neumayr, 1875) (Name No. 1690). (3) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the, Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : Bull. zool. Nomencl., vol. 17, pts. 3-5. December 1959. = ee -_ ET Ge ES ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 135 (a) AMALTHEIDAE (correction of AMALTHEOIDAE) Hyatt, 1867 (type-genus Amaltheus Montfort, 1808) (Name No. 276) ; (b) OXYNOTICERATIDAE (correction of OXYNOTIDAE) Hyatt, 1875 (type-genus Oxynoticeras Hyatt, 1875) (Name No. 277) ; (c) PHYMATOCERATINAE (correction of PHYMATOIDAE) Hyatt, 1900 (type- genus Phymatoceras Hyatt, 1867) (Name No. 278) ; (d) PLEUROACANTHITIDAE (correction of PLEURACANTHITIDAE) Hyatt, 1900 type-genus Pleuroacanthites Canavari, 1883) (Name No. 279) ; (e) POLYMORPHITIDAE (correction of POLYMORPHIDAE) Haug, 1887 (type- genus Polymorphites Haug, 1887) (Name No. 280) ; (f) OLCOSTEPHANIDAE (correction of HOLCOSTEPHANIDAE) Haug, 1910 (type-genus Olcostephanus Neumayr, 1875) (Name No. 281). (4) The following generic name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : Holcostephanus Sayn, G., 1889, an unjustified emendation of Olcostephanus Neumayr, M., 1875 (Name No. 1301). (5) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) AMALTHEOIDAE Hyatt, 1867 (type-genus Amaltheus Montfort, 1808), an incorrect original spelling for AMALTHEIDAE (Name No. 312) ; (b) oxynNoTipaE Hyatt, 1875 (type-genus Oxynoticeras Hyatt, 1875), an incorrect original spelling for oxYNOTICERATIDAE (Name No. 313) ; (c) PHYMATOIDAE Hyatt, 1900 (type-genus Phymatoceras Hyatt, 1867), an incorrect original spelling for PHYMATOCERATIDAE (Name No. 314) ; (d) PLEURACANTHITIDAE Hyatt, 1900 (type-genus Plewroacanthites Canavari, 1883), an incorrect original spelling for PLEUROACANTHITIDAE (Name No. 315) ; (¢) POLYMORPHIDAE Haug, 1887 (type-genus Polymorphites Haug, 1887), an incorrect original spelling for POLYMoRPHITIDAE (Name No. 316) ; (f) HOLCOSTEPHANIDAE Haug, 1910 (type-genus Olcostephanus Neumayr, 1875), an incorrect original spelling for OLCOSTEPHANIDAE (Name No. 317). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 954) On 18 May 1955, the late Dr. W. J. Arkell applied for seven originally mis- spelled or incorrectly formed family-group names in the Order Ammonoidea to be placed on the Official List. One of these names (DACTYLIOCERATIDAE) was removed from the application because it was dealt with in another case (see Opinion 576). It was not found possible to complete his application before he was struck down by a fatal illness, but as a result of help from other specialists, it was possible to send his paper to the printer on 4 February 1958. It was published on 6 June 1958 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 16 : 62-66. Support was received from Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley, Dr. D. T. Donovan and Mr. C. W. Wright (all published in Bull. zool. Nomencel. 16 : 79), and from Mr. R. V. Melville (Geological Survey and Museum, London). No objection was received from any source. 136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 12 March 1959, the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (59)3 either for or against Dr. Arkell’s proposals. At the close of the Voting Period on 12 June 1959, the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-four (24), received in the following order : Lemche, Holthuis, Hemming, Vokes, Prantl, Boschma, Hering, Bonnet, do Amaral, Mertens, Dymond, Mayr, Bodenheimer, Jaczewski, Riley, Obruchev, Key, Stoll, Brinck, Bradley, Kiihnelt, Cabrera, Tortonese, Poll. Negative Votes—none (0). Votes not returned—three (3); Hanké, Miller, Uchida (late affirmative votes were received from Commissioners Miller and Uchida). After the close of the above Voting Period, it was noticed that, although the generic name Olcostephanus Neumayr, 1875, and the family name OLCOSTEPHANIDAE (correction of HOLCOSTEPHANIDAE) Haug, 1910, had been placed on Official Lists, and the family name HOLCOSTEPHANIDAE on an Official Index by means of the vote so taken, no ruling had been given, nor proposals submitted, in regard to the generic name Holcostephanus, on which the incorrect original spelling HOLCOSTEPHANIDAE was based. Mr. C. W. Wright kindly informed the Office of the Commission that the generic name Holcostephanus was first published by Sayn, G., 1889, as a deliberate emendation of Olco- stephenus Neumayr, 1875 ; and it is clear that this emendation is unjustified, since Neumayr’s generic name does not call for corrections under any mand- atory provision of the rules, in spite of the fact that the “ Holco-” spelling was the correct latinized form of the original Greek word. On 31 July 1959, the Members of the Commission were accordingly asked to vote under the One-Month Rule on Voting Paper (O.M.)(59)3 for or against the placing of the generic name Holcostephanus Sayn, G., 1889, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. At the close of the Voting Period on 31 August 1959, the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order : Holthuis, Vokes, Boschma, Hering, Brinck, Riley, Bradley, Stoll, Dymond, Jaczewski, Mertens, Key, Hemming, Miller, Bodenheimer, Mayr, Cabrera, Prantl, Obruchev, Kiihnelt, Lemche, Hanké, Bonnet. Negative Votes—one (1) : do Amaral (“ I think the emendation is perfectly justified on linguistic grounds, the correct family name being HOLCOSTEPHAN- IDAE’’). Votes not returned—three (3): Poll, Tortonese, Uchida (a late affirmative vote was received from Commissioner Poll). ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : AMALTHEIDAE (correction of AMALTHEOIDAE) Hyatt, 1867, Bull. ‘Must: comp. Zool. Harvard 1(5) : 89 AMALTHEOIDAE Hyatt, 1867 (an incorrect original spelling for AMALTHEIDAE) Amaltheus Montfort, 1808, Conch. syst. Class. méth. Coquilles 1 : 90 —s : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 137 astierianus, Ammonites, d’Orbigny, 1840, Pal. franc. Terr. crét. 1 +115 biformis, Ammonites, J. de C. Sowerby, 1831, in de la Beche, Geol. Man.: 319 HOLCOSTEPHANIDAE Haug, 1910 (an incorrect original spelling of oLcosTEPHAN- IDAE) Holcostephanus Sayn, G., 1889, Bull. Soc. géol. France (3) 17 : 679 margaritatus, Amaltheus, Montfort, 1808, Conch. syst. Class. méth. Coquilles 1 : 91 OLCOSTEPHANIDAE (correction of HOLCOSTEPHANIDAE) Haug, 1910, T'raité Géol. 2(2) : 1167 Olcostephanus Neumayr, 1875, Z. deutsch. geol. Ges. 27 : 922 Oxynoticeras Hyatt, 1875, Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist. 17 : 230 oxynotus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, F. A., 1843, Floezgeb. Wurtemb. : 161 Phymatoceras Hyatt, 1867, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard 1(5) : 88 PHYMATOCERATINAE (correction of PHYMATOIDAE) Hyatt, 1867, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Harvard 1(5) : 88 PHYMATOIDAE Hyatt, 1867 (an incorrect original spelling for PHYMATOCERAT- INAE) Pleuroacanthites Canavari, 1883, Atti Soc. toscana, Proc. verb. 3 : 279 PLEURACANTHITIDAE Hyatt, 1900 (an incorrect original spelling for PLEURO- ACANTHITIDAE) PLEUROACANTHITIDAE (correction of PLEURACANTHITIDAE) Hyatt, 1900, in Zittel’s Textb. Palaeont. (ed. C. R. Eastman) : 568 POLYMORPHIDAE Haug, 1887 (an incorrect original spelling for PoLyMoRPutIT- IDAE Polymorphites Haug, 1887, Neues Jahrb. Min. 1887, 2 : 107, 120 POLYMORPHITIDAE (correction of POLYMORPHIDAE) Haug, 1887, Neues Jahrb. Min. 1887, 2 : 89 polymorphus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, F. A., 1845, Petref. Deutschl. : 86 robustum, Phymatoceras, Hyatt, 1867, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard 1(5) : 88. The following are the references to the selections of type-species for nominal genera included in the present Ruling : For Oxynoticeras Hyatt, 1867 S. S. Buckman, 1909, Yorkshire Type Ammonites 1 ; ii For Pleuroacanthites Canavari, Haug, 1889, Annu. géol. univ. 5 for 1888 : 1883 1057 For Polymorphites Haug, 1887 S. 8S. Buckman, 1892, Mon. Inf. Ool. Amm. Brit. Isles (Palaeont. Soc.) (6) : 267 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Papers (59)3 and (O.M.)(59)3 were cast as set out above, that the proposals set out in the Voting Papers have been duly adopted, and that the decisions so taken, being the decisions of the International Commission, are truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 575. N. D. RILEY RICHARD V. MELVILLE Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 4 September 1959 138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 576 DESIGNATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF A TYPE- SPECIES FOR DACTYLIOCERAS HYATT, 1867 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers, (a) all selections of type-species for the nominal genus Dactylioceras Hyatt, 1867, are hereby set aside, and (b) the nominal species Ammonites communis J. Sowerby, 1815, is hereby designated type-species of that genus. (2) The generic name Dactylioceras Hyatt, 1867 (gender: neuter), type- species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Ammonites communis J. Sowerby, 1815, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with the Name No. 1384. (3) The specific name communis J. Sowerby, 1815, as published in the binomen Ammonites communis (type-species of Dactylioceras Hyatt, 1867) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1691. (4) The following generic names are placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Koinodactylites S. S. Buckman, 1927 (a junior objective synonym of Dactylioceras Hyatt, 1867) (Name No. 1302). (b) Dactyloceras Fischer, 1879 (an erroneous subsequent spelling of Dactylio- ceras Hyatt, 1867 (Name No. 1303). (5) The family-group name DACTYLIOCERATIDAE (correction of DACTYLOIDAE) Hyatt, 1867 (type-genus Dactylioceras Hyatt, 1867), is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 282. (6) The family-group name DACTYLOIDAE Hyatt, 1867 (type-genus Dactylio- ceras Hyatt, 1867) (an incorrect original spelling for DACTYLIOCERATIDAE) is placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 318. HISTORY OF THE CASE. (Z.N.(S.) 956) On 18 May 1955, Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley applied for the use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species in harmony with accustomed usage for the nominal genus Dactylioceras Hyatt, 1867. It was found that the application overlapped to some extent a simultaneous application from the late Dr. W. J. Arkell relating to certain family-group names in Ammonoidea (see Opinion 575), but after co-ordinating the two cases, and after the delay caused to Dr. Arkell’s application by his illness, Mr. Sylvester-Bradley’s paper was sent to the printer on 28 January 1958 and was published on 6 June 1958 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 16 : 67-70. Support was received from the late Dr. W. J. Arkell, the late Dr, L. F. Spath, and Dr. D. T. Donovan (all published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 16 : 80), Bull. zool. Nomencl., vol. 17, pts. 3-5. December 1959. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 139 from Mr. R. V. Melville (Geological Survey & Museum, London) and Professor Alan Wood (University College of Wales, Aberystwyth). No objection was received from any source. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 12 March 1959, the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (59)4 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 16 : 69-70. At the close of the Voting Period on 12 June 1959 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-four (24), received in the following order: Lemche, Holthuis, Hemming, Vokes, Prantl, Hering, Boschma, Bonnet, do Amaral, Mertens, Dymond, Mayr, Bodenheimer, Jaczewski, Riley, Obruchev, Key, Stoll, Brinck, Bradley, Kiihnelt, Cabrera, Tortonese, Poll. Negative Votes—none (0). Votes not returned—three (3): Hanké, Miller, Uchida (late affirmative votes were received from Commissioners Miller and Uchida). OricInaL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : communis, Ammonites, J. Sowerby, 1815, Min. Conch. 2 : 10 Dactylioceras Hyatt, 1867, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard 1(5) : 95 DACTYLIOCERATIDAE (correction of DACTYLOIDAE) Hyatt, 1867, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard 1(5) : 87, 94 Dactyloceras Fischer, 1879, J. Conchyliol. 27 : 254 DACTYLOIDAE Hyatt, 1867 (an incorrect original spelling for DACTYLIOCERAT- IDAE) Koinodactylites 8. 8S. Buckman, 1927, Type Ammonites 6(62) : 43 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (59)4 were cast as set out above, that the proposals set out in the Voting Paper have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 576. N. D. RILEY RICHARD V. MELVILLE Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 1 July 1959 140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 577 ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LISTS OF NAMES IN ZOOLOGY OF THE GENERIC NAMES CALIGO HUBNER, [1819], AND CHARAXES OCHSENHEIMER, 1816, AND OF THE FAMILY-GROUP NAMES BASED THEREON (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) RULING.—(1) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Caligo Hiibner, [1819] (gender : feminine), type-species, by selection by Scudder (1875), Papilio eurilochus Cramer, [1775] (Name No. 1385) ; (b) Charaxes Ochsenheimer, 1816 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Papilio jasius Linnaeus, 1767 (Name No. 1386). (2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) ewrilochus Cramer, [1775], as published in the binomen Papilio ewrilochus (type-species of Caligo Hiibner, [1819]) (Name No. 1692) ; (b) jasius Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Papilio jasius (type- species of Charaxes Ochsenheimer, 1816) (Name No. 1693). (3) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Caligo Boisduval, 1870 (a junior homonym of Caligo Hibner, [1819]) (Name No. 1304) ; (b) Paphia Fabricius, 1807 (a junior homonym of Paphia [Réding], 1798) (Name No. 1305) ; (c) Jasia Swainson, 1832 (a junior objective synonym of Charaxes Ochsen- heimer, 1816) (Name No. 1306) ; (d) Iasius Westwood, [1850] (an erroneous subsequent spelling of Jasia Swainson, 1832) (Name No. 1307). (4) The specifie name jason Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Papilio jason (a junior homonym of Papilio jason Linnaeus, 1758) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology (Name No. 605). (5) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) CALIGININAE (correction of CALIGONINAE) Fruhstorfer, [1912], (type- genus Caligo Hiibner, [1819]) (Name No. 283) ; (b) CHARAXIDAE Doherty, W., 1886 (type-genus Charaxes Ochsenheimer, 1816) (Name No. 284). (6) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) CALIGONINAE Fruhstorfer, [1912] (type-genus Caligo Hiibner, [1819]) EE Bull. zool. Nomencl., vol. 17, pts. 3-5. December 1959. 4 x ere er tne Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 141 (an incorrect original spelling of CALIGININAE) (Name No. 319) ; (b) CALIGINAE Orfila, 1949 (type-genus Caligo Hiibner, [1819]) (an unjustified emendation of CALIGONINAE Fruhstorfer, [1912]) (Name No. 320) ; (c) CHARAXEIDI Wheeler, 1903 (type-genus Charaxes Ochsenheimer, 1816) (an erroneous subsequent spelling at the tribe-name level, of cHARAX- 1DAE Doherty, W., 1886) (Name No. 321) ; (d) cHARAXIDINAE Aurivillius, [1911] (type-genus Charaxes Ochsenheimer, 1816) (an erroneous subsequent spelling, at subfamily-name level, of CHARAXIDAE Doherty, W., 1886) (Name No. 322). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1285) On 28 November 1957, Mr. Francis Hemming (London) applied for the placing of the generic names Caligo Hiibner, [1819] and Charaxes Ochsenheimer, 1816, and the family-group names based thereon, on the Official Lists. Mr. Hemming’s application was sent to the printer on 29 November 1957 and was published on 6 June 1958 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 327-330. No comment was received from any source. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 March 1959 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (59)5 either for or against the proposals on Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 329-330. At the end of the prescribed Voting Period on 12 June 1959 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-four (24), received in the following order : Lemche, Holthuis, Hemming, Vokes, Prantl, Hering, Boschma, Bonnet, do Amaral, Dymond, Mertens, Mayr, Bodenheimer, Riley, Jaczewski, Obruchev, Key, Stoll, Brinck, Bradley, Kiihnelt, Cabrera, Tortonese, Poll. Negative Votes—none (0). Leave of Absence—none (0). Votes not returned—three (3): Hanké, Miller, Uchida (late affirmative votes were received from Commissioners Miller and Uchida.) ORIGINAL REFERENCES Dr. K. H. L. Key submitted the following comment with his Voting Paper : “Although voting for this proposition, I consider that jason Linnaeus, 1767, is invalid, not as a junior homonym, but as an invalid original spelling, for that is the status that in my opinion is acquired by a name corrected in the same work by an erratum, irrespective of why the correction was made. This view would entail a modification of paragraph 4 on Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 330, as well as the removal of any threat to jasius from the possible suppression of jason Linnaeus, 1758 (see footnote : 328).” The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : CALIGINAE Orfila, 1949, Acta zool. lilloana 8 : 585 CALIGININAE (correction of CALIGONINAE) Fruhstorfer, [1912], in Seitz, Gross- schmett. Erde 5(137) : 290 Caligo Boisduval, 1870, Consid. Lép. Guatemala : 54 142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Caligo Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (4) : 51 CALIGONINAE Fruhstorfer, [1912] (an incorrect original spelling for CALIGININAE) CHARAXEIDI Wheeler, 1903, Butts. Switz. : 99, 149 Charaxes Ochsenheimer, 1816, Schmett. Europa 4 : 18 CHARAXIDAE Doherty, W., 1886, J. asiat. Soc. Bengal (2) 55(2) : 109, 124 CHARAXIDINAE Aurivillius, [1911], in Seitz, Grossschmett. Erde 13(107) : 122 eurilochus, Papilio, Cramer, [1775], Uitl. Kapellen 1(3) : 53, pl. 53, fig. A Iasius Westwood, [1850], in Doubleday, Gen. diurn. Lep. (2) : 306 jasius, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(2) : 749, errata jason, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(2) : 749 Paphia Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 282 The following is the original reference for the selection of a type-species for a nominal genus concerned in the present Ruling : For Caligo Hiibner, [1819] Scudder, 1875, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci. 10 : 129 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (59)5 were cast as set out above, that the proposals set out in the voting paper have been duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Com- mission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 577. N. D. RILEY RICHARD V. MELVILLE Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 1 July 1959 ee Se SARS Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 143 OPINION 578 USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE A NEOTYPE FOR THE NOMINAL SPECIES CANCER OCULATUS O. FABRICIUS, 1780, AND TO DESIGNATE THAT SPECIES AS THE TYPE-SPECIES OF THE NOMINAL GENUS MYSIS LATREILLE, [1802-1803] (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER MYSIDACEA) RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers : (a) The following names are suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy : (i) the specific name pedatus O. Fabricius, 1780, as published in the binomen Cancer pedatus ; (ii) the specific name fabricianus Leach, 1830, as published in the binomen Megalophthalmus fabricianus ; (ili) the generic name Megalophthalmus Leach, 1830 ; (b) the neotype for the nominal species Cancer oculatus O. Fabricius, 1780, designated by Holmquist, 1958 (Medd. om Gronl. 159(4) : 7) is hereby validated ; (c) all previous selections of type-species for the nominal genus Mysis Latreille, [1802-1803] are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Cancer oculatus O. Fabricius, 1780, as defined in (b) above, is hereby designated as the type-species of that genus. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Mysis Latreille, [1802-1803] (gender: feminine), type-species,, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above, Cancer oculatus O. Fabricius, 1780, as defined under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above (Name No. 1387) ; (b) Pugetomysis Banner, 1948 (gender : feminine), type-species, by mono- typy, Pugetomysis litoralis Banner, 1948, as interpreted by the lectotype selected by Holmquist, 1958 (Medd. om Gronl. 159(4) : 6) (for use by zoologists who consider Pugetomysis litoralis Banner, 1948 and Cancer oculatus O. Fabricius, 1780 as not congeneric) (Name No. 1388) ; (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) oculatus O. Fabricius, 1780, as published in the binomen Cancer oculatus, and as defined under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above (type-species of Mysis Latreille, [1802-1803]) (Name No. 1694) ; (b) litoralis Banner, 1948, as published in the binomen Pugetomysis litoralis, and as defined by the lectotype selected by Holmquist, 1958 (Medd. om Gronl. 159(4) : 6) (type-species of Pugetomysis Banner, 1948) (Name No. 1695). Bull, zool. Nomencl., vol. 17, pts. 3-5. December 1959. 144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (4) The following generic namestare hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Megalophthalmus Leach, 1830 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a)(iii) above) (Name No. 1308) ; (b) Megalophthalmus G. R. Gray, 1832 (a junior homonym of Megalo- phthalmus Leach, 1830) (Name No. 1309) ; (c) Megalophthalmus Lorenz, 1906 (a junior homonym of Megalophthalmus Leach, 1830) (Name No. 1310). (5) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) pedatus O. Fabricius, 1780, as published in the binomen Cancer pedatus (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a)(i) above) (Name No. 606) ; (b) fabrictanus Leach, 1830, as published in the binomen Megalophthalmus fabricianus (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a)(ii) above) (Name No. 607). (6) The family-group name mysipaE Haworth, 1825 (type-genus Mysis Latreille, [1802-1803]) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology (Name No. 285). (7) The family-group name Mysina Burmeister, 1837 (type-genus Mysis Latreille, [1802-1803]) (an erroneous subsequent spelling of MystDAE) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1319) On 5 February 1958, Miss Charlotte Holmquist (Zoologiska Institutionen, Lund, Sweden) forwarded through Dr. Henning Lemche a request for the use of the plenary powers to designate Cancer oculatus O. Fabricius, 1780, as the type-species of Mysis Latreille, [1802-1803]. Miss Holmquist’s paper was” sent to the printer on 17 February 1958 and was published on 6 June 1958 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 16 : 51-61. Miss Holmquist’s application was supported by Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (ibid. : 78). Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in this case was given in the same part of the Bulletin and was also sent to the other prescribed periodicals (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56). No objection was received from any source. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 12 March 1959, the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (59)6 either for or against the 1 The applicant asked (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 16 : 55) for the suppression of these names under the plenary powers, but in view of the fact that they are junior homonyms, such action is unnecessary. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 145 proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 16 ; 54-56. At the close of the Voting Period on 12 June 1959, the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-four (24), received in the following order: Lemche, Holthuis, Hemming, Vokes, Prantl, Hering, Boschma, Bonnet, do Amaral, Jaczewski, Mertens, Dymond, Mayr, Bodenheimer, Riley, Obruchev, Key, Stoll, Brinck, Bradley, Kiihnelt, Cabrera, Tortonese, Poll. Negative Votes—none (0). Leave of Absence—none (0). Votes not returned—three (3): Hanké, Miller, Uchida (late affirmative votes were received from Commissioners Miller and Uchida). In returning his Voting Paper, Dr. Holthuis commented: “The first author who, to my knowledge, used a family-group name based on the generic name Mysis is A. H. Haworth (1825, Phil. Mag. 65 : 184), who gave the correct orthography MystpAE. I suggest this name to be inserted in the Official List”. Dr. Holthuis’s information was found to be correct and paragraphs (6) and (7) of the Ruling above were drafted to take account of it. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : fabricianus, Megalophthalmus, Leach, 1830, Trans. Plymouth Inst. 1 : 176-178 litoralis, Pugetomysis, Banner, 1948, Trans. roy. canad. Inst. 27(57) : 104-106, pl. 6, fig. 18 Megalophthalmus G. R. Gray, 1832, in Griffith’s Cuvier Anim. Kingd. 14 : 371 Megalophthalmus Leach, 1830, Trans. Plymouth Inst. 1 : 176 Megalophthalmus Lorenz, 1906, Z. deutsch. geol. Ges. 58 : 62 MYSIDAE Haworth, 1825, Phil. Mag. 65 : 184 MYSINA Burmeister, 1837, Handb. Naturges. (Abt. 2) : 566 Mysis Latreille, [1802-1803], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 36 oculatus, Cancer, O. Fabricius, 1780, Fauna groenl. : 245 pedatus, Cancer, O. Fabricius, 1780, Fauna groenl. : 283 Pugetomysis Banner, 1948, Trans. roy. canad. Inst. 27(57) : 104. The following are the original references for the designations of type- specimens for nominal species involved in the present Ruling : Lectotype-selection for Pugetomysis Holmquist, C., 1958, Medd. om Gronl. litoralis Banner, 1948 159(4) :6 Neotype-designation for Cancer ocula- Holmquist, C., 1958, Medd. om. Grenl. tus O. Fabricius, 1780 159(4) :7 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (59)6 were cast as set out above, that the proposals set out in the Voting Paper have been adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 578. N. D. RILEY RICHARD V. MELVILLE Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 1 July 1959 641 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 579 DETERMINATION OF THE TYPE-SPECIES OF THE NOMINAL GENUS ANCILLA LAMARCK, 1799 (CLASS GASTROPODA) RULING.—(1) The nominal genus Ancilla Lamarck, 1799, (Class Gastropoda) is hereby ruled to have been established without any originally included nominal species, and therefore, under the Rules as revised by the Thirteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology (Paris, 1948) (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 160), the first species subsequently referred to that genus, namely, Ancilla cinnamomea Lamarck, 1801, is the type-species of that genus, by subsequent monotypy. (2) The generic name Ancilla Lamarck, 1799 (gender: feminine), type- species, by subsequent monotypy under (1) above, Ancilla cinnamomea Lamarck, 1801, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1389. (3) The specific name cinnamomea Lamarck, 1801, as published in the bino- men Ancilla cinnamomea (type-species of Ancilla Lamarck, 1799) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1696. HISTORY OF THE CASE. (Z.N.(8.) 170) On 1 November 1937, Mrs. Katharine V. W. Palmer (Palaeontological Research Institution, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) requested a ruling on the question of the type-species of Ancilla Lamarck, 1799. Her application was eventually published on 11 May 1954 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 219, accompanied (: 219- 220) by a paper by Mr. Hemming Mrs. Palmer asked whether the citation of a figure (Martini, Conch. 2 : pl. 65, figs. 722-724) without a name was sufficient to indicate the nominal species to which the specimen represented in that figure belonged, as the type-species of the genus. Mr. Hemming took the view that, in spite of the fact that the figure in question had been named as Voluta ampla by Gmelin, in 1792, and was in fact the basis of that species, Ancilla should be treated as a genus established without any originally included nominal species, and this was confirmed by the vote of the Commission. After the expiry of the six-months comment-period, and after the Voting Paper on this case had been distributed to the members of the Commission, Professor J. Chester Bradley drew attention, in a letter dated 30 November 1954, to an alternative approach to this problem. He referred to the decision of the Paris Congress relating to Opinion 35 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 ; 156), whereby the type-species of a genus established prior to 1931 without an originally designated or indicated type-species could be determined from among any of the species originally included in the genus, whether then cited under a binominal name or not. In the present case, the figure of Chemnitz which was the sole basis of Ancilla Lamarck, 1799, had already in 1792 been given the name of Voluta ampla by Gmelin. Professor Chester Bradley therefore suggested that, even though Lamarck had not cited Gmelin’s name, and had not even referred to his work, his species could, in the light of the Paris decision on Opinion 35, Bull. zool. Nomencl., vol. 17, pts. 3-5. December 1959. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 147 be regarded as the type-species of Ancilla, because it had in effect been cited, though “ not under a binominal name ” (in point of fact, not by any name). Professor Chester Bradley put forward two alternative Declarations to cover the present case, the first to provide that a species, in order to be eligible to become the type-species of a genus, must be cited by a binominal name, or by a reference to a binominal name; and the second to provide that reference to an unnamed description or figure would be sufficient to designate a species subsequently named on the basis of that description or figure as the type- species of that genus. It was clear that he himself preferred the former alternative, and in subsequent correspondence he agreed that the method whereby Ancilla was regarded as a genus established without originally included species was in fact preferable to that whereby it was regarded as a genus established with an included species not cited under a binominal name ; and he requested that the point of principle involved should be made clear in the Ruling in which the Commission’s decision was expressed (see paragraph (1) of the present Ruling). It is quite clear, however, that Professor Chester Bradley’s point was a genuine matter of law, and that, owing to the indefinite wording of the Paris decision relating to Opinion 35, it was possible to regard the present case as equally subject to two conflicting provisions of the Rules. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 26 November 1954 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule, on Voting Paper (54)93 for or against the proposal relating to the generic name Ancilla Lamarck, 1799, set out on Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 220, paragraph 5. At the close of the Voting Period on 26 February 1955 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty (20), received in the following order : Holthuis, _ Hering, Lemche, Stoll, Vokes, Esaki, Dymond, Jaczewski, Bonnet, Hankd, Boschma, Miller, Key, do Amaral, Hemming, Bodenheimer, Riley, Cabrera, Kihnelt, Sylvester-Bradley. Negative Votes—one (1) : Chester Bradley. Leave of Absence—two (2): Mertens, Prantl. Votes not returned—none (0). ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : Ancilla Lamarck, 1799, Mém. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 1 : 70 cinnamomea, Ancilla, Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. s. Vert. : 73. CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (54)93 were cast as set out above, that the proposals set out in the Voting Paper have been duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Com- mission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 579. N. D. RILEY RICHARD V. MELVILLE Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 1 July 1959 148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 580 DETERMINATION OF AUTHORSHIP AND DATE OF THE PARTS OF THE HISTOIRE NATURELLE DES POISSONS BY CUVIER & VALENCIENNES, 1828-1850 RULING.—(1) The new names included in Volumes 2 to 22 of the editions known respectively as the “ Regular Edition” and the “‘ Strasbourg de luxe Edition ” of the work entitled Histoire Naturelle des Poissons written partly by Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.) and partly by Valenciennes (A.), and published 1828-1850 are to be attributed to Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, or, as the case may be, to Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes according to the particulars set out in paragraph (3) of the present Ruling, save as regards certain names attached to descriptions which are clearly marked as having been written by some other author. (2) The title of the under-mentioned work is hereby placed on the Official List of Works approved as available for use in Zoological Nomenclature with the Title No. 40 :— Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.) & Valenciennes (A.), 1828-1850, Histoire Naturelle des Poissons (Paris) (3) The authorship and dates of publication of the various parts of the above work are to be cited according to the particulars set out in Tables I and II. TABLE I Authorship Volume Regular Edition Strasbourg Author de luxe Edition 2 1-238 (line 13) 1-177 (line 11) Cuvier 238 (line 14)—249 (line 10) 177 (line 12)-185 (line 20) Valenciennes 249 (line 11)-262 (line 4) 185 (line 21)-195 (line 3) Cuvier 262 (line 5)-386 195 (line 4)-290 Valenciennes 387 —490 291 -371 Cuvier 6 1 —425 1 -320 Valenciennes 426 —491 321 -—369 Cuvier 492 blank 370 blank 493 —559 371 —420 Valenciennes 7 ]- —440 1 —330 Cuvier 44] —531 331 -379 Valenciennes 8 1 —470 1 —346 Cuvier 471 —509 347 —375 Valenciennes 9 1 -198 1 —147 Cuvier 199 -329 148 —244 (line 19) Valenciennes 330 —359 (line 3) 244 (line 20)-266 (line 5) Cuvier 359 (line 4) -371 266 (line 6) -275 Valenciennes 372 —427 276 -316 Cuvier 428 blank 429 -—§12 317 —379 Valenciennes Volumes 1, 3, 4 and 5 are by Cuvier; volumes 10-22 by Valenciennes. Bull. zool. Nomencl., vol. 17, pts. 3-5. December 1959. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 149 TaBLeE IT Dates of Publication Octavo issue Volume Date Date of Publication* (from title page) 1 and 2 1828 Oct. 1828 3 1829 Apr. 1829 4 1829 Nov. 1829 5 1830 July 1830 6 1830 Sept. 1830 7 1831 Apr. 1831 8 1831 Jan. 1832 9 1833 Mar. 1833 10 1835 Sept. 1835 11 1836 July 1836 12 1837 Mar. 1837 13 1839 Apr. 1839 14 1839 Jan. 1840 15 1840 Nov. 1840 16 1842 Aug. 1842 17 1844 July 1844 18 1846 Aug. (or Sept.) 1846 19 1846 May 1847 20 1847 Nov. 1847 21 1848 Sept. 1848 22 1849 Jan. 1850 (i.e. end of 1849) * From Sherborn (1925, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (9) 15 : 600). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1228) On 24 May 1957, Dr. Reeve M. Bailey (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Michigan, U.S.A.) addressed a preliminary application to the Office of the Commission on the question of the authorship and date to be attributed to the various parts of Cuvier & Valenciennes, Histoire naturelle des Poissons, 1828- 1850. Dr. Bailey’s definitive application was sent to the printer on 2 July 1957 and was published on 30 December 1957 in Bull. zool. Nomencel. 18(10/11) : 309-312. The following comments were received :-— Dr. Denys W. Tucker (British Museum (Natural History) London).— “Tam writing to oppose the application by Dr. Reeve M. Bailey for a ruling determining the authorship of the various portions of Cuvier & Valenciennes’ Histoire Naturelle des Poissons (1828-1850). The sole acceptable reason for the addition of an author’s name to a taxon is to specify thereby the definition understood and to indicate the reference in which that definition is contained. Other reasons, notably personal credit, 150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature have operated but almost always to the acute disadvantage of taxonomy and we may all look forward to an ideal age in which taxonomy will have become stabilised and the addition of authors’ names, with its undesirable consequences, will have become unnecessary. Meanwhile, a citation Alpha beta C.V. has, for more than a century, sufficed to indicate to ichthyologists that the original description is contained in one well-known work. Whatever the historical justification for Dr. Bailey’s suggestion, the replacement of the time-honoured C.V. citation by the appro- priate Cuvier or Valenciennes citation will mean that the workers of the future will have to contend, not only with the descrepancies between pre-ruling and post-ruling literature ; they will also have to search through works of the cited author and even the discovery that a name is contained in the Histoire Naturelle des Poissons will not always absolve them from responsibility for searching earlier works of the author in question. Thus will practical ichthyol- ogy become further encumbered and subordinated to historical, bibliographic and nomenclatorial pedantry.” Dr. Ethelwynn Trewavas (British Museum (Natural History), London).— “Dr. Bailey’s proposal is in accordance with the Paris decision recorded in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 565-566, Concl. 49(1)(a), and would need no special ruling of the Commission other than confirmatory, but : (a) I propose that, on the contrary, the Commission should be asked to rule that names proposed by either Cuvier or Valenciennes in Histoire Naturelle des Poissons, a 22-volume work published under their joint names, should constitute an exception to the Recommendation. My reasons are : 1. The work is a great classic of ichthyology and the only work published jointly by these authors. 2. The purpose of citing an author’s (or authors’) name(s) is to give a reference, not credit. 3. The names ‘ Cuvier & Valenciennes’ or their abbreviation ‘C. & V.’ or ‘C.V.’ constitute a reference in themselves to which it is only necessary to add volume and page. 4, The double attribution has a century-long tradition behind it. I would submit further that in accordance with the Recommendation attached to Article 22 ‘ Cuvier & Valenciennes ’ qualify for the time-honoured abbreviation ‘C.V.’ or ‘C. & V.’. I agree with Dr. Bailey (his paragraph 3) that it is not good practice to copy authority at second hand, without going to the original source, but this objection, carried to its logical conclusion, would be an argument for not using an author’s name unless the original description has been checked. It is equally uncritical to obtain the exact authorship from Dr. Bailey’s table. If an author is not in a position to check the original sources, or is not justified by the nature of his work in giving the time to it, the citation of the author’s name may still mean something. It means ‘the species currently understood as that to which the name was first validly given’ the author’s name being the clue to that first valid proposal. It is still the reference, not the author, that is important. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 151 (b) If, however, Dr. Bailey’s proposal finds favour, I suggest that the Commission be asked to sanction the abbreviation ‘Cuv. in C. & V’ and ‘Val. in C. & V.’” Dr. A. F. Brunn (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen).— “T would like to support Dr. Bailey’s suggestion in all respects.” I. Ginsburg, R. H. Kanazawa, E. A. Lachner, L. P. Schultz, and W. R. Taylor (U.S. National Museum) and G. W. Mead (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).—‘‘ For the reasons presented below, the undersigned ichthyologists recommend that the Commission deny Dr. Bailey’s request as published on page 310, paragraphs 4(1) and 4(2) of the proposal cited above. 1. Few, rather than many, authors have adopted the practice of attributing species in accordance with the authorship of the various parts of Cuvier and Valenciennes’s work since the publication of a synopsis of the authorship of these parts by Bailey (Copeia, 1951, no. 3, pp. 249-251). Prior to 1951, the new names proposed in this work were usually ascribed to both authors. That practice, in general use for over a hundred years, has created no confusion, and the restricted usage proposed by Dr. Bailey would serve only to increase the work of ichthyologists who cite the names proposed in these volumes. 2. Should the Commission rule in favour of Dr. Bailey’s request, a precedent would be set for similar requests to establish single authorship for the new names proposed in other co-authored works that grade imperceptibly from those for which the authorship is easily ascertained (e.g. Cuvier and Valenciennes) to those for which the individual authorship can be determined only with great difficulty. To whom should be credited the new names proposed in Meek and Hiidebrand’s ‘The Marine Fishes of Panama’ (Field Mus. Nat. Hist. Publ. Zool. Ser. Vol. 15, pts. 1-3, 1923-28) which was written by Hildebrand after Meek’s death ? Most American ichthylogists know that H. W. Fowler wrote the manu- scripts for volumes 7, 8, and 10 (U.S. nat. Mus. Bull. 100, Contributions to the biology of the Philippine Archipelago and adjacent regions 1928-30) but which were published as co-authored works by Fowler and Bean. Are the new names in those three volumes to be attributed to Fowler now or should we wait until an historical account of that project is published and another appeal made to the Commission ? There are other similar instances. 3. Each title-page of the 22-volume Histoire Naturelle des Poissons states that the work is to be considered co-authored. The author (or authors) of a volume or of a new name is in a better position to indicate how the volume or name should be cited than anyone else. A confirmation of this intent was expressed by Valenciennes, Ichthyologie des Iles Canaries, vol. 2, pt. 2, (in Webb and Berthelot, Hist. Nat. des Iles Canaries, 1835-50) for here we find species described in the Histoire Naturelle des Poissons attributed to Cuvier and Valenciennes by Valenciennes ; species which Dr. Bailey now proposes to attribute to one or the other of these authors but not to both. (For example, on page 26 of the Ichthyologie des Iles Canaries Valenciennes begins a description with ‘ Pristipoma viridense. Nob. (2) ’, with the footnote : ‘ (2) Cuv., Val., Hist. Nat. des Poiss., V. pag. 287’, a volume of this latter work which was drafted wholly by Cuvier). Therefore the intent of these authors is clear. Shall we 152 3 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature violate this intent for no useful purpose ? We conclude that Dr. Bailey’s proposal will contribute nothing to taxonomic stability or to the usefulness of Cuvier and Valenciennes’s work, hence this recommendation that the Commission deny that application.” DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 7 July 1958 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (58)16 either for or against the proposals set out in points (1) and (2) on Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 310 paragraph 4 as modified by Miss Trewavas’s compromise proposal. At the close of the Voting Period on 7 October 1958 the state of the voting was as follows :— (a) Affirmative votes—nineteen (19), received in the following order: Holthuis, Boschma, Bodenheimer, Hemming, Vokes, Riley, Hank6, Hering, Mayr, Lemche, Mertens, Jaczewski, Brinck, Dymond, do Amaral, Stoll, Cabrera, Kiihnelt, Bonnet. (b) Negative votes—two (2) : Prantl, Tortonese. (c) On leave of absence—three (3) : Bradley, Key, Miller. (d) Votes not returned—none. In returning his Voting Paper, Dr. L. B. Holthuis commented : “In my opinion, authors should be free to use either ‘ Cuvier’ or ‘ Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes ’ as the author’s name.” Dr. Ernst Mayr cast his vote condition- ally, asking that it be counted with the majority. . CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (58)16 were cast as set out above, that the proposal set out in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Com- mission, is truly recorded in the Ruling given in the present Opinion No. 580. N. D. RILEY RICHARD V. MELVILLE Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 1 May 1959. he Ae a Jd! elie pnt ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 153 INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE REPORT FOR 1958 1. INTRODUCTION The year 1958 was of critical importance to the Trust. In January the Rt. Hon. Walter Elliot, P.C., C.H., F.R.S. died. He was an original member of the Trust and had been Chairman since its inception. He rendered invaluable services to the Trust and to Zoological Nomenclature. In August, Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. resigned his membership of the Trust. This is not the place to record the immense services he rendered to the International Commission, of which he was Honorary Secretary. But the International Trust, of which he was founder and Managing Director and Secretary, desires to acknowledge the tremendous work he carried out voluntarily for Zoological Nomenclature and, in recording his resignation, the members of the Trust place on record their sense of loss at his departure and wish him an early and full recovery in health. In July the International Congress of Zoology was held in London and, in association with it, the Colloquium on Nomenclature. The Trust had for some time been making financial provision for the unavoidable expense of the Colloquium and the Accounts for 1958 give a full picture. 2. MEMBERSHIP OF THE TRUST During the year the following were elected to membership of the Trust : Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. Dr. N. Sparck Dr. N. BR. Stoll Dr. G. F. de Witte Mr. C. W. Wright Lord Hurcomb, Mr. Riley and Mr. Wright were elected members of the Committee of Management and Lt.-Col. Francis J. Griffin was appointed Managing Director and Secretary. 3. PUBLICATIONS Volumes of the Bulletin and the Opinions and Declarations appeared during the year but in view of the Colloquium, held in July, two volumes of the Bulletin were reserved for papers required thereat ; Vol. 14 contained the draft of the International Rules and Vol. 15 the Colloquium Agenda Papers. In addition to the established publications it is a pleasure to report the publication of the first instalment of the several Official Lists. 154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature It is with satisfaction that the Trust record the publication as Vol. 1 Sect. B of the Opinions and Declarations Series, of the Facsimile Edition of Opinions 1-133 which have long been out of print and unobtainable. 4. FINANCE The Income and Expenditure account and the Balance Sheet for 1958 have been prepared and, accompanied by the certificate of the Auditors, are submitted for adoption. The total receipts for 1958 amount to a little over £19,000 and include £130 from interest and £290 from a donation. The balance of £18,700 was due entirely to the sale of publications. The increase of £4,000 in this sum compared with 1957 is due to the receipts from the sale of the two volumes of the Bulletin referred to above. Receipts from the sale of the Bulletin in 1958 were, in fact, almost exactly double those for 1957 at £12,000. The Official List Suspense Account benefited by a transfer of £3,800 from Income and Expenditure account and by £2,800 from sales. At the end of the year it had a balance of £1,500 to its credit. The Colloquium Suspense Account has been closed. It benefited by a transfer from the Income and Expenditure account of £4,970 and from a grant from UNESCO of £535 to meet the cost of translating and interpreting at the Colloquium. The grateful thanks of the Trust are here expressed to UNESCO for this gift. The excess of Income over Expenditure on the General account for the year was £10,550 and with the accumulated surplus from earlier years of £8,879 made a grand total of £19,429. However, as already mentioned, £3,800 was transferred to the Official List account and £4,970 to the Colloquium account—a total of £8,770, which is roughly equivalent to the surplus carried forward at the end of 1957. The net result at the end of the year therefore is that the Trust now has a total available general reserve of £10,659, of which it is certain that a substantial part will be used up in 1959. In addition there is a balance on the Official List account of £1,500 which is earmarked for the preparation and production of future parts of the Lists. 5. STAFF During the year 1958 there were several changes in Staff. As is already known, Mr. Melville was appointed Scientific Controller, a post he still fills with distinction. Certain Specialists appointed in connection with the Colloquium and the Official Lists have completed their work and a reduction in the office work of the Commission and the Trust made it possible to continue without filling some of the vacancies resulting from resignations. Mrs. Rosner continues to serve the Trust well as Publications Officer. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 155 6. CONCLUSION A very serious note of warning must be sounded concerning the financial future of the Trust. It has been stated repeatedly that the whole basis on which the activities of the Trust, and therefore to a large extent of the Commission itself, depends, is the receipts from the sale of Publications. During the period of Mr. Hemming’s activities his work for the Trust was performed without remuneration but his successor is necessarily a paid officer. As a result the cost to the Trust of carrying out the work of the International Commission is greatly increased. Moreover, the view expressed at the high cost of the publications of the Trust and the steps already taken to reduce this cost means that the receipts of the Trust are correspondingly less so that in addition to increased expenditure the Trust is faced with a decrease in revenue. A close study of this situation has been made by the Committee of Manage- ment and strenuous efforts are under way to increase the number of sub- scribers but it must be clearly understood that the future of the Trust cannot be assured unless it is certain of sufficient income to meet its essential expenses. (signed) FRANCIS J. GRIFFIN Managing Director 156 INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR Ineorporated under the Companies ~ Balance Sheet— — 1957 £ £ s. d £ s. d Revenue Reserves (per separate accounts)— 789 ** Official List ’’ Suspense Account ie 1 DL ATE a 8,879 Income and Expenditure Account—Balance ...10,659 2 4 9,668 ——————— 12,133 9 9 Provision for Cost of Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature— 742 Colloquium Suspense Account (per separate account) “5 me AG. -- - Liabilities— 136 Sundry Creditors ... aes aa fo Ete 1,269 11 1 £10,546 £13,403 0 10 REPORT OF We have obtained all the information and explanations which to the best of our knowledge and belief were from our examination of those books. We have examined the above Balance Sheet and accompanying Income our information and according to the explanations given us, the said accounts give the information required by the Trust’s affairs at 3lst December, 1958, and the Income and Expenditure Account gives a true and fair view of the Finsspury Circus Hovse, BLOMFIELD STREET, Lonpon, E.C.2. llth May 1959. 4 j ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Act, 1929 (Limited by Guarantee) 8ist December, 1958 157 1957 £ £ es 8s. d Fixed Assets— Office Equipment— Book value at Ist July, 1948 and additions 377 since at cost ... <: seh ous ss O68 6 O 279 Less Depreciation and amount written off... 304 6 0 98 — Sa Ear Current Assets— 3,500 Amounts due for Publications, valued at se, 4500 (O50 — Sundry amounts prepaid a a ae 87 10 0 Investments at cost— £2,500 24% Savings Bonds 1964/67 re wae ... £2,078 10 6 £2,500 3% Savings Bonds 1955/65 aa oak -.. 2,248 16 9 — 4,327 7 3 (Market Value at date £4,387) Balances at Bank— s — Deposit Account... --- 5,900 0 0 6,946 Current Account not --- 1,348 12 8 6, —— 7,248 12 8 2 Cash in Hand a ae cs nee ae 20 10 11 10,448 —— 13,139 0 10 (Note—Stock of Publications not valued) ‘Sau eds ade Ce N. D. RILEY of Management £10,546 £13,403 0 10 === —— ‘THE AUDITORS. . necessary for the purposes of our audit. and Expenditure Account, which are in mpanies Act, 1948 in the manner so re Excess of Income over Expenditure for In our opinion proper books of account have been kept, so far as appears agreement with the books of account. In our opinion and to the best of quired, and the Balance Sheet gives a true and fair view of the state of the the year ended on that date. (Signed) W. B. KEEN & CO., Chartered Accountants. 158 179 £15,057 £11,879 Income and Expenditure Account for INCOME £ BS? disgee 8. d. q Sales of Publications— : Opinions and Declarations “és See ... 6,508 4 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ... .. 12,108 12 4 Copenhagen Decisions on iis ae paetady clature ... : eae) hf LED ab ee —————-_ 18,732 0 6 Donations... : see oa - =.= Interest on Bank Deposit gee baa: ae aa 131 16 9 Grant from U.N.E.S.C.O. per the International Union for Biological Sciences 285 14 £19,149 11 £ s. d. Balance brought down 10,550 10 Balance at 3lst December, 1957 brought forward... £19,429 11 2 159 he year ended 3ist December, 1958 EXPENDITURE 1957 £ £ pe ee ad; os s. d Administration Expenses— H £ Salaries— : 1,103 Administration Officers ... 2,912 6 11 t 406 Others Pees De ane S229) 0 j 1,509 —— ———————._ 3, 125 15 11 i 964 Office Expenses — ahs 1,350 18 9 i 52 MEO Gk apse. a5 136 10 0 iz 2,525 4,613 4 8 f Less: Proportion allocated to— a 100 “Official List” ... 100 0 0 : 30 “Colloquium” ... 600 0 0 .- i. 130 —— ———_ 700 0 0 2,395 — ————- 3,913 4 8 Depreciation of Office Equipment ... ae a6 2b) Bg Publications— 4,982 Opinions and Declarations i ae ... 3,835 9 10 1,651 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature... fae 820. O25 205 Copenhagen Decisions on Ms Nomen- clature ... - - - — ———_ 4,660 10 3 Balance carried down being Excess of Income over Expenditure for the year Aes bce ape 10,550 10 0 £19,149 11 6 £ £ a eae s. d Transfer to— 1,000 “ Official List” Suspense Account aes etd S00 OO 2,000 “Colloquium ” Suspense Account sae 5 7G 10 ——————— 8,770 8 10 Balance at 31st a ee Ba 1958 carried forward per Balance Sheet cE 3 10,659 2 4 £19,429 11 2 OL 6 8h2‘9F € ¢ 8g 0 0 gz & L F0MrF Il * 9F0°S % OL LSS‘T * € 92‘ 0 0 009 ’ € 199 Il L SOF‘LS G L PLPT 0 61 #98 OL 61 LEeS‘F 8 188 G OL 119 € 61 S6o‘T 0 3 610% 8. 12-8101 0 0 OO 81.86 fie el 160 qooyg souvjeg sod preMs0j porareo 8961 ‘Joquieseq] «48TE 4B oouepeg aes wee see qaodsuviy, seo,7 Suryoidisyuy pu Surye(suedy, zes (ST "JOA ‘emmyeououIO Ny [eoBolooz jo unoyng) sedeg epuesy sseisu0p pus wnmbor[op (FT ‘TOA “omnyepoucuONy [eor1so] -007 Jo unjeTng) ,, onbrd0j007 eMyzR[PUSMION BI Op soreuoryeu -1eyUy ~sopsoy ,, 94} JO 4yeIq —suoryeorqud wee wee sosuod. -xq UoMeystulMIpy jo uoys0do1g sesuedxy ooLjQ pur solieleg —arof oy} Surmnp ornzrpucdxmy LL49CS =—OL 6 BFB‘9S CPL —— Or T Geo $96 6 9 GPL PIVAIOF FGSN0IG {GGL ‘1oquieoeg, 481g 48 couBleg SS PE € FI gé¢ 7 ot oo aE *** SQOMOING [BOIZO[OIg OF 08 uoruy) [eUoTyeUIEyUT oY Jod “O'O'S'A'N'A Woy yueIy OL 8 OL6F qunoooy omprpuedxg Pus euLOoUT WoT; JOySUEIT, oLF Sa a oss vas : qunodoy esuedsng _, (MOvolqng) epop [euoryeUIeZUT ,, Wo s0ysuery, 5) $ ‘Die eo AG6T S61 ‘IequIeD0q 4s~g pepue AveA OY} OJ yUNODDY osUedsng UNMbo][0D qooyg soueeg sod pavmsoy pore 8961 ‘zequieoeq, Ig 78 oouRleg re soseg Surpurg ¢, OANYB[OUSUIONY [BOIBOTOOT IOF poyoofox pus poaoadde SHIOM ,, see _ Aso] 7007, Ur SoUIENT dno Aprave - ., 430007, ur soureyy oytoadg ,, «4301007, UI SOUIBNT OLIOUOX) ,, —suoryeorqng wee ee sosued. -xq uoreiysturarpy jo uorsodorg “* gosuedxny ooyjQ pu solrepeg —av0k 044 dutmp ommgrpuodxq 98FTS IL L SOP'LF 684 an Pare) 001 S OL 684 paeaey sqSnomq LS61 “‘coquunsoaqy ISTE 78 OOULTe &PG 9 LI SI8%@ ; ; y SUOIPOTIGNA JO so[vg 0 0 008g =“ 4 yuMoooy ommyrpucdxy puv omloouy Woy sozsuBIy, $ $ ‘ps $ 4961 8S6} “loquieveq 4s}g popue Ive oy} Joy JUNODDY osuedsnS ,, ISIT [PIO ,, 987 TF Aare ee . cae A a Pg np = 3 adi E. To hie ci ane tf "tae ae (A. H. Snow) Cha eee Mey test. Colhitient on Te nest for a seein nominal ; hillips: (conte from inside back wrapper) Decisions of the Commission Dies as Seas ede ae ee ed eee ‘a2 | etait) Bide > y's: ; . toa Zag Opinion 570 (Indiana Matthew, 1902) — Me cates Sys AY < a “opinion 571 (respec of Grptoplig) “a =. ee bs fy Rates) sn Se sire a ee ae Opinion 578 (Aysis Latreille, [1802-1803]) . es ea en tj | Opinion 579 (Ancilla Lamarck, 1799). ssn ee frase eee eae Histoire Naturelle - Bye Li ers es ee i AS he m sh ia oh Se ee * ry a es ' . * : i oe ce ist - ay os | Rept nd Acute Ts for 185 Sethe sok - ad i. é ee ry ne ¢ ae oan Pr ne + 3 tase Sika pitqeree ae ¢ fe ae ©1959. ee eascscc G ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE iter See ieee eee ee a ee 153 pp. 161-256; 1 ph Tinie ePcetgrienotinent by th Intemational! Commi clature of voting on applications published in Nomenclature = eet 7 ae te a tee : y Notice of the possible use by the Int plenary yelec “(et > INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Professor James Chester Brapiey (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMarat (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12 August 1953) Secretary : Mr. N. D. Rivey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) Assistant Secretary: Dr. W. E. Cuuna (c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7) 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) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMarat (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12 August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. Dymonp (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12 August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Strout (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) Dr. L. B. Houruutis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12 August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15 October 1954) Dr. Alden H. Minier (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (29 October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Pranti (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30 October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kiinnett (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6 November 1954) Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa- chuselts, U.S.A.) (4 December 1954) Professor Enrico ToRTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ‘‘ G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16 December 1954) Dr. Per. Brrnox (Lunds Universitets, Zoologiska Institution, Lwnd, Sweden) (19 May 1958) Dr. Max Pott (Musée du Congo Belge, Tervuren, Belgium) (12 July 1958) Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (23 July 1958) Senor Dr. Angel Caprera (La Plata, Argentina) (23 July 1958) Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (23 July 1958) Dr. Henning Lemcue (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Mr. Norman Denbigh Rey (British Musewm (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) (Secretary) Professor Dr. Tadeusz JaczEwsxi (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Erich Martin Hertye (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (23 July 1958) Dr. D. V. Osrucuey (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-71, USSR) (5 November 1958) Professor Tohru Ucutpa (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March 1959) i ek 8 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 17, Triple Part 6-8 (pp. 161-256) 8th April 1960 50 Ne NOTICES — (a) Date of Commencement of Voting.—In normal circumstances the Commission starts to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications in the present part is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretariat before the close of the six-month period. (b) Possible use of the plenary powers—The possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers is involved in the following applications published in the present part of the Bulletin :— (1) Validation of the generic name Delphax Fabricius, 1798 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) (Z.N.(S.) 47) ; (2) Validation of the family-group name PLEUROCERIDAE Fischer, 1885 (Class Gastropoda) (Z.N (S.) 83) ; (3) Validation of the generic name Idotea Fabricius, 1798 (Class Crustacea, Order Isopoda) (Z.N.(S.) 412) ; (4) Designation of a type-species for the nominal genus Macropsis Lewis, 1834, (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) (Z.N.(S.) 456) ; (5) Suppression of the generic name Promecopsis Duméril, 1806 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) (Z.N.(S.) 483) ; (6) Validation of the specific name dentipes Guérin, 1832 (Alpheus) (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) (Z.N.(S.) 643) ; (7) Validation of the generic name Parapenaeus S. I. Smith, 1885, and interpretation of the nominal Species Peneus membranaceus Risso, 1816 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) (Z.N.(S.) 645) ; (8) Suppression of the specific name longicorne Latreille, 1804 (Acrydiwm) (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera) (Z.N.(S.) 675) ; (9) Stabilization of the names of the North European species of the Tipula oleracea group within the genus Tipula (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) (Z.N.(S.) 896) ; (10) Suppression of the generic name Spatagus Miiller, 1776 (Class Echinoidea) (Z.N.(S.) 195) ; (11) Suppression of the generic name Drepanis Brisson, 1760 (Class Aves) (Z.N.(S.) 901) ; (12) Designation of a type-species for the nominal genus Sphaero- coryphe Angelin, 1854 (Class Trilobita) (Z.N.(S.) 1152) ; (13) Validation of the familiar usage of the generic name Tanytarsus van der Wulp, 1874 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) (Z.N.(S.) 1245) ; (14) Designation of a neotype for the nominal species Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) (Z.N.(S.) 1389) ; 162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (15) Validation of the generic name Acilius Leach, 1817 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) (Z.N.(S.) 1391) ; (16) Validation of the specific name dardanus Brown, 1776 (Papilio) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (Z.N.(S.) 1403) ; c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on lst October 1959. Zoological Nomenclature COMMENT ON DR. J. WEIR’S REQUEST FOR A RULING ON THE INTER. PRETATION OF THE NOMINAL SPECIES UNIO PHILLIPSII WILLIAMSON, 1836. Z.N.(S.) 1938 By L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History)) In submitting an application that a certain specimen should serve as the standard of reference for the interpretation of the nominal species Unio phillipsit Williamson, which (having been founded on a number of specimens) clearly had no holotype, Dr. J. Weir has been faced with the problem that the type-specimen so designated would not comply with the requirements of a lectotype (since there is no proof that would satisfy a judge and jury that it was a syntype, although there is a strong probability that it was one), while it could not become a neotype since br is ag proof that would satisfy a judge and jury that all the original syntypes are lost or estroyed. This is but one of many cases where there is no certain evidence (such as the original publication of accurate figures, the citation of registration numbers, or the marking of specimens) that any particular specimen or specimens preserved in the collection of the author of a species must be the holotype or syntypes, for there is always the possibility that specimens were added to the collection subsequent to the description of the species. Apart from recognising and proposing a name for yet another category of type-specimen having the status of a holotype, lectotype, or neotype, it appears that the only solution of this unfortunate difficulty will be to refrain from stipulating that a neotype may be designated only when the original holotype or syntypes are lost or destroyed, and to re-define a neotype as follows :—‘‘A single specimen selected to serve as the ultimate standard of reference for the interpretation of a nominal species when the original holotype or syntypes are lost or destroyed, or cannot be identified with certainty.” There could be a recommendation that, in this last contingency, the specimen selected as neotype should come from the collection of the author of the species, if this collection is still in existence. I support Dr. Weir’s application that the Manchester Museum specimen L.10106 should be designated as type-specimen of the nominal species Unio phillipsii and suggest that this specimen should rank as neotype of the species. —~ ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 163 REPORT ON THE GENERIC NAME DELPHAX FABRICIUS, 1798 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA) WITH PROPOSALS FOR ITS VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(8.) 47. By R. V. Melville (Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The present case is put before the Commission in the form of a report by the Assistant Secretary rather than as an application from a particular hemip- terist because of its long history in the Commission’s office and because of the divergent views expressed upon it in correspondence with the Secretariat. The final sets of alternative proposals have been drafted in accordance with what appears to be the best supported view, but they are not necessarily those which would have been made by a zoologist concerned with the names involved. It is therefore hoped that hemipterists will study them carefully and advise the Commission of their wishes in the matter. It is a pleasure to acknowledge the contributions made by the late Professor Z. P. Metcalf, the late Dr. E. D. Ball, the late Dr. E. P. Van Duzee, Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London), Dr. R. G. Fennah (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London), Dr. Frej Ossiannilsson (Kungl. Lantbrukshégskola, Uppsala, Sweden) and Dr. Wilhelm Wagner (Hamburg, Germany). 2. The case first began with a letter from the late Professor Metcalf to the late Dr. Stiles (then Secretary to the Commission) dated 7 January 1932 in which the following question was put: “In 1792, Walbaum described the genus Delphax in mammalia. This genus is synonymous with Delphinus Linnaeus, and this name seems never to have been used. In 1798, Fabricius described the genus Delphax Insecta Homoptera and this genus has been used ever since. This genus is the type of a family. The question is whether under these circumstances Delphaz Fabricius should be considered preoccupied.” At Dr. Stiles’s request, Professor Metcalf proceeded to collect opinions from his fellow hemipterists on the desirability or otherwise of validating Delphax Fabricius, 1798 in Hemiptera (Homoptera) and to seek the views of mammalo- gists on the effect on nomenclature in their group of the suppression of Delphax Walbaum, 1792. Among hemipterists, Dr. Herbert Osborn and Dr. E. P. Van Duzee were in favour of conserving the Fabrician name, but Dr. E. D. Ball opposed the suggestion because he did not think the name of sufficient importance in fields outside systematic entomology. No replies were received from any of the mammalogists approached. 3. On 8 April 1935, Professor Metcalf told Dr. Stiles that he had changed his mind on the case, and said ‘“‘ I have finally decided after careful reconsidera- tion of the whole matter to abandon the use of Delphax entirely for insects, as it has been so loosely used that it is practically worthless and to substitute the more recent genus Araeopus, and the family name Araeopidae for Delpha- cidae ’’. These changes were made in print in Mem. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard 82 : 297, 1938 and in Gen. Cat. Hemipt. fasc. 4(3), 1943, apparently on the Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 17, pts. 6-8. April 1960. 164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature grounds that Delphax Fabricius, 1798 (Hemiptera) was an invalid homonym of Delphax Walbaum, 1792. In fact, however, there was no reason why, under the Law of Homonymy, Delphax Fabricius should have been rejected, since in Opinion 21 (Smithson. Publ. 1988 : 51-52, July 1910) the Commission had already ruled that the generic names of Klein, 1744 did not gain availability under the Code by reason of being quoted by Walbaum, 1792. Delphax Walbaum was such a name, and Dr. Stiles had already in his hands a direct negative answer to Professor Metcalf’s inquiry of 7 January 1932 (see para- graph 2 above). The fact that Delphax Fabricius is not invalidated by Delphax Walbaum was clearly pointed out by Fennah in 1944 (Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 57 : 44), but Metcalf persisted in his view (1947, J. Tenn. Acad. Sev. 22 : 232-239). 4. Between 1944 and 1951, Mr. Hemming was in correspondence with Dr. China, Dr. Fennah and Dr. Wagner in order to assemble all the facts surrounding the generic name Delphax Fabricius, 1798, since these had not hitherto been made available to the Commission. Thanks to the help given by these specialists, and by Dr. Ossiannilsson through Dr. Wagner, the full history of all the names involved is seen to be as explained below. 5. Delphax Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. Syst. : 511 was established with two included species (ibid. : 522), Cicada crassicornis Panzer, 1796, Fauna Ins. Germ. 85 : 19, and Cicada clavicornis Fabricius, 1794, Ent. Syst.4 :41. Various type-selections by Latreille, 1810, Curtis, 1837 and Westwood, 1840 are all invalid, since the species chosen were not one of the two originally included in the genus. Kirkaldy (1903, Entomologist 36 : 215) stated that Westwood (1840) had designated Cicada clavicornis as the type-species, and although this was an error, he made it clear that he accepted that species as the type- species, thus validating the selection as from his own work of 1903 (see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 181-182). In 1912 Van Duzee (Bull. Buffalo Soc. nat. Sev. 10(2) : 505) selected Cicada crassicornis Panzer as the type-species, but this was invalid owing to Kirkaldy’s action. 6. In 1796, Latreille (Précis Caract. gén. Ins. : 91) described the genus Cercopis, but elsewhere in the same work (: xii, 202) he explains that he had misapplied the generic name Cercopis Fabricius and accordingly wished to re-establish that name with its original meaning and to replace his misuse of it by Asiraca. No species were then referred to Asiraca, but in 1802 (Hist. nat. Ins. 8 : 259-260) he referred Cicada crassicornis Panzer and Cicada clavicornis Fabricius to the genus (together with a third species). The same two species were included in Asiraca by Latreille in 1804 (Hist. nat. Ins. 12 : 316-318) and 1807 (Gen. Crust. Ins. 3 : 167-168). He designated Cicada clavicornis Fabricius as type-species of Asiraca in 1810 (Consid. gén. Crust. Arachn.- Ins. : 434), and this is the first valid type-selection for the genus. Asiraca Latreille, 1796 is therefore a senior objective synonym of Delphax Fabricius, 1798. . 7. Araeopus Spinola, 1839, Ann. Soc. ent. France 8 : 336 was established with a single included species, namely, Cicada crassicornis Panzer, 1796, which is therefore the type-species by monotypy. China (1957, Hint. mon. Mag. 93 : 30) has correctly pointed out that, under the Rules, Araeopus and ARAEO- . agit. : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature : 165 PIDAE cannot be adopted to replace Delphax and DELPHACIDAE, and that Metcalf was wrong to do so. 8. The situation as determined by the strict application of the Rules is thus quite clear. Delphax Fabricius, 1798, is, by virtue of Kirkaldy’s designa- tion of Cicada clavicornis Fabricius as type-species, a junior objective synonym of Asiraca Latreille, 1796. Araeopus Spinola, 1839, has no bearing on the question, but it would become a junior objective synonym of Delphax if the plenary powers were used to set aside Kirkaldy’s action and to designate Cicada crassicornis. The adoption of Asiraca in place of Delphax would not invalidate the family-name DELPHACIDAE, since under a rule adopted by the Fourteenth Congress ( Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 36, para. 54(1)(a), as modified by the Fifteenth Congress in London, 1958) a family-group name in general use is not invalidated by the fact that its type-genus is itself invalid by reason of being a junior synonym. 9. The next question to be considered is to ascertain whether stability and uniformity of nomenclature will be promoted and confusion avoided by the strict application of the Rules to this case, or whether that end can only be achieved by the use of the plenary powers either (a) to suppress Asiraca so as to validate Delphax, or (b) to vary the type-species of Delphaz so as to bring about the rejection of Aracopus. The views so far expressed to the Commission on this point are set out below. 10. Dr. Wilhelm Wagner, in letters dated 29 September 1950 and 4 October 1951, held that the Rules should be allowed to apply, because Asiraca has been almost exclusively used for the clavicornis group ; and because Araeopus had been used about as often as Delphax for the crassicornis group prior to the publication of Metcalf’s Gen. Cat. H emipt. and more frequently after that date. He also stressed the fact that Araeopus is the valid name for Cicada crassicornis under the Rules and that it has only one interpretation, whereas Delphaz has been applied in more than one sense. 1l. The opposite point of view, that Delphax should be conserved, was expressed by Dr. China in a letter dated 31 J anuary 1945 ; but this argument was based on the assumption (which was in accordance with the Rules then in force) that a family-group name had to be based on a valid generic name. Dr. China’s main purpose was to safeguard the family-name DELPHACIDAE, but the fact that this name is in general use as such, and the question of its conservation, is not now to be considered at all in the light of the validity or invalidity of the generic name Delphax. The family-name can continue in use whatever is the valid name of its type-genus (see paragraph 8 above). 12. A more recent expression of this view of the question is put forward by Dr. Fennah, in a letter dated 4 May 1959. He points out that “The actions suggested to give the best solution must be judged in relation to their effect on stability and universality of usage. On the basis of Metcalf’s Catalogue Asiraca had been used, up to 1943, as the basis of a family name, 18 times by six authors (one in co-authorship only, and three of them non-specialists) and of a subfamily name 17 times. Delphax has been correspondingly used over 300 times and 15 times respectively, and a further 17 times as the name of @ tribe. It is to be noted that as the family includes species of economic 166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature importance, there exists also a substantial literature in which the family name DELPHACIDAE is used and which is not listed by Metcalf, as it is not concerned with systematics. The name ASIRACIDAE has never been in common use among economic entomologists, if indeed it has ever been used. As the subfamilies “‘ASIRACINAE”’ and ‘‘ DELPHACINAE”’ currently represent the two major groups of the family, it is natural that they should have been used to an approximately equal extent since the time when this division was first proposed. If the Rules are allowed to operate without interference, the interests of stability and universality would obviously not be served. If Asiraca is suppressed for priority, confusion will result, as the name ‘“‘ DELPHACINAE”’ would assume exactly the contrary meaning to that it has now. By contrast, the suppression of Kirkaldy’s type-selection so as to validate the selection of Cicada crassicornis would stabilize the nomenclature in current use both in word and significance ”’. 13. The situation disclosed by Mr. Fennah’s remarks provides an interesting sidelight on the rules governing family-group names at present in force. According to these rules, it is quite immaterial whether Delphax Fabricius, 1798, is a valid generic name or not, although it is essential that the family- name DELPHACIDAE should be preserved, and that so long as that family is divided into subfamilies, one of them must be name DELPHACINAE. The question as to which of those subfamilies is to bear that name is, however, entirely dependent on the question of the type-species of Delphax, a name which is an invalid junior objective synonym of Asiraca. The maximum number of species eligible for designation as the type-species of Delphax is two ; under the Rules, Cicada clavicornis is the type-species, and the valid name for the genus is Asiraca. Therefore, under the Rules, the subfamily name AsrRACINAE must be replaced by DELPHACINAE. Alternatively, the Plenary Powers could be invoked to designate Cicada crassicornis as the type-species of Delphaz ; but this would bring about the rejection of Araeopus, which is at present the valid name for the genus of which Cicada crassicornis is the type-species, and of the type-genus of the subfamily currently called pELPHACINAE. The use of the Plenary Powers to designate Cicada crassicornis as the type-species of Delphax would make that genus the type-genus of the subfamily currently called DELPHACINAE (and of the family DELPHACcIDAE). The problem at the family-group level may be expressed as follows: are the nominal subfamilies ASIRACINAE and DELPHACINAE (both within the family DELPHACIDAE) to be identical ; or are the subfamilies DELPHACINAE and ARAEOPINAE (both within the family DELPHACIDAE) to be identical? At the generic level, the same problem can be expressed in the following terms : is Delphax Fabricius, 1798, to be rejected as identical with its senior objective synonym Asiraca : or is it to be suppressed as a senior objective synonym of Araecopus : or is it to be validated as the name of the genus of which Cicada crassicornis is the type-species ? 14. Of the three family-group names involved in this case, that based on Delphax Fabricius, 1798, was first published by [Leach], [1815], Brewster’s Edinb. Ency. 9 : 125, as DELPHACIDA ; the spelling was corrected to DELPHA- c1DAE by Dohrn, 1859, Cat. Hemipt.:61. That based on Asiraca Latreille, 1796, was first published by Motschulsky, 1863, Bull. Soc. Nat. Moscou 36 : 108, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 167 as ASIRACIDES, corrected to ASIRACINAE by Kirkaldy, 1902, J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 14 : 52. That based on Araeopus was first published as ARAEOPIDAE by Metcalf, 1938, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard 82 : 279-281. 15. It is no part of the purpose of this paper to prejudice the decision of the Commission. It is intended rather to elicit from hemipterists a clear statement of their wishes in the case. The Commission now has before it enough evidence to show that the alternatives are clearly marked. Its choice must be guided, at least in part, by the wishes of hemipterists expressed to it on which of the following alternative courses is preferred : (A) that Asiraca (clavicornis) and Araeopus (crassicornis) be accepted as the names of the type- genera of the subfamilies ASIRACINAE and DELPHACINAE respectively ; (B) that the plenary powers be used to make Delphax (clavicornis) and Araeopus (crassicornis) the type-genera of those subfamilies ; (C) that those powers be used to make Asiraca (clavicornis) and Delphax (crassicornis) the type-genera of those subfamilies. These alternatives may be presented in formally precise terms as follows :— ALTERNATIVE A (1) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Asiraca Latreille, 1796 (gender: feminine), type-species, by selection by Latreille, 1810, Cicada clavicornis Fabricius, 1794 ; (b) Araeopus Spinola, 1839 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Cicada crassicornis Panzer, 1796 ; (2) to place the generic name Delphax Fabricius, 1798, a junior objective synonym of Asiraca Latreille, 1796, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) clavicornis Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Cicada clavicornis (type-species of Asiraca Latreille, 1796) ; (b) crassicornis Panzer, 1796, as published in the binomen Cicada crassicornis (type-species of Araeopus Spinola, 1839) ; (4) to place the following family-group names on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology : (a) DELPHACIDAE (correction by Dohrn, 1859, of DELPHACIDA) [Leach], [1815] (type-genus Asiraca Latreille, 1796) ; (b) ARAEOPIDAE Metcalf, 1938 (type-genus Araeopus Spinola, 1839) ; (5) to place the following family-group name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-group Names in Zoology : (a) DELPHACIDA [Leach], [1815] (type-genus Delphax Fabricius, 1798), an incorrect original spelling of DELPHACIDAE. ALTERNATIVE B (1) to use the plenary powers to suppress the generic name Asiraca Latreille, 1796, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; ¢ 168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Delphax Fabricius, 1798 (gender: masculine), type-species, by selection by Kirkaldy, 1903, Cicada clavicornis Fabricius, 1794 (validated through the action taken under the plenary powers in (1)) ; (b) as (1)(b) of Alternative A ; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) clavicornis Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Cicada clavicornis (type-species of Delphax Fabricius, 1798) ; (b) as (3)(b) of Alternative A ; (4) to place the generic name Asiraca Latreille, 1796, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; ; (5) to place the following family-group names on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology : (a) DELPHACIDAE (correction by Dohrn, 1859, of DeELPHactIDA) [Leach], [1815] (type-genus Delphax Fabricius, 1798) ; (b) as (4)(b) of Alternative A ; (6) as (5) of Alternative A. ALTERNATIVE C (1) to use the plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for Delphax Fabricius, 1798, prior to the designation of Cicada crassicornis Panzer, 1796, by Van Duzee, 1912 ; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) as (1)(a) of Alternative A ; (b) Delphax Fabricius, 1798 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1), Cicada crassicornis Panzer, 1796; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) as (3)(a) of Alternative A; ‘ (b) crassicornis Panzer, 1796, as published in the binomen Cicada ot crassicornis (type-species of Delphax Fabricius, 1798) ; (4) to place the generic name Araeopus Spinola, 1839, a junior objective synonym of Delphax Fabricius, 1798, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (5) to place the following family-group names on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology : (a) as (5)(a) of Alternative B ; (b) ASTRACINAE (correction by Kirkaldy, 1902, of asrmracipEs) Motschulsky, 1863 (type-genus Asiraca Latreille, 1796) ; ee, ee ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 169 (6) to place the following family-group names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology : (a) as (5) of Alternative A; (b) astRacIDES Motschulsky, 1863 (type-genus Asiraca Latreille, 1796), an incorrect original spelling of AsTRACINAE. COMMENT ON PROPOSALS RELATING TO BERAEA STEPHENS, 1833 (Z.N.(S.) 395); CHAETOPTERYX STEPHENS, 1829 (Z.N.(S.) 426); AND APATANIA KOLENATI, 1847 (Z.N.(S.) 427). (See this volume, pages 32-38) By H. H. Ross (State Natural History Division, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) I would like to take the opportunity of expressing complete support for proposals Z.N.(S.) 395, 426, and 427. Mr. Kimmins has presented the case for these three proposals in admirable fashion. Cases 395 and 427 have already led to much confusion and disagreement in the literature, confusion of a sort that can be limited only by the action which he has recommended. I hope very much that the Commission will adopt the recommendations which Mr. Kimmins has expressed in these three proposals. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAME ORTHOCERATITES LAMARCK, 1799. Z.N.(S.) 1395. (See this volume, pages 25-26.) By L. J. Chubb (Geological Survey Department, Kingston, Jamaica, W.1.) I should like to support the application by Dr. L. R. Cox that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Orthoceratites Lamarck, 1799, and to place the generic name Hippurites Lamarck, 1801 on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. I have always doubted whether the figures published by Lapeirouse (1781, pl. X, Figs. 5-6, reproduced by H. Douvillé and C. Dechaseaux) under the name of Orthoceratites a gouttiére en tuyaux Morgue really represented a Rudist. They have more resemblance to the Carboniferous Rugose Coral, Amplexus coralloides Sowerby, and I suspect that a few specimens of this, or a related species found their way into Lapeirouse’s collection. 170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED FURTHER USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS IN THE CASE OF THE GENERIC NAME PLEUROCERA RAFINESQUE, 1818 (CLASS GASTROPODA). Z.N.(S.)83 By R. V. Melville (Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) This report is intended to bring up to date the recommendations published on the present case by Mr. Hemming, then Secretary to the Commission, in 1951 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 6-17), at a time when it was not necessary to consider the gender of a generic name involved in an application, or to make proposals concerning family-group names based on such generic names. In the present case, the plenary powers may have to be used in the latter con- nection, and it is for that reason that the present report must be published, and a delay of six months allowed, before the Commission can be asked to vote on the combined issues at stake. The opportunity is taken to present at the same time documents which have accrued on the case since the publication of Mr. Hemming’s report. So far as the gender of the generic name is concerned, it is only necessary to say that it is feminine by rule and that it is generally so treated. 2. The early history of the case, which began in 1925, is summarized in Mr. Hemming’s report referred to above. The main point at issue is whether the plenary powers should be used to designate Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831, as the type-species of Plewrocera Rafinesque, 1818, or whether the Rules should be strictly applied so as to allow Pleurocera verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820, to be the type-species. The publication of Mr. Hemming’s report elicited only four comments: Dr. Joshua L. Baily (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 338) and Dr. E. Berio (in. lit. 4.9.51) supported, and Professor C. R. Boettger (in lit. 30.8.51) and Dr. J. P. E. Morrison (in lit. 8.10.51) opposed Mr. Hemming’s proposal to use the plenary powers to designate P. acuta as the type-species. 3. Dr. Morrison drew attention to a twofold error in Mr. Hemming’s report : the author cited on p. 14, para. 20(1) and p. 15, para. 21(2) as “ Taylor, 1864 ” should be “ Tryon, 1864’; and that author did not in fact select Plewrocera acuta as the type-species of Pleurocera, although he used the generic name in that sense (see quotation from Dr. Pilsbry on p. 8, para. 4(2) of that report). 4. Dr. Morrison expressed his objections as follows : “ Information at my hand for some years, and now in press in MS., necessitates the transfer of more than 350 additional specific names into the group of species typified by acuta Rafinesque, because they are biologically congeneric. Any argument in favour of “universal usage” for the 85 names commonly listed in Pleurocera of Walker is swamped by the 350 additional names for congeneric species that have not been listed in any way under Pleurocera since 1863, and probably have never been so listed.”” (This argument does not make allowance for the fact that the generic name Plewrocera must sooner or later be objectively defined, and that it would be better if this were done without the transfer of Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 17, pts. 6-8. April 1960. ee PTE i= Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 171 names from one genus to another.) 5. Dr. Morrison also sent typescripts of three papers in which his views were presented in detail, and included a letter from Dr. Harald A. Rehder in support of these views. Dr. Rehder requested further that the question of the type-species of Plewrocera be tabled until knowledge of the classification of the family PLEUROCERIDAE had been published and critically reviewed. 6. During 1952, and again in 1956, Mr. Hemming tried to obtain the views of other specialists, but without success. The case was eventually revived by Mr. Joseph Rosewater (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard College, Mass., U.S.A.), who wrote on 16 December 1958 expressing disappointment that the names Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818, and acuta Rafinesque, 1831, did not appear in the then recently published first instalments of the Official Lists in book form. He was at once invited to express his views more fully, and to suggest the names of other specialists who might be consulted, and as a result, it seems that there is a sufficient body of information, and a sufficiently clear indication of the majority view, to enable the Commission to deliver a ruling. Documents received since Mr. Rosewater’s letter are considered in the following paragraphs. 7. Dr. William J. Clench and Dr. Ruth D. Turner (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard) wrote on 29 April 1959 in favour of the use of the plenary powers to designate Pleurocera acuta as the type-species of Plewrocera, and added : “‘ We feel that this would result in avoidance of confusion in nomen- clature and that it is in keeping with the best interests of an understanding of the family-group of which Plewrocera is a member.” 8. Mr. Rosewater was asked to provide information (a) on the sense in which Plewrocera had been used since 1944 (the date of the latest information reviewed in Mr. Hemming’s report), and (b) the degree and kind of confusion that would result if P. verrucosa were allowed to stand as the type-species. He replied (15 May 1959) to the first question with the following list of 16 works published in or after 1944 in which Pleurocera “ was used for those forms most resembling, and as though its type-species was, Plewrocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831”. It will be seen that the list includes textbooks, professional zoological papers, water pollution reports, palaeontological works, and regional catalogues of species. Goodrich, C., 1944, Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich. No. 485 : 5 , 1944, Nautilus 58 : 43 , 1944, Misc. Pub. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich. No. 64 : 5, 27 & van der Schalie, H., 1944, Amer. Midland Nat. 32 : 259, 302-303 Stenzel, H. B. & Turner, F. E., 1944, Amer. J. Sci., 242 : 289-308 (describes a new fossil (Miocene) species of Plewrocera and argues in favour of P. acuta as the type-species). —________ & Hesse, C. J., 1944, Bull. Amer. Assoc. Pet. Geol. 28 : 977-1011 Robertson, I. C. & Blakeslee, C. L., 1948, Buffalo Soc. Nat. Sci., Bull. 19 : 90 Pennak, R. B., 1953, Freshwater invertebrates of the United States. New York Shrock, R. R. & Twenhofel, W. H., 1953, Principles of invertebrate paleontology. New York 172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature La Rocque, A., 1953, Bull. nat. Mus. Canada 129 : 272 Clench, W. J., 1954, Syst. Zool. 3 : 123-124 Ingram, W. M., 1956, J. Amer. Water Works Assoc. 48 : 258, 259, 264 , 1957 in Biological probems in water pollution ; Trans. seminar . water pollution. U.S. Dept. Health Ed., Welfare ; Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio. Rosewater, J., 1959, Amer. Malac. Union Ann. Rep. for 1958, Bull. 25 : 23-24 (in press) Amer. Malac. Union Ann. Rep. for 1959. ____ (in press) Nautilus 73 Clench, W. J., 1959 Mollusca in Ward & Whipple, Fresh-Water Biology (2nd ed.) : 1137 Mr. Rosewater went on: ‘‘ The following, Dr. Morrison’s papers, are the only ones I know of since 1944 in which the genus Pleurocera is used unqualifiedly in reference to the group of which P. verrucosa Raf. is a member : 1952, Amer. Malac. Union News Bull. and Ann. Rep. for 1951: 7; and 1954, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 103 : 362-363.’ (These are two of the papers of which Dr. Morrison had earlier sent typescripts to the Commission’s office.) 9. Mr. Rosewater replied as follows to the second question that had been put to him : “If verrucosa is accepted as type-species of Pleurocera, then that generic name will no longer be applied to the group of which acuta is a member, but to the group which has been known by the name Lithasia Haldeman, 1841, with few exceptions, for over 50 years. The then nameless acuta-group will fall a prey to one of two eventualities: either it will have resurrected for it the earliest available synonym, Ceriphasia Swainson, 1840, or it will be combined with another generic group, Goniobasis Lea, 1862 (Dr. Morrison uses the generic name Oxytrema Rafinesque, 1819 for this combined genus). In my opinion, there is insufficient evidence for this combination, and the smallest actual change in zoological nomenclature will result from making the change which has already been recommended by Mr. Hemming. The argument that modern taxonomic work would produce so many small genera that it would not matter very much which of them was called Pleurocera does not seem a valid one to me. Modern work has tended to reduce the numbers of species within the genera by synonymizing variable forms or by reducing them to subspecies. This alone makes for small genera. We already have them in the PLEUROOERIDAE, and they have been understood by malacologists according to concepts and usage during nearly three generations. It does matter which genus is called Plewrocera, because what has been called by that name has been recognised for so long and is still being used in this sense by most workers in North America. To call verrucosa and its allies Plewrocera would change a nomenclatorially-linked generic concept of long standing.” 10. Professor Henry van der Schalie (University of Michigan) wrote on 12 June 1959 as follows: “‘ My colleague Dr. John B. Burch has written out his opinion, and as it is one with which I completely concur, I shall quote his statements. ‘After reviewing the available evidence and previous history of the controversy concerning the type-species of Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818, I am in agreement with the recommendations set forth by Hemming, i.e. to set aside all designations of type-species for this genus and to designate Plewro- ~. Si he igs ites Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 173 cera acuta Rafinesque as its type-species. It is my opinion that almost all fresh-water zoologists presently follow Walker’s 1917 Synopsis (Misc. Pub. Univ. Mich. No. 6) which recognises P. acuta as the type-species of Pleurocera. I agree with Prof. H. Van Cleave and Dr. Pilsbry that “ the formal acceptance of P. verrucosa would result in widespread confusion.” Little has been pub- lished since 1950 on this subject. Dr. Morrison has published twice (one paper is merely an abstract of the other) advocating the use of P. verrucosa as the type-species. However, this opinion appears to be somewhat biased in that it does not present all the arguments. In particular, he omits any reference to Walker’s 1917 discussion (Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich. No. 38). It is merely a matter of conjecture to presume that future revisions will drastically revise the nomenclature which is currently most accepted. Hence this con- sideration has no bearing on the present problem. The use of “ biological characters” (e.g. egg-laying) for generic and subgeneric group distinctions among pleurocerid snails is so premature as to make discussions of them almost totally valueless.’ Somehow such workers as Dr. Morrison seem to forget that Dr. Walker was not only one of the best students of fresh-water mollusca, but he was considered to be an unusually good lawyer. His handling of the case is in itself an example of the skill Dr. Walker had in using his knowledge of biology of the group concerned and applying his legal training to clear up this problem. His conclusions may not have been strictly in accord with rules in force at the present time, but his work has had a formative influence on current usage. Dr. Morrison may be on grounds that can be justified by the strict letter of the law, but they seem to me untenable if stability of nomen- clature is to be taken into consideration.” 11. It is clear that the family to which Pleurocera is referred is generally, if not universally, known by the name PLEUROCERIDAE, but this is not the oldest available family-group name involved. Troschel (1857, Gebiss der Schnecken 1 : 109) used the term “Ancyloti” but it is clear from the context (p. 95) that he did not intend this to be a family-group name. The earliest undoubted family-group name that needs to be considered is CERAPHASIINAE [sic] Gill, 1863 (Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 15 : 34), apparently an incorrect original spelling for CERIPHASIINAE, and based on the generic name Ceriphasia Swainson, 1840. As stated in paragraph 9 above, Ceriphasia is regarded as a synonym of Plewrocera, and the name CERIPHASIINAE has never, according to Mr. Rosewater, come into use. It should therefore be suppressed under the plenary powers, in the interest of preserving PLEUROCERIDAE. The next name to be considered is sTREPOMATIDAE Haldeman, 1863, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 15 : 274. This is based on the generic name Strepoma, which appears to have existed only as a manuscript name of Rafinesque’s and is quite unknown as an available name. sTREPOMATIDAE can therefore be rejected on the grounds that it is not based on an available generic name. PLEUROCERIDAE Fischer, 1885, Manuel de Conchyliologie : 705 is the name that is in general use, and it should be preserved by the suppression of CERIPHASIINAE and the rejection of STREPOMATIDAE already suggested. 12. Finally, it is only necessary to consider the name of the genus to which Pleurocera verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820, is referred. This is Lithasia Haldeman > 174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1840, Monogr. Limniades or Freshwater Univalve Shells N. Amer., Suppl. to No. 1, with type-species, by monotypy, Anculosa (Lithasia) geniculata Haldeman, ibid. These names can now be placed on the appropriate Official Lists. 13. It is therefore proposed that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature take the following actions in addition to those already put forward in Mr. Hemming’s report : (4) use its plenary powers to suppress the family-group name CERIPHASIINAE (correction of CERAPHASIINAE) Gill, 1863, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (5) state in the ruling requested under point (2) of Mr. Hemming’s proposals that the gender of the generic name Pleurocera is feminine ; (6) place the generic name Lithasia Haldeman, 1840 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Anculosa (Lithasia) geniculata Haldeman, 1840, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (7) place the specific name geniculata Haldeman, 1840, as published in the combination Anculosa (Lithasia) geniculata (type-species of Lithasia Haldeman, 1840) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (8) place the following family-group names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-group Names in Zoology : (a) CERIPHASIINAE (correction of CERAPHASIINAE) Gill, 1863 (type- genus Ceriphasia Swainson, 1840), as suppressed under the plenary powers in (4) above ; (b) cERAPHASIINAE Gill, 1863 (an incorrect original spelling of CERIPHASIINAE) ; (c) STREPOMATIDAE Haldeman, 1863 (invalid because not based on an available generic name) ; (9) place the family-group name PLEUROCERIDAE Fischer, 1885 (type-genus Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818), as validated by the actions taken under (4) and (8) above, on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 175 REQUEST FOR A RULING ON THE DATE OF THE GENERIC NAME HANSENIA MELICHAR (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA). Z.N.(8.) 173 By R. G. Fennah (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to give a Ruling on the date to be attributed to the generic name Hansenia Melichar. 2. In 1844 (Icon. Régne Anim. Ins. : 361) Guérin described under the name Poeciloptera pulverulenta a species from the Bay of Campeche (a part of the Gulf of Mexico). 3. In Ann. naturh. Hofmus. Wien 16 : 195, 228 (dated 1901 on the title page), Melichar established a new nominal genus Hansenia, and designated Poeciloptera pulverulenta Guérin as its type-species. In 1902 (J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 14 : 53) Kirkaldy published a paper read at a meeting held in November 1901 in which he also published, as a new generic name, the name Hansenia with Poeciloptera glauca Kirby, 1891 (J. linn. Soc. Lond. 24 : 154, pl. 6, fig. 14) as type-species. 4. Both Melichar and Kirkaldy identified the nominal species Poeciloptera pulverulenta Guérin and Poeciloptera glauca Kirby with one another. Melichar, who indicated that he had examined the type-material of both these nominal species, adopted the specific name pulverulenta Guérin, sinking glauca Kirby as a synonym, while Kirkaldy took the opposite course by adopting glauca Kirby as the valid name and treating pulverulenta Guérin as a synonym. 5. In 1903 (Homopt. Ceylon) Melichar, when using the generic name Hansenia, attributed it to Kirkaldy, placing in it H. pulverulenta (Guérin) and H. kirbyi Melichar. 6. In 1903 (Entomologist 36 : 79) Kirkaldy appears to have realised that Poeciloptera pulverulenta Guérin and Poeciloptera glauca Kirby were not synonyms of one another but were names for a New World and an Old World species respectively, and that therefore the synonymy noted in paragraph 4 above was incorrect. 7. In 1906 (Fauna Brit. Ind., Rynch. 3 : 411) Distant cited the nominal genus Hansenia Kirkaldy with Poeciloptera glauca Kirby as type-species. In 1923 (in Wytsman’s Gen. Ins. 182 : 67) Melichar also attributed the generic name Hansenia to Kirkaldy instead of to himself and treated (correctly) Poeciloptera glauca Kirby as the type-species. The species Poeciloptera pulverulenta Guérin, which he had made the type-species of his own genus Hansenia he now designated as type-species of a new nominal genus, Ormenoflata. 8. Although Melichar’s settlement of the Hansenia problem has been followed by later authors, it appeared until recently that it did not in fact do so under the Rules, for it involved the acceptance, as a valid name, of Hansenia Kirkaldy, 1902, which appeared to be invalid as a junior homonym of Hansenia Melichar. The acceptance of Hansenia Melichar as the valid name would involve the Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 17, pts. 6-8. April 1960. 176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature transfer of the name Hansenia from an Old World genus to a New World genus. 9. However, Kirkaldy stated (1903, Entomologist 36 : 79) that Heft 3-4, Band XVI of Ann. naturh. Hofmus. Wien (i.e. the Heft containing the name Hansenia Melichar) was not published until June 1902, whereas his own paper containing the homonymous name Hansenia Kirkaldy was published in January 1902 and therefore that the name Hansenia Kirkaldy had priority. The contents of this Heft (including reference to an event which took place on 28 December 1901) were recorded in the Zoological Record for 1901, but this was not published until 1903 so that it would have been possible for a paper published in 1902 to have been recorded in it. The British Museum (Natural History) copy of Band XVI, Heft 3-4 was not received until 13 July 1903. Usually Heft 1 & 2 of each year were received at this Museum in the June or July of the following year. The Naturhistorisches Museum of Vienna is only able to say that Melichar’s Monograph must have been published between 1 January 1901 and 1 August 1902. The Zoological Society of London copy of Band XVI, Heft 3-4 was received on 23 May 1902, and this, which is the earliest date at present known by which the work could have been published, becomes the latest date of publication which is compatible with the evidence, and must, under the Rules, be the date to be attributed to the generic name Hansenia Melichar. Hansenia Melichar thus becomes a junior homonym of Hansenia Kirkaldy, which was published in January 1902. 10. I, however, consider that the evidence suggests that the use of the name pulverulenta Guérin by Melichar on page 228 and 229 of Heft 3 under Hansenia is an error transcribed from a communication from Kirkaldy ; and definitely proves that Melichar intended this genus to be based on the insect now known as glauca. The evidence is set out below :— (a) On page 195 of Heft 3-4 Hansenia n.g. is keyed out under “ Beide Fihlerglieder fast gleich lang’. The original description of generic characters includes “ Das erste und zweite Fiihlerglied gleich lang, die Fiihler den Stirnrand iiberragend . . . Hintershienen mit einem Dorne’”’. Poeciloptera pulverulenta Guérin does not have any of these characters : P. glauca Kirby has all. (b) In pl. 2, fig. 3 of the Monograph (in Band XVII) Melichar figures “ Hansenia pulverulenta’’ Guérin (figure references on pages 229, Band XVI; 234, and 251, Band XVII). The figure is unmistakably P. glauca Kirby or H. kirbyi Melichar and cannot possibly be Poeciloptera pulverulenta Guérin. (c) Melichar cites the distribution of H. pulverulenta (Guérin) (: 229) exactly as follows :—‘‘ Ceylon, Pundaloya, Campeche, Paradeniya’”’. On pages 228 (Band XVI) and 234 (Band XVII) he gives the distribution of H. pulverulenta as ‘“‘Ceylon”’. Nowhere does he recognise Hansenia pulverulenta Guérin as a Central American species and, as the above citation shows, apparently over- looked the true location of Campeche. (d) On page 70 of Heft 1-2, Band XVII, Melichar correctly describes Poeciloptera pulverulenta Guérin under Ormenis, and gives the distribution “ Centralamerika, Mexico (Typen im Stockholmer und im Wiener k.k. Hof- museum) ”’. (e) In his ‘‘ Verzeichnis der Artennamen”’ Melichar lists “ pulverulenta ” twice, with the Hansenia and Ormenis references respectively, quite oblivious Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 177 of the fact that he had used the same name for two entirely different species. (f) While Melichar’s figure of “ Hansenia pulverulenta”’ and citation of Poeciloptera glauca Kirby in synonymy absolutely prove that he based the generic concept Hansenia on the insect now known as Poeciloptera glauca, it remains for Kirkaldy to provide a clue to Melichar’s extraordinary lapse. In The Entomologist, 1903, 36 : 79, he wrote that he had wrongly synonymised P. pulverulenta and P. glauca and had been followed by Melichar in this error. In other words Melichar’s error was almost certainly due to an unthinking transcription. (g) I do not think that this is proof that Melichar received Kirkaldy’s paper before he published his own. If he had he would have published “ Hansenia Kirkaldy ” with a bibliographic reference, and not “ Hansenia n.g.”’. Moreover, while in Heft 3-4 of Band XVI (1901) he published the genus as new, in the index to genera on page 246 of Heft 1-2, Band XVII (1902) he lists ““ Hansenia Kirkaldy ” and does not mention Hansenia Melichar. (h) It is highly probable that Kirkaldy, an avowed admirer of Hansen’s work, coined the generic name and synonymy, and as he knew that Melichar was compiling a comprehensive monograph on the family FLATIDAE (Kirkaldy noted this in his 1902 paper), advised him privately of his actions. Melichar, not knowing whether Kirkaldy’s genus was published or not, was forced to insert the genus as new in order to expedite the submission of his part I to press. Before he compiled the index of genera at the end of part II in 1902 he discovered that Kirkaldy’s generic name had been published and accordingly suppressed his own name in favour of Kirkaldy in the index. 11. In view of this evidence I request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) To give a Ruling that Melichar’s monograph contained in Heft 3-4 of Band XVI of Ann. naturh. Hofmus. Wien is to be considered to have been published on [23 May 1902]—the earliest date that is compatible with the evidence ; (2) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Hansenia Kirkaldy, 1902 (gender: feminine), type-species, by original designation, Poeciloptera glauca Kirby, 1891 ; (b) Ormenoflata Melichar, 1923 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation, Poeciloptera pulverulenta Guérin, 1844 ; (3) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) pulverulenta Guérin, 1844, as published in the binomen Poeciloptera pulverulenta (type-species of Ormenoflata Melichar, 1923) ; (b) glauca Kirby, 1891, as published in the binomen Poeciloptera glauca (type-species of Hansenia Kirkaldy, 1902) ; (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Hansenia Melichar, [1902] (a junior homonym of Hansenia Kirkaldy, 1902). 178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME IDOTEA J. C. FABRICIUS, 1798 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER ISOPODA) AND MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH. Z.N.(S.) 412 By Poul F. Heegaard (University of Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia) and L. %. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) The object of the present application is to seek the assistance of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for the purpose of validating, through the use of its plenary powers, the generic name Jdotea J. C. Fabricius, 1798 (Suppl. Ent. syst. : 297, 302) for the well-known genus of Isopoda to which it is universally applied. 2. The generic name Idotea J. C. Fabricius, 1798, sometimes incorrectly spelled Idothea, is at present used by all carcinologists to denote a common and widely distributed genus of Isopoda. From a strict nomenclatorial viewpoint, however, this name is invalid as a junior homonym of Jdotea Weber, 1795 (Nomencl. ent. : 94), a name proposed for a genus of Decapod Crustacea, for which it has never been used except by its original author. A suppression of the name Idotea Weber, 1795, which is a junior objective synonym of Emerita Scopoli, 1777 (Introd. Hist. nat. : 405) will not cause any change in the nomen- clature of the Decapoda, while it will prevent an enormous confusion in that of the Isopod Crustacea. In our opinion, therefore the use of the plenary powers is fully justified here. 3. It was Rathbun (1904, Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 17 : 171) who first pointed out that the name ‘‘ Jdotea is not available for a genus of Isopods as defined by Fabricius, 1798 ’’, but she left it to her colleague Richardson (1905, ibid. 18 : 9) to find the correct name for the Isopod genus concerned. Accord- ing to Richardson this name should be Idothea J. C. Fabricius, 1799 (Index alph. Suppl. Ent. syst. : 27), which she thought to be an emendation of Idotea J. C. Fabricius, 1798 ; however, according to the Rules, J. C. Fabricius’s 1799 name can only be considered an erroneous spelling of Jdotea and thus has no status in nomenclature. The result of Miss Richardson’s publication was that those authors who considered Idotea J. C. Fabricius, 1798, invalid, used the name Idothea J. C. Fabricius, 1799, for the genus, while those who were opposed to digging up Weber’s 1795 names continued to use the former (1798) name, which by some was misspelled Idothea. This is the reason why Idot(h)ea is still in current use for the Isopod genus and is adopted by all workers in the group. If the Commission under their plenary powers decide to place Idotea J. C. Fabricius, 1798, on the Official List, then the erroneous spelling Idothea J. C. Fabricius, 1799, the nomen nudum Idothea J. C. Fabricius, 1796 (Index Ent. syst. : 86), and Richardson’s (1905 : 10) emendation Idothea should-all be placed on the Official Index. If the Commission decides not to use its plenary powers here, the correct name for the genus concerned will be Gonotus Bull. zool Nomencl. Vol. 17, 1960. pts. 6-8. April 1960. ; . VA Pos RA GNA S oi * Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 179 Rafinesque, 1814 (Préc. Découv. Trav. somiol. : 26), a highly obscure name which has never been used except by its original author. 4. The first type-selection for Idotea J. C. Fabricius, 1798, is that by Latreille, 1810 (Consid. gén. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 109, 423), who designated “‘ Cymothoa entomon Fab.” [=Oniscus entomon Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 636]. This selection is, however, invalid, as Oniscus entomon is not among the species originally included by J. C. Fabricius (1798) in his genus Idotea. This is very fortunate, since Oniscus entomon L. is at present treated as the type-species of a distinct genus Saduria Adams (1852, Sutherland’s J. Voy. Baffin Bay Barrow Strait 2 : eevii). This genus is often cited with the name Mesidotea Richardson, 1905 (Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 54 : 347), which, however, is a junior synonym of Saduria (see Bowman, 1955, J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 45 : 225). As far as we know, no type-species has ever been designated for Mesidotea Richardson, and we therefore now select as such Oniscus entomon Linnaeus, 1758. This selection makes the synonymy of Mesidotea Richardson and Saduria Adams an objective one. It seems best now to place the generic name Saduria Adams on the Official List and Mesidotea Richardson on the Official Index. M. esidotea, though a well-known name, is not in such general use that its replacement by Saduria will cause undesirable confusion. 5. The first valid type-selection for Idotea J. C. Fabricius, 1798, is that by Miers, 1881 (J. linn. Soc. London, Zool. 16 : 24), who stated : ‘‘ This section [of Idotea Fabr.] includes Idotea marina (Linn.), which may be considered the type of the genus in its restricted sense”. Oniscus marinus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 637) was included by J. C. Fabricius, 1798, in the original establishment of Idotea and at present is still considered to be a species of that genus, but this type-selection, though perfectly valid, has a serious drawback, namely, the doubtful identity of the nominal species Oniscus marinus L. As shown by Dahl, 1916 (Asseln Isop. Deutschl. : 29), this species has been identified by various authors with different species of Isopoda : with Cymothoa emarginata J. C. Fabricius, 1793 (Ent. syst. 2 : 508) by De Geer (1778, Mém. Hist. Ins. 7 : 522) ; with Jaera albifrons [Leach], [1814] (Brewster’s Edin. Ency. '7(2) : 434) by O. Fabricius, 1780 (Fauna Groenl. : 252) and G. O. Sars, 1897 (Crust. Norway 2(5, 6) : 104); and with Oniscus balthicus Pallas, 1772 (Spicil. Zool. (9) : 66) by J. C. Fabricius, 1793 (Ent. syst. 2 : 506) and Miers, 1881 (J. linn. Soc. London, Zool. 16 : 25). Many authors followed Sars, but others followed Miers, so that in recent literature the name marina is used either for a species of Jaera (often with O. Fabricius cited as the author) or for a species of Idotea. Since Oniscus marinus Linnaeus undoubtedly is a species of Idotea, the practice of applying the name to a species of Jaera is positively incorrect. Miers (1881 : 30, 31) remarked : ‘“‘ In the Linnean Cabinet at the rooms of the Linnean Society at Burlington House is a specimen which bears the name ‘ marinus ’, in what is undoubtedly Linnaeus’s handwriting. Hence I have little hesitation in citing his name for this species”. This statement seems definitely to decide the matter in favour of Miers’s view. Unfortunately, however, Miers’s con- cept of Idotea marina (L.) was very wide and included not only Pallas’s Oniscus balthicus, but also several forms which at present are considered to represent distinct species. Linnaeus’s type material was re-examined by the junior 180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature author in June 1956. This showed that tray 204 of Cabinet 60 of the Linnean collection at Burlington House, London, contains four dry pinned specimens of Idotea, placed together in a single row. Two of these specimens are not labelled and prove to belong to Idotea granulosa Rathke, 1843 and I. chelipes (Pallas, 1766). The third belongs to J. linearis (Linnaeus, 1763) and is labelled “linearis”: this is evidently the type of Oniscus linearis Linnaeus, 1763. The fourth specimen is clearly the holotype of Oniscus marinus L., for it is provided with a label bearing the inscription “ marinus”, which must be the label referred to by Miers (1881). This last specimen proves to belong to the species which at present is known by the name Idotea neglecta Sars, 1897 (Crust. Norway 2(5,6) : 84). The discovery of the identity of Linnaeus’s type- specimen makes it necessary to transfer the name marina from one species of Idotea to another, an action which will cause no end of confusion. Since the name marina has also been used for a species of Jaera, it seems best, in order to maintain a stable nomenclature in the Isopoda, to suppress altogether the severely compromised name Oniscus marinus L, This suppression would make it possible to use the names Jdotea balthica (Pallas), I. neglecta Sars, and Jaera albifrons [Leach], all of which are well known and widely used names. The suppression of Linnaeus’s name marinus will therefore have no undesirable consequences. The only drawback is that Oniscus marinus, as shown above, is the type-species of the genus Jdotea J. C. Fabricius, 1798. For this reason we propose that the Commission should use its plenary powers to designate as the type of that genus the species Cymothoa emarginata J. C. Fabricius, 1793, which was included by J. C. Fabricius in the original description of his Jdotea, while at the same time this species is well known and is currently assigned to Idotea by all Isopod specialists. 6. This opportunity should also be taken to place the generic name Jaera [Leach], [1814] (Brewster’s Edin. Ency.'(2) : 434) on the Official List. The name is at present universally adopted for a well-known and widely distributed genus of Isopoda, of which it is, so far as we know, the validname. At the same time, the specific name albifrons [Leach], [1814] (ibid. : 434) should be placed on the Official List of Specific Names as the name of the type-species of Jaera. It is for this species that O. Fabricius, 1780, wrongly used the specific name Oniscus marinus, Linnaeus, 1758, and since, although he did not propose the name as new he has often been cited as its author, it is proposed that the alleged specific name O. marinus O. Fabricius, 1780, be placed on the Official Index. 7. The problem of the correct name for the Decapod genus named Jdotea by Weber, 1795, is rather complicated. The earlier synonymy of the generic name is: Emerita Gronovius, 1764, Zoophyl. Gronov. (2) : 234 Emerita pars Scopoli, 1777, Introd. Hist. Nat. : 405 Emerita Meuschen, 1778, Mus. Gronov. : 87 Emerita Meuschen, 1781, Index Zoophyl. Gronov. : (9) Idotea Weber, 1795, Nom. ent. : 94 Emerita Bosc, 1801-1802, Hist. nat. Crust. 1 : 67. Gronovius (1764) recognised two species in his genus Emerita, namely, E. thorace subcompresso laevi (No. 1000) and E£. thorace depresso laevi (No. 1001), both VINO " e yon rx Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 181 figured by him. The currently used names for these species are Hmerita emerita (Linnaeus) and Hippa cubensis (De Saussure) respectively. Gronovius’s work, which is not binominal, is not available in nomenclature and has therefore been rejected in Opinion 89 (1925, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73(3) : 321). Both of the publications in which Meuschen (1778 and 1781) used the name Emerita, basing himself on Gronovius’s 1764 work, have likewise been rejected by the Commission, in Opinions 260 and 261 respectively (1954, Ops. Decls. Int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 265, 281). Scopoli (1777), in using the name Emerita, assigned it to Gronovius as the author. As Scopoli’s book is available nomen- clatorially, and as he provided a diagnosis for Emerita and himself adopted the name, it is available as from his work and date. Unfortunately, he did not cite any nominal species, while his description better fits the genus Pagurus J. C. Fabricius, 1775 than Gronovius’s genus Emerita. Furthermore, Scopoli’s reference to a figure of Pagurus bernhardus (Linnaeus) published by Swammer- dam, 1737 (Bibl. Nat.: pl. 11) shows that he included Pagurids in his genus Emerita. This genus is therefore evidently of a composite nature, containing not only Gronovius’s species 1000 and 1001, but also at least Pagurus bernhardus (Linnaeus, 1758). As no nominal species was assigned by Scopoli to his genus Emerita, the type-species, according to the Rules, is the first species subsequently assigned to the genus. This species, so far as we can find out, is “‘Hippa emeritus Fab.” [=Cancer emeritus Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(2) : 1055], which was placed in the genus by Bosc (1801-1802, Hist. nat. Crust. 1 : 67). Bose also considered Gronovius as the author of the generic name, as is evident from his remark (: 67, 68) : “‘ Gronovius avoit fait, le premier, de ce crabe un nouveau genre, sous le nom d’Emerita. Pourquoi Fabricius l’a-t-il changé ?”’ According to the Rules, Cancer emeritus Linnaeus, 1767, is thus the type-species of Emerita Scopoli, 1777, even though Scopoli’s description does not entirely fit the species. In this way the genus which has hitherto been generally cited either as Emerita Gronovius, 1764, or as Emerita Meuschen, 1778 (or 1781), must actually be known as Emerita Scopoli, 1777. The strict application of the Rules thus validates the current usage of the name Emerita, only the author’s name and date having to be changed. 8. The original description of Cancer emeritus Linnaeus, 1767, the type- species of Emerita Scopoli, 1777, runs as follows : “C[ancer]. manibus nullis, pedibus utrinque quinque natatoriis. Gron. zooph. 1000. t.17. f. 8,9. Emerita. Pet. pterigr. t. 20, f. 9 Habitat in Mari Indico.” As already shown by Schmitt, 1935 (Sci. Surv. Porto Rico Virgin Is. 15(2) : 211), Linnaeus’s species is composite. Petiver’s animal, which was collected at Barbados, is probably Hippa cubensis (de Saussure, 1857), while the specimen figured by Gronovius originated from the Indian Ocean and is identical with Hippa asiatica H. Milne Edwards, 1837. In his text, Gronovius referred to Petiver’s pl. 20, fig. 9, and, with some doubt, to Marcgraf’s (1648, Piso & Marcgraf’s Hist. nat. Brasil. (2) : 186) and Jonston’s (1650, Hist. nat. Exang. aquat.: pl. 9, fig. 14) figures of Parribacus antarcticus (Lund, 1793). So far as is known to us, no lectotype has ever been selected for Cancer emeritus 182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Linnaeus, 1767. In order to put the identity of that species beyond dispute, we now select the specimen from ‘“ Mari Indico” described by Gronovius (1764, Zoophyl. Gronov. (2) : 234) as Emerita thorace subcompresso laevi and figured by him on pl. 17, figs. 8, 9. This type-selection is in accordance with Schmitt’s (1935) views and makes Cancer emeritus L.a senior subjective synonym of Hippa asiatica H. Milne Edwards, 1837. 9. During the greater part of the nineteenth century, the generic name Hippa J. C. Fabricius, 1787 (Mant. Ins. 1 : 329) was incorrectly used for the genus Emerita Scopoli, 1777. This practice started with Latreille, 1810 (Consid. gén. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 99, 422), who indicated “Hippa emeritus Fab.” as the type-species of the genus Hippa Fabr. This selection is invalid, as Cancer emeritus L. is not among the species originally included by Fabricius in Hippa. The first valid type-selection for this genus seems to be that by Rathbun, 1900 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 22 : 301), who selected Hippa adactyla J. C. Fabricius, 1787 (Mant. Ins. 1 : 329). It was only after the publication of Rathbun’s paper that the names Hippa and Emerita were used for their proper genera. It seems worth while now to have the generic name Hippa J. C. Fabricius, 1787, placed on the Official List. 10. Only two family-group names are involved here, namely, IDOTEIDAE (correction of IDOTEADAE) Samouelle, 1819, Hntom. useful Compendium : 106 (first correctly spelled by White, 1847, List Crust. Brit. Mus. : 93) and HIPPIDAE (correction of HrpprpES) Latreille, 1825, Fam. nat. Régne Anim. : 275 (first correctly spelled by White, op. cit.: 57). Both these names should now be placed on the Official List. 11. The concrete proposals that we now submit to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are that it should : (1) use its plenary powers : (a) to suppress the generic name Idotea Weber, 1795, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy ; (b) to suppress the specific name marinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Oniscus marinus, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (c) to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Idotea J. C. Fabricius, 1798, made prior to the proposed decision, and having done so ; (d) to designate Cymothoa emarginata J. C. Fabricius, 1793, to be the type-species of that genus ; (2) place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in - Zoology : (a) Emerita Scopoli, 1777 (gender : feminine), type-species, by subse- quent monotypy, Cancer emeritus Linnaeus, 1767 ; (b) Hippa J. C. Fabricius, 1787 (gender : feminine), type-species, by selection by Rathbun, 1900, Hippa adactyla J. C. Fabricius, 1787 ; (c) Idotea J. C. Fabricius, 1798 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(d) above, Cymothoa emarginata J. C. Fabricius, 1793 ; Atte tt Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 183 (d) Jaera [Leach], [1814] (gender : feminine), type-species, by mono- typy, Jaera albifrons [Leach], [1814] ; (e) Saduria Adams, 1852 (gender : feminine), type-species, by mono- _ typy, Oniscus entomon Linnaeus, 1758 ; (3) place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) adactyla J. C. Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Hippa adactyla (type-species of Hippa J. C. Fabricius, 1787) ; (b) albifrons [Leach], [1814], as published in the binomen Jaera albifrons (type-species of Jaera [Leach], [1814}) ; (c) balthicus Pallas, 1772, as published in the binomen Oniscus balthicus ; (d) emarginata J. C. Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Cymothoa emarginata (type-species of Idotea J. C. Fabricius, 1798) ; (e) emeritus Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Cancer emeritus, and as defined by the lectotype selected in paragraph 8 above (type-species of Hmerita Scopoli, 1777) ; (f) entomon Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Oniscus entomon (type-species of Saduria Adams, 1852) ; (g) neglecta Sars, 1897, as published in the binomen Idothea neglecta ; (4) place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Emerita Gronovius, 1764, published in a work rejected for nomen- clatorial purposes in Opinion 89 ; (b) Emerita Meuschen, 1778, published in a work rejected for nomen- clatorial purposes in Opinion 260 ; (c) Emerita Meuschen, 1781, published in a work rejected for nomen- clatorial purposes in Opinion 261 ; (d) Idotaea Dana, 1849 (Amer. J. Sci. (2) 8 : 426) an erroneous subse- quent spelling of Idotea Fabricius, 1798 ; (e) Idotea Weber, 1795, suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above ; (f) Idothea J. C. Fabricius, 1796, a nomen nudum ; (g) Idothea J. C. Fabricius, 1799, an erroneous subsequent spelling of Idotea Fabricius, 1798 ; (h) Idothea Richardson, 1905, an unjustified emendation of Idotea Fabricius, 1798 ; (i) Mesidotea Richardson, 1905, a junior objective synonym of Saduria Adams, 1852 ; (5) place the following specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology : (a) marinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Oniscus marinus, suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above ; (b) marinus O. Fabricius, 1780, as published in the binomen Oniscus marinus, an alleged but non-existent name ; (6) place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group Names 184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature in Zoology : (a) HIPPIDAE (correction of HIPPIDES) Latreille, 1825 (type-genus Hippa J. C. Fabricius, 1787) ; (b) IDOTEIDAE (correction of IDOTEADAE) Samouelle, 1819 (type-genus Idotea J. C. Fabricius, 1798) ; (7) place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology : (a) HIpPIDEs Latreille, 1825 (type-genus Hippa J. C. Fabricius, 1787), an incorrect original spelling for HIPPIDAE ; (b) WOTEADAE Samouelle, 1819 (type-genus Idotea J. C. Fabricius, 1798), an incorrect original spelling for IDOTEIDAE. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF THE GENERIC NAME DICT YOCONUS BLANCKENHORN, 1900. Z.N.(S.) 316 (See this volume, pages 30-31.) By A. N. Dusenbury, Jr. (Creole Petroleum Corporation, Venezuela) I am in full agreement with Dr. Donald L. Frizzell’s proposal for the addition to the Official List of the generic name Dictyoconus (Foraminifera). He is quite correct in stating that Woodring, 1924, was in error in citing Patellina egyptiensis as type-species by monotypy and again correct in the assertion that Cushman, 1933, made the first unequivocal designation of the same species as the type-species. However, Cushman in 1928 (Spec. Publ. Cushman Lab. Foram. Res., No. 1, p. 182) made a prior designation, of which Frizzell has omitted mention, in these words : **Geno-holotype, Patellina aegyptiensis Chapman”, under the heading: “ Genus Dictyconus Blanckenhorn, 1900”. The meaning attached to the word genoholotype is of great importance in determining whether or not the 1928 designation is valid. According to Frizzell (1933, Amer. Midland Naturalist, vol. 14, no. 6, p. 648-649), the word genoholotype is a synonym of the word genotype, both words indicating the type-species of a genus. Under this definition the 1928 designation would be valid. However, Cushman himeelf (loc. cit., p. 51) has explained what he means by the word genoholotype in the following sentence : “‘ Wherever the genus is monotypic, ... , the type-species has been here called a genoholotype.” Therefore, when he declares ‘‘ Patellina aegyptiensis”” to be “ genoholotype”’, he is merely repeating Woodring’s error in neglecting to note that Blanckenhorn established the genus with two originally included species, hence the 1928 designation by Cushman must be considered invalid. In his 1933 edition Cushman replaced the word genoholotype with the word genotype. It will be noted that in 1928 Cushman employed the emended form aegyptiensis instead of the valid original spelling egyptiensis, although in 1933 he corrected this error. The earliest known use of the invalid emended form is by Airaghi, 1904 (Atti Soc. ital. Sci. nat. 43: 160, 183). It is suggested that the International Commission place the specific name aegyptiensis Airaghi, 1904 (an Invalid Emendation of egyptiensis Chapman, 1900), as published in the binomen Conulites aegyptiensis, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. Pee eee | ee ae Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 185 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE A TYPE. SPECIES FOR THE NOMINAL GENUS MACROPSIS LEWIS, 1834, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCUSTOMED USE (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 456 By Wilhelm Wagner (Hamburg, Germany) The nominal genus Macropsis Lewis, 1834 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera, Suborder Homoptera Auchenorrhyncha) was first described in Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1 : 49-51, pl. 7, figs. 3, 4. Lewis placed two species in the genus, Cicada virescens Fabricius, 1794 (Ent. syst. 4 : 46) and Cicada flavicollis Linnaeus, 1761 (Fn. svec. (ed. 2) : 242), but did not designate a type-species. The generic name is nevertheless available under the Code because it was published before 1931. In 1840, Westwood (Syn. Gen. brit. Ins. 2:117) selected Cicada virescens Fabricius as type-species. 2. The binomen Cicada virescens has been applied by authors subsequent to Fabricius in two different senses. The first interpretation was that of Fallén in 1806 (K. Vetenskaps Akad. nya Handl. 27 : 33) when he applied the name to the species now known as Elymana sulphurella (Zetterstedt, 1828) (Ins. lapp. : 297). He was followed by Oshanin, 1906 (Verz. pal. Hem. 2: 174; Thamnotettix sulphurellus Zett. sp.) and by Ribaut, 1939 (Bull. Soc. Hist. nat. Toulouse 73 : 7, 8) who designated Cicada sulphurella Zett. as the type-species of his new genus Solenopyx, as well as by Flor, 1861 (Rhynch. Livl. 2 : 333) and Scott (Ent. mon. Mag. 12 : 25). 3. The second interpretation is represented by Germar, 1821 (Mag. Ent. 4 : 82) and followed by nearly all subsequent authors, including Lewis, 1834. Flor, 1861 (Rhynch. Livl. 2 : 188) and Scott, 1873 (Ent. mon. Mag. 10 : 189) also applied the name virescens Fabricius to the same species as that to which Germar had applied it ; in other words, they applied the name to two different species. In the literature subsequent to 1875 the name appears only in the sense in which Germar used it. 4. The holotype of Cicada virescens Fabricius is deposited in the Kiel Museum. It is recognisable without doubt as a female of Elymana sulphurella (Zetterstedt, 1828). It is therefore clear (a) that Fallén’s interpretation of the species was correct and that the interpretation of Germar which has been generally adopted since 1875 was wrong, and (b) that the genus Macropsis was based on a misidentified type-species. 5. Under a strict application of the Rules, the name M. acropsts would have to be transferred to the genus now known as Elymana De Long, 1936, and the genus now known as Macropsis would have to be given a new name. This procedure would, however, lead to considerable confusion for the following reasons. The genus now known as Macropsis contains a very large number of species which occur in all regions north of the Equator as well as in South America and South Africa. The re-naming of this genus would thus affect nearly all faunistic literature. Moreover, the subfamily MACROPSINAE Evans, Bull, zool. Nomencl. Vol. 17, pts. 6-8. April 1960. 186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1938, is based on this genus. In a large faunistic literature the name Macropsis is used for a very definite and well-known concept, whereas under the Rules, the name should be transferred to a genus in quite adifferent subfamily (Hlymana De Long). There is one extremely plentiful species belonging to this latter genus (Elymana sulphurella Zetterstedt, sp) which is found all over Europe, North Africa, North Asia and North America. The transfer of the name Macropsis to this genus would cause serious confusion, and it seems very desirable that the Plenary Powers should be used to avoid this result by designating a type-species for Macropsis in harmony with current usage. 6. In the course of a review of the salicicolous Macropsis species of North and Central Europe, I found that the specific name “ virescens Fabricius ” (in the sense of Germar) had been used to cover the following species :—Macropsis prasina Boheman, 1852, M. notata Prohaska, 1923, M. marginata ossiannilssoni Wagner, 1950, M. viridinervis Wagner, 1950, M. albae Wagner, 1950 and M. infuscata Sahlberg var. kaestneri Wagner, 1941. I found it impossible to establish with certainty which of these forms was the one on which the genus currently known as Macropsis was originally based. Lewis’s original material is no longer in existence. It is, however, extremely probable that what Lewis described was Macropsis prasina Boheman, 1852 (K. Vetensk.-Akad. Handl. 1851 : 122). This species is plentiful on Salix in England. 7. The type-specimen of Macropsis prasina Boheman is preserved in the Riksmuseum at Stockholm. I was able to examine the specimen and to confirm its identity with specimens of the common English species kindly sent to me for examination by Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London). Lewis’s description was found to agree exactly with the characters of the type-specimen of M. prasina. 8. The name Cicada virescens Fabricius, 1794 is a junior primary homonym of Cicada virescens Gmelin, 1790 (Syst. Nat. ed. 13, 1(4) : 2111) and is therefore not an available name. The description of Gmelin reads: “ virescens.266. C. ex flavo virescens. Mus. Lesk. p. 116, n.34. Habitat in Europa” (I am indebted to Professor H. Sachtleben, Deutsches entomologisches Institut, Berlin, for the above quotation). This name was overlooked until 1936, when Oman (Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 85 : 352) supposed that Cicada virescens might be a species of Macropsis. But the description of Gmelin can be applied to every yellowish-green cicada of Europe. The type of Cicada virescens Gmelin is not to be found (part of the Leske collection is conserved in the museum at Dublin, but this does not include any insects) and it is impossible to determine the species which Gmelin described. It is therefore proposed that Gmelin’s specific name should be suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy so as to reject the same specific name as used by Fabricius. 9. The type-species of the genus Elymana De Long, 1936 (Ohio J. Sci. 36 : 218) is, by original designation, Thamnotettix inornatus Van Duzee, 1892 (Trans. Amer. ent. Soc. 19(12) : 303). Beirne, 1956 (Leafhoppers Canada and Alaska: 90) has established that this species is the same as Cicadula sulphurella Zetterstedt, 1828, and therefore as Cicada virescens Fabricius, 1794, non Gmelin, 1790. If the proposal made above to suppress Cicada virescens Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 187 Gmelin is accepted, then Cicada virescens Fabricius will be automatically rejected and Cicadula sulphurella Zetterstedt, 1828, will become the oldest available name for the type-species of Elymana De Long, 1936. This will be in accord with all current usage, for Ribaut (1952, Faune de France 57 : 126) himself recognised that his genus Solenopyx (see paragraph 2 above) is a synonym of Elymana. 10. The genus Macropsis is referred by all current authors to the sub- family MACROPSINAE Evans, 1938 (as MACROPSIDAE) and that family-group name should be placed on the Official List. EHlymana is variously referred to the subfamily EUSCELINAE or to the subfamily DELTOCEPHALINAE, so that no family-group name problem arises in the present connection so far as this generic name is concerned. 11. I accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature :— (1) to use its plenary powers : (a) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the specific name virescens Gmelin, 1790, as published in the binomen Cicada virescens ; (b) to set aside all designations of a type-species for the nominal genus Macropsis Lewis, 1834, made prior to the ruling now asked for, and having done so ; (c) to designate Jassus prasina Boheman, 1852, to be the type-species of Macropsis Lewis, 1834 ; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Macropsis Lewis, 1834 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designa- tion under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above, Jassus prasina Boheman, 1852; (b) Hlymana De Long, 1936 (gender: feminine), type-species, by original designation, Thamnotettiz inornatus Van Duzee, 1892 ; (3) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology : (a) virescens Gmelin, 1790, as published in the binomen Cicada virescens (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy) ; (b) virescens Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Cicada virescens (a junior primary homonym of Cicada virescens Gmelin, 1790) ; (4) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) prasina Boheman, 1852, as published in the binomen Jassus prasina (type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above, of Macropsis Lewis, 1834) ; (b) sulphurella Zetterstedt, 1828, as published in the binomen Cicadula sulphurella (the oldest available name, through the rejection in (3)(b) above of the specific name virescens Fabricius, 1794, 188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as published in the binomen Cicada virescens, for the type- species of Elymana De Long, 1936) ; (5) to place the family-name MACROPSIDAE Evans, 1938 (type-genus Macropsis Lewis, 1834) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. COMMENTS ON THE REQUEST FOR A RULING ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NOMINAL SPECIES UNIO PHILLIPSII WILLIAMSON, 1836. Z.N.(S.) 1398 (See this volume, pages 61-64.) By A. Pastiels (Centre National de Géologie Houillére, Brussels) Une longue expérience pratique du genre Anthraconauta m’a convaincu du caractére judicieux de la requéte introduite par le Docteur J. Weir que j’appuie sans réserves. By P. Pruvost (Laboratoire de Géologie a la Sorbonne, Paris) Referring to the paper published by Prof. J. Weir (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 61), I beg to inform you that I agree with the case presented by him and that I support his request. By T. Neville George (University of Glasgow) As a student of Carboniferous geology, and as one who has gone into the matter with Dr. Weir, I write to say that I think the proposals put forward by Dr. Weir are urgently desirable, both for palaeontologists and stratigraphers, and that the bases on which he makes his case seem to me to be eminently reasonable and appropriate. It would be disastrous in terms of common use, and a source of endless confusion, if what he proposes is not accepted, and if the specific name should continue to be used with an uncertainty that would make its application liable to endless misconstruction. By E. Paproth (Geologisches Landesamt, Nordrhein- Westfalen, Germany) Der Name Anthroconauta phillipsii (Williamson) ist im Karbon des Ruhr-Gebietes stets im gleichen Sinne gebraucht worden, wie in England (seit 1893). Man hat sich also Hinds (1893 ; und 1895, Palaeontogr. Soc., Taf, XVI) und Dix’ and Trueman’s (1931, Quart. J. Geol. Soc. Lond. 87) Interpretation angeschlossen. Herrn J. Weir’s Antrag bei der International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature» Punkt 1-3 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 64) erscheint mir véllig gerechtfertigt, und ich erlaube mir deshalb, ihn zu unterstiitzen. eee ee EE ee a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 189 PROPOSAL TO PLACE THE GENERIC NAMES KORYNETES HERBST, (1792), AND NECROBIA OLIVIER, 1795, ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA). Z.N.(S).471 By H. Boschma and the late K. W. Dammerman (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) The generic name Korynetes Herbst, (1792), Kafer 4: 148, was emended to Corynetes by Paykull, 1798 (Fauna Suecica 1 : 274), and it is the latter form of the name that has been almost universally used ever since. The emendation was not justified under existing Rules, but because of its wide and long-continued acceptance, Dammerman (January 1950, Entom. Ber. 18(295) : 13) proposed the validation of the spelling Corynetes. On the other hand Corporaal (1949, Entom. Ber. 12(292) : 422) had proposed that the name be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the spelling Korynetes, and later used this spelling in his Catalogue of the CLERIDAE (December 1950, Coleopt. Cat. Suppl. (23) ed. 2 : 307). The same spelling is also used by Kloet & Hincks, 1945, in A Check-List of British Insects :180. Corporaal’s catalogue in particular will serve as the basis for nomenclature in the family, and it is thought advisable now to seek the stabilization of the name Korynetes in its original spelling. 2. Herbst included four species in Korynetes. The first of these was Dermestes violaceus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 356, of which Clerus coeruleus De Geer, 1775, (Mém. Ins. 5 : 164) was cited as a synonym. Since no type-species was originally designated or indicated, the subsequent designa- tion of Clerus coeruleus De Geer, 1775, as type-species by Lacordaire, 1857 (Gen. Coleopt. 4 : 489) was valid. The same species becomes automatically the type-species of Corynetes Paykull, 1798, since this, as an emendation of Korynetes, is a junior objective synonym of the latter under the Rules. 3. The genus Necrobia was established by Olivier, 1795 (Hntomologie, Coleopt. 4, No. 76 bis) to include three of the species placed in Korynetes by Herbst in 1792. Dermestes violaceus Linnaeus, 1758, was the first of these. In 1810, Latreille (Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arachn. Ins. : 427) designated Corynetes violaceus Fabricius (1801, Syst. Hleuth. 1 : 285) as the type-species of Necrobia, but this was a subsequent usage by Fabricius of the specific name violaceus Linnaeus, 1758 (Dermestes). Under the Rules, therefore, Dermestes violaceus Linnaeus, 1758, is the nominal species that is the type-species of Necrobia. 4. The two nominal species Dermestes violaceus Linnaeus, 1758, and Clerus coeruleus are thus the respective type-species of distinct nominal genera, not- withstanding that they were regarded as conspecific by Herbst in 1792. The nominal genera concerned (Korynetes Herbst, (1792) and Necrobia Olivier, 1795) are now, and have long universally been, considered taxonomically different, and it appears to us that the strict application of the Rules would in fact Bull, zool. Nomencl. Vol. 17, pts. 6-8. April 1960. 190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature contribute most to stability and universality of nomenclature. Attempts by, e.g., Jacq. du Val, 1861 (Gen. Col. d'Europe 3 : 201, footnote), Crotch, 1870 (Trans. roy. ent. Soc. London, 1870 : 48), and Bergroth, 1884 (Berl. entom. Zeitschr. 28 : 229) to regard Dermestes violaceus Linnaeus as the type-species of Korynetes have been justly criticized by Corporaal (op. cit., 1949) on the ground that such action menaces stability ; it should also be noted that they are directly contrary to the Rules. 5. The taxonomic genera Korynetes and Necrobia are both referred to the family cLERIDAE. Neither of them has ever been taken as the basis of a family-group name. 6. We therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature : (1) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Korynetes Herbst, (1792) (gender: masculine), type-species, by subsequent designation by Lacordaire, 1857, Clerus coeruleus De Geer, 1775 ; (b) Necrobia Olivier, 1795 (gender: feminine), type-species, by subsequent designation by Latreille, 1810, Dermestes violaceus Linnaeus, 1758 ; (2) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) coeruleus De Geer, 1775, as published in the binomen Clerus coeruleus (type-species of Korynetes Herbst, (1792)) ; (b) violaceus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Dermestes violaceus (type-species of Necrobia Olivier, 1795) ; (3) to place the generic name Corynetes Paykull, 1798 (an unjustified emendation of Korynetes Herbst, (1792)), on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. = btn ae. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 191 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAME PROMECOPSIS DUMERIL, 1806 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 483 By Wilhelm Wagner (Hamburg, Germany) The object of the present application is to remove a serious threat to stability in nomenclature at the generic level in the subfamily TyPHLOCYBINAE presented by the continued availability of the generic name Promecopsis Dumeéril, 1806 (Zool. anal. : 167). 2. The genus Promecopsis was established by Duméril (loc. cit.) without any included species “ correspondant aux cicadelles, qui n’ont pas de petits yeux lisses ’. The generic name is nevertheless available because it was published before 1931, with a description and duly latinized. The author in question consistently applied the principles of binominal nomenclature in the work in which the generic name was first published, and the name is not a junior homonym of any earlier generic name consisting of the same word. It is thus open to any author to introduce this name into usage by citing any given species as its type-species, whether this be the type-species of a nominal genus in universal use since its publication later than 1806 or some species generally referred to such a nominal genus. So far as is known, no nominal species has yet been referred to the nominal genus Promecopsis Duméril, 1806. 3. The subfamily TypHLocyBINAE Kirschbaum, 1868 (Jahrb. nassau. Ver. Naturk. 21/22 : 16) includes a number of genera without ocelli (“‘ qui n’ont pas de petits yeux lisses ’’), so that it would be impossible to define the genus Promecopsis by reference to any known species agreeing with the generic description without disturbing, objectively or subjectively, the stability of current nomenclature. It is therefore desirable that the potential threat to this stability presented by this generic name be eliminated in the most economical manner. 4. The nominal type-genus of the subfamily TyPHLOCYBINAE is T'yphlocyba Germar, 1833 (Rev. Ent. Silbermann 1 : 180). This genus was established with the following originally included species: “‘ Cicada aurata, Urticae, vittata, picta, Quercus Fab., etc.”. The first author who designated a type- species for the genus was Westwood (1840, Syn. Gen. brit. Ins. 2 : 409), and the species so selected was Cicada ulmi Linnaeus, 1758. This designation is invalid because the species selected was not one of those originally included in the genus. Woodworth, 1899 (Psyche 5 : 211) selected Cicada quercus Fabricius as the type-species of T'yphlocyba and this is, so far as is known, the first valid designation of a type-species for this genus. The original reference to this specific name is : Cicada quercus Fabricius, 1777, Gen. Ins., Chilonii : 298, and it is the oldest available name for the species in question. It is proposed that the generic name T'yphlocyba Germar, 1833, and the name of its type-species, be placed on the Official Lists at the same time as the generic name Promecopsis Duméril is suppressed. Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 17, pts. 6-8. April 1960. 192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5. I accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature :— (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Promecopsis Duméril, 1806, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the generic name T'yphlocyba Germar, 1833 (gender : feminine), type-species, by selection by Woodworth, 1899, Cicada quercus Fabricius, 1777, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) ; (3) to place the generic name Promecopsis Dumeéril, 1806, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the specific name quercus Fabricius, 1777, as published in the binomen Cicada quercus (type-species, by designation by Woodworth, 1899, of T'yphlocyba Germar, 1833) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (5) to place the family-name TYPHLOCYBIDAE Kirschbaum, 1868 (type-genus Typhlocyba Germar, 1833) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE A TYPE-SPECIES FOR THE NOMINAL GENUS APHROPHORA GERMAR, 1821. Z.N.(S.) 478. (See this volume, pages 39-42.) By W. Wagner (Hamburg, Germany) Ich halte die Stellungnahme Dr. Ossiannilsson’s zur Nomenclatur der Gattungen Aphrophora Germar, Philaenus Stal und Ptyelus Lep. & Serv. fiir sachlich richtig. Eine Entscheidung der Kommission fiir Zoologische Nomenclatur iiber den Gebrauch des Artnamens Philaenus spumarius Lin. erscheint mir ausserdem dringend notwendig, damit der Gebrauch dieses Namens einheitlich werde. Philaenus spumarius Lin. ist eine der haufigsten Zikadenarten der palaearktischen und der nearktischen Region. Sie wird in sehr vieien Lehr- biichern und populéren Schriften genannt. Der Gebrauch des Namens kann meiner Meinung nach nur in dem von Dr. Ossiannilsson vorgeschlagenen Sinn geregelt werden. Diese Regelung wiirde dem in Europa tiblichen Brauch entsprechen. By W. J. Le Quesne (Chesham, Bucks, England) Dr. Ossiannilsson has sent me a copy of Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : Parts 1/2, concerning the nominal genus Aphrophora Germar, 1821, After study of his proposals, I consider them to be reasonable and wish to agree with the action which he proposes. ee a waa. ee ee +.» We het eed - Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 193 PROPOSED ADDITION OF THE GENERIC NAME JASUS PARKER, 1883, TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA). Z.N.(S.) 620. By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) The present application deals with the generic name Jasus Parker, 1883, which is commonly used to indicate a well-known genus of economically important spiny lobsters. The name was originally thought to be invalid as a junior homonym of Jasus Megerle, 1804, but this view has since been found to be incorrect. The International Commission is now asked to place the generic name Jasus Parker, 1883, on the Official List of Generic Names. 2. The following are the original references to the generic names dealt with in the present application :— Jasus Parker, 1883 (Nature (London), 29 : 190), type-species, by present selection, Palinurus lalandei (emend. of lalandii) H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 293) ; Iassus Fabricius, 1803 (Syst. Rhyng. : 85), type-species, by selection by Fallén, 1826, Cicada lanio Linnaeus, 1761 (Fauna suec. : 892) ; Jasus Megerle, 1804 (Cat. Ins. 4 : [12]), an erroneous subsequent spelling for Iassus Fabricius, 1803 ; Jassus Fallén, 1806 (K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. nya Handl. 27: 115), an erroneous subsequent spelling for Jassus Fabricius, 1803 ; Jasus Balss, 1913 (Denskschr. med.-naturw. Ges. Jena 17 : 108), an erroneous subsequent spelling for Jasus Parker, 1883 ; Palinostus Bate, 1888 (Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : 56, 76, 85), type-species, by present selection, Palinurus lalandei (emend. of lalandii) H. Milne Edwards, 1837 ; Palinosytus Bate, 1888 (ibid. : ix, xxx, xxv, 937), a correct original spelling of Palinostus Bate, 1888. 3. The genus to which Parker in 1883 gave the name Jasus contains but two species, which inhabit the temperate region of the southern hemisphere (S. Africa, St. Paul and Amsterdam Islands, 8.E. Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand, Juan Fernandez and Tristan da Cunha). Notwithstanding the small number of species and the restricted range of distribution, this genus is highly important since both species are of a large size, are edible, and are very abundant in the localities where they occur, so that they form the subject of economically highly important fisheries. The Union of South Africa and Southwest Africa are by far the largest producers of spiny lobsters in the world. As shown by Chace & Dumont, 1949 (Commerc. Fish. Rev. Washington, 11(5) : 5), these two countries alone produced in 1947 not less than 25,000,000 pounds of the lobster Jasus lalandei (H. Milne Edwards), while Australia and New Zealand produced around that time about 4.5 million pounds of Jasus specimens annually. Jasus is also fished for commercial purposes off Juan Fernandez. Naturally the non-taxonomic literature concerning these spiny lobsters is Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 17, pts. 6-8. April 1960. 194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature extensive and it is desirable that the generally accepted generic name of these animals should be placed on the Official List. 4. Only two names have ever been proposed for this genus of spiny lobsters. Jasus Parker, 1883, is the oldest and is generally accepted. The other name is Palinostus Bate, 1888, which was emended by Bate on p. ix of the Introduction to his report to Palinosytus because he thought that Palinostus too much resembled the generic name Palinustus A. Milne Edwards, 1880 (Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard 8 : 66), given to another genus of spiny lobsters. That Bate was right in this supposition is shown by the fact that Rathbun, 1910 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 38 : 603) in error used A. Milne Edwards’s name for the present genus. 5. Palinostus is first mentioned on page 56 of Bate’s report, but without sufficient data to make the name available. On page 76, Bate discusses the morphological differences between l/alandei and other species referred at that time to the genus Palinwrus, and says: “It therefore appears that Palinurus lalandii should form a separate genus (Palinostus) ...”. By thus defining the characters of the genus, and by referring a single species to it, Bate not only established the nominal genus, but indicated its type-species by mono- typy, at the same time rendering Palinostus a junior objective synonym of Jasus Parker, 1883. Later in the same work (: 85) he referred further species to the genus. Palinosytus, as a replacement name for Palinostus, also falls indirectly as a junior synonym of Jasus, but Mr. Melville (when editing this paper as Assistant Secretary to the Commission) and I have been unable to agree on the technical status of Palinosytus. In my view, it should be regarded as a correct original spelling of Palinostus, which in turn, having been rejected by Bate in the original publication, should be regarded as an incorrect original spelling without status in nomenclature. In Mr. Melville’s view, since Palinostus was not subject to automatic correction for any reason, and was not a homonym, Bate had no valid cause to alter it, and Palinosytus should be regarded as an unjustified emendation of Palinostus. The point is of academic interest only, but the Commission is asked to specify whether the invalidity of Palinosytus is due to its being an incorrect original spelling or an unjustified emendation. 6. Palinostus has been used since its original publication by two authors only, namely, Lenz, 1902 (Zool. Jahrb. Jena, Suppl. 5 : 736) and Porter, 1905 (Rev. chil. Hist. nat. 9 : 34), and Palinosytus but once, by Stebbing, 1893 (Hist. Crust.: 196). Both Lenz and Stebbing, however, abandoned these names in later publications in favour of Jasus. This latter name has become firmly established in taxonomic and non-taxonomic literature concerning these animals, and I know of no author who, after the publication of Gruvel’s important monograph of the PALINURIDAE in 1911 (Ann. Inst. Océanogr. Monaco 3) did not follow this author in accepting the name Jasus Parker for the present genus. 7. As has already been stated in paragraph 1 above, Jasus Parker was thought to be invalid as a junior homonym of Jasus Megerle, 1804. The Catalogus Insectorum was not available for examination by me, nor could a copy be found in any library in London, However, Professor E. M. Hering very kindly examined a copy of the catalogue in the Library of the Deutsches Entomologisches Institut, Berlin-Friedrichshagen, and has informed me that Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 195 Jasus Megerle is merely an erroneous subsequent spelling of Jassus Fabricius, 1803, and as such has no status in nomenclature. I am very grateful to Professor Hering for the trouble he took to trace a copy of the book. Dr. H.C. Blote, curator of insects at the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, who is himself a specialist of the Hemiptera Homoptera, of which Jassus Fabricius forms part, was so kind as to inform me that the name Jasus Megerle is not at present used at all and that it is doubtful whether it has ever been used except by its original author. It is however necessary in the present connection to take steps to stabilise the valid generic name for the taxon represented by that name, and here I gratefully acknowledge the help of Dr. R. G. Fennah (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London). 8. As indicated in the preceding paragraph, the valid name for the Hemi- pteran genus in question is Jassus Fabricius, 1803 (type-species, by selection by Fallén, 1826, Hem. suec. Cicad. : 58, Cicada lanio Linnaeus, 1761, Fauna suec. : 892). This, which was one of the species originally included in the genus, was attributed by Fallén to Fabricius, but the latter author not only quoted the Linnean description, but also referred to “ Syst. Nat. 2, p. 710, no. 37” (i.e. ed. 12, tom. 1, pt.2), so that there is no doubt that “‘ Jassus lanio Fabricius ” is identical with Cicada lanio Linnaeus, 1761. The specific name is the oldest available for the taxonomic species concerned. 9. The generic name was spelt “Jassus”’ not only by Fallén (1806, 1826) but also by Germar (1817, Reise nach Dalmatien und in das Gebiet von Ragusa : 281), without any attempt to justify the change, and it is clear that the name has no status in nomenclature. After 140 years of usage of Jassus, Iassus has in very recent times come into use among taxonomists and should be regarded as the only correct form of the name so long as the letters “I” and “J” are not regarded as interchangeable. 10. The generic name “Jassus’’ was taken as the basis of the family name incorrectly spelt “‘ JassiDEs ” by Amyot & Serville, 1843 (Hemipt. : 581). This name, which was long ago corrected to JaSSIDAE is currently regarded as a subfamily of the family cicaDELLIDAE and is spelt IASSINAE. 11. In the original description of the genus Jasus Parker, 1883, four species are mentioned by name: Palinurus lalandii [sic] H. Milne Edwards, 1837, P. edwardsii Hutton, 1875, P. hiigelii Heller, 1862, and P. tumidus Kirk, 1880. No type-species was designated or indicated by Parker, and as far as is known to me, no subsequent author has selected a type-species. All four species mentioned by Parker are still included in the genus Jasus, but the last two are considered synonymous with Jasus verreauxii (H. Milne Edwards, 1851), while the second is regard as a subspecies of Jasus lalandei. Palinurus lalandei (emend. of lalandii) H. Milne Edwards, 1837, is now selected as the type-species of Jasus Parker, 1883. 12. The specific name of this species was originally spelt Lalandii by H. Milne Edwards. From the French equivalent ‘“ Langouste de Lalande ”’, cited immediately before the Latin name, it is evident that the species was dedicated to P. A. de la Lande, a preparator for Etienne Geoffroy St. Hilaire, who was sent by the Paris Museum to make collections in S. Africa in 1818-1821. The specific name should therefore have been correctly spelt lalandei, a spelling 196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature which is adopted by several subsequent authors (for the first time by Stimpson, 1860, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1860 : 24) including Gruvel, 1911 (Ann. Inst. Océanogr. Monaco 3(4) : 10) in his important monograph of the PALINUR- IDAE. In carcinological literature as a whole, however, and especially in the older publications, the ending -ii prevails over -ei by about 40 to 10. The Commission is now asked to rule that lalandet is the correct form of the name and to place it on the Official List with this spelling. 13. As the genus Jasus is currently referred to the family PALINURIDAE (already placed on the Official List in Opinion 519) no family-group names are involved in the carcinological side of the present case. 14. I therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : (1) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Jassus Fabricius, 1803 (gender: masculine), type-species, by selection by Fallén, 1826, Cicada lanio Linnaeus, 1761 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) ; (b) Jasus Parker, 1883 (gender : masculine), type-species by present selection, Palinurus lalandei (emend. of lalandii) H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) ; (2) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) lanio Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the binomen Cicada lanio type-species of Jassus Fabricius, 1803) ; (b) lalandei (emend. of lalandii) H. Milne Edwards, 1837, as published in the binomen Palinurus lalandii (type-species of Jasus Parker, 1883) ; (3) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Jasus Megerle, 1804 (an erroneous subsequent spelling of Jassus Fabricius, 1803) ; (b) Jassus Fallén, 1806 (an erroneous subsequent spelling of Jassus Fabricius, 1806) ; (c) Iasus Balss, 1913 (an erroneous subsequent spelling of Jasus Parker, 1883) ; (d) Palinostus Bate, 1888 (a junior objective synonym of Jasus Parker, 1883) ; (e) Palinosytus Bate, 1888 (an incorrect original spelling or an unjustified emendation of Palinostus Bate, 1888) ; (4) to place lalandii H. Milne Edwards, 1837, as published in the binomen Palinurus lalandii (an incorrect original spelling for lalandei) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ; (5) to place IasstnaE (correction of sassrpEs) Amyot & Serville, 1843 (type-genus : Jassus Fabricius, 1803) on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology ; (6) to place JasstpEs Amyot & Serville, 1843 (type-genus : Jassus Fabricius, 1803) (an Invalid Original Spelling for 1asstnaz) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 197 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE SPECIFIC NAME DENTIPES GUERIN, 1832, AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMEN ALPHEUS DENTIPES (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA). Z.N.(S.) 643 By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) The object of the present application is to protect the currently used name of a well-known species of Caridean shrimps from being displaced by a little- used subjective synonym published sixteen years earlier. The facts are set out below. 2. As I pointed out in a paper on the West African Caridean shrimps (Holthuis, 1951, Atlantide Rep. 2:71, 72), Nika variegata Risso, 1816 (Hist. nat. Crust. Nice : 86) is identical with Alpheus dentipes Guérin, 1832 (Exped. sci. Morée, Zool. 2:39). As the name given by Risso to this species was published long before that given by Guérin, the latter is invalid, and the correct name of the species is Alpheus variegatus (Risso). This change is, however, undesirable for the reasons given below. 3. After having described the species in 1816 as Nika variegata, Risso placed it in 1826 (Hist. nat. Hurop. mérid. 5 : 78) in the genus Hippolyte [Leach], [1814] (which was spelled Hippolytes by Risso). Later authors cited the species as Hippolyte or Nika variegata, but did not recognise its true identity. Coutiére, 1899 (Ann. Sci. nat. Zool. (8) 9 : 9) thought Risso’s species to be identical with Athanas nitescens (Leach) and I was of the same opinion in 1947 (Siboga Exped. 39(a8) : 24, 25). Risso’s description is very poor and his figure is even worse. This has obviously been the reason why the identity of the species was not recognised before 1951. 4. The specific name dentipes Guérin has been used for the present species by the majority of authors (at least 55 authors are known to have employed this name) and it is firmly established in carcinological literature. As far as I can ascertain, no other specific name has been used to indicate this species since 1900. 5. This species is currently referred to the genus Alpheus Fabricius, 1798. All aspects of the nomenclature of this name were dealt with by the Commission in Opinion 334. The opportunity may be taken, however, to deal with erroneous subsequent spellings of the generic name Hippolyte [Leach], [1814] which were overlooked when that generic name was placed on the Official List in Opinion 470. 6. The substitution of the practically unknown and long misunderstood specific name variegatus Risso for the well-known specific name dentipes Guérin would greatly upset the currently stable nomenclature in this group of animals. For this reason it seems best to suppress the former in order to conserve the latter. I therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 17, pts. 6-8. April 1960. 198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the specific name variegata Risso, 1816, as published in the binomen Nika Variegata [sic], in order to validate the specific name dentipes Guérin, as published in the binomen Alpheus dentipes ; (2) to place the specific name variegata Risso, 1816, as published in the binomen Nika Variegata [sic], suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name dentipes Guérin, 1832, as published in the binomen Alpheus dentipes, validated under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the following erroneous subsequent spellings of Hippolyte, [Leach], [1814] on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : Hyppolyte Leach, 1815, Hippolytes Risso, 1826, Hippolytus Guérin, 1832, Hippolite J. C. Ross, 1835, Hippolyta Burmeister, 1837, Hippolithe Brullé, 1839, Hyppolite Veranyi, 1846 Hypolyte Newman, 1898, Hyppolytte Valdés Ragués, 1909, Ippolyte Magri, 1911, Hyppolythe Borcea, 1934. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE GENERIC NAMES ISCHNOPODA STEPHENS, 1835 (Z.N.(8.) 244 AND BOLITOCHARA MANNERHEIM, 1831 Z.N.(S.) 243. (See this volume, pages 69-75.) By E.C. Pelham-Clinton (Moredun Institute, Edinburgh) I am in complete agreement with all the proposals put forward by Mr. C. E. Tottenham (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 69-75) for stabilising these genera in accordance with current usage. In the case of Ischnopoda Stephens the only possible alternative course would be particularly unfortunate in its effects. The question of the separation of such subgenera as Acrotona Thomson from Atheta Thomson is likely to remain a matter of opinion for a very long time : were Ischnopoda to replace Acrotona the valid name for the very large genus Atheta would depend entirely on this fluctuating opinion—an extremely undesirable situation. Mr. Tottenham’s simple solution of this difficulty thus deserves the very strongest support. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 199 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME PARAPENAEUS S. I. SMITH, 1885, AND TO INTER- PRET THE NOMINAL SPECIES PENEUS MEMBRANACEUS RISSO, 1816 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA). Z.N.(S.) 645 By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) The purpose of the present application is to secure a valid basis for the use of the currently accepted name for the well-known and economically important shrimp almost universally known by the name Parapenaeus longirostris (Lucas, 1846). To secure this end the Commission will need to use its Plenary Powers in two directions. First, it will need to validate the generic name Parapenaeus Smith, 8.I., 1885, by suppressing the older but totally unknown and never used name Parapenaeus Claus, 1876. Second, it will be necessary, in order to place in an unassailable position the specific name longirostris Lucas, 1846, as published in the binomen Peneus longirostris, for the Commission both to give directions as to the interpretation of the nominal species Peneus mem- branaceus Risso, 1816 and to suppress a specific name of older date which is a senior subjective synonym of longirostris Lucas. 2. In 1885, S. I. Smith proposed the new generic name Parapenaeus for a genus of shrimps of which Penews longirostris Lucas, 1846, is the type. This generic name has almost universally been adopted and at present is firmly entrenched in scientific and non-scientific carcinological literature. Para- penaeus longirostris (Lucas) is a species which is fished for on a very large scale in the deeper water of the Mediterranean and is of considerable economic importance ; in fishery literature concerning this species the generic name Parapenaeus is practically always adopted. As far as is known to me only one other generic name has been proposed for the genus in question, namely, Neopenacopsis Bouvier, 1905 (C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 141 : 747). This latter name, however, in 1908 (Bull. Inst. océanogr. Monaco 119 : 8) was synonymised by Bouvier with Parapenaeus, and has not been used since. 3. The name Parapenaeus S. I. Smith, 1885, is invalidated by the older generic name Parapenaecus Claus, 1876. In his book “ Untersuchungen zur Erforschung der genealogischen Grundlage des Crustaceen-Systems ”’, Claus, 1876, mentions in a foot-note on p. 46 “ Parapenaeus n. gen.”. Of this new genus Claus gives only a few details of the maxilla and the first maxilliped, and does not even mention any species as belonging to it. It is therefore not possible to ascertain the identity of Claus’s new genus. The name Parapenaeus has been published by Claus in such an obscure place, that it is not even mentioned in Neave’s Nomenclator Zoologicus. Since Claus mentions some characters of his new genus, the name Parapenacus Claus cannot be considered a nomen nudum, and being an older homonym of Parapenaeus S. I. Smith, it invalidates the latter name. 4. The suppression of Parapenaeus Claus, 1876, seems to be perfectly Bull, z00l. Nomencl. Vol. 17, pts. 6-8. April 1960. 200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature justified, as the identity of Claus’s genus is not known ; the name Parapenaeus Claus has never been used, except by its original author ; and the suppression of this name makes the well-known and generally adopted generic name Parapenaeus Smith, 1885, an available name. 5. The original description of the type-species of Parapenaeus Smith, Peneus longirostris Lucas, 1846 (Explor. sci. Algérie, Crust. : 46), is very clear and the beautiful illustration accompanying the text leaves not the least doubt as to the identity of Lucas’s species. Under a strict application of the Rules, however, this name is invalid, since it is a junior synonym of one, or possibly two, older names. 6. Some authors identified Peneus longirostris Lucas, 1846, with Peneus Membranaceus Risso, 1816 (Hist. nat. Crust. Nice : 98) and consequently adopted the specific name membranaceus, being the older of the two, for the species. The first author to do so was Heller, 1862 (S.B. Akad. Wiss. Wien 45 : 423). Other authors, the first being H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 417), identified Peneus membranaceus Risso with a species of shrimp, which in 1840 was described as new by Philippi (1840, Arch. Naturgesch. 6(1) : 190) under the name Peneus siphonoceros. Lucas, 1849 (Rev. Mag. Zool. (2) 1 : 300) erected a new genus Solenocera, the type-species of which (by monotypy) was cited as ‘‘ Solenocera philippii Lucas, Penaeus siphonoceros Philippi”. (It is clear that the specific name philippii Lucas as here published is an invalid replacement name for the specific name siphonoceros Philippi.) At present the name Solenocera membranaceum is generally adopted for the latter species, though often H. Milne Edwards is cited as the author and not Risso, probably because there exists some doubt as to the identity of Peneus Membranaceus Risso, while the identity of Penaeus membranaceus H. Milne Edwards is perfectly clear. This practice of course cannot be tolerated and the name membranaceus can only be used for the species if Penaeus membranaceus of H. Milne Edwards and Peneus Membranaceus Risso are identical. 7. Heller, 1862, denied the correctness of H. Milne Edwards’s identification of Peneus Membranaceus Risso with the species described by Philippi (1840) as Peneus siphonoceros, because Risso “ gibt als Kennzeichen ein verlangertes Rostrum an, wahrend M. Edwards im Gegentheil hervorhebt, dass das Rostrum dieser Art nicht einmal die Linge der Augen erreicht’”’. Risso, 1826 (Hist. nat. Europ. mérid. 5 : 68) in his Latin diagnosis indeed states that the rostrum is long (‘‘ rostro longo ’’) but he says nothing about this character in his French text. That “rostro longo ”’ is a lapsus, is made probable by the fact that in the original (1816) description of this species Risso in the Latin diagnosis states “‘rostro brevi’’, while the French text says “‘ un petit rostre aplati”’. Another argument in favour of the identity of Peneus Membranaceus Risso with Peneus siphonoceros Philippi is the fact that Risso (1826) mentions that the antennular flagella are thickened, which is a conspicuous feature in Solenocera, while in Parapenaeus the antennular flagella are normal in shape. As the question of the identity of Peneus Membranaceus Risso has caused undesirable confusion in carcinological literature, it seems best to settle this question under plenary powers and to identify under these powers Peneus Membranaceus Risso, 1816, with Peneus siphonoceros Philippi, 1840. This solution settles the question Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 201 once and for all, causes the least disturbance in carcinological nomenclature (the name membranaceus being at present generally used for Philippi’s species) and in all probability gives the name membranaceus to the species to which it rightfully belongs. This decision at the same time removes one of the obstacles to the availability of the specific name longirostris Lucas. 8. A second name endangering the validity of the specific name longirostris Lucas, 1846, is that of Peneus Cocco Prestandrea, 1833 (Effem. sci. lett. Sicilia 6:6). Prestandrea gives a very accurate description of his new species, which leaves not the least doubt that Peneus Cocco is identical with Peneus longirostris Lucas. As the original description of Peneus Cocco is given in a journal which is scarce and difficult to obtain, it obviously has escaped the notice of later authors and therefore has seldom, if ever, been used and is not found at all in modern carcinological literature. It seems an act of injustice not to use the name given to a species by the first author describing it, the more so as the description is of high quality. But for the sake of stability in carcino- logical nomenclature it certainly is better to suppress the neglected specific name Cocco Prestandrea, in order to save the well-known specific name longi- rostris Lucas, which at present is universally accepted for the species in question and the changing of which will cause an enormous confusion in scientific and non-scientific carcinological literature. 9. Subfamily names have been derived from both the generic names Solenocera and Parapenaeus. The subfamily soLENOCERINAE (emendation by Ortmann, 1898, Bronn’s Klass. Ordn. Thierr. 5(2) (50-52) : 1121, of soLENo- CERINA) Wood-Mason & Alcock, 1891, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6) 9 : 275 is currently recognised by most carcinologists, while PARAPENAEINAE (emendation by Ortmann, op. cit. (47-49) : 1120, of PARAPENAEINA) Wood-Mason & Alcock, 1891, op. cit.: 271 is as a rule synonymized with the subfamily PENAEINAE Rafinesque, 1815, already placed on the Official List (as PENAEIDAE) in Direction 15. 10. I therefore propose that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should :— (1) use its plenary powers :— (a) to identify the nominal species Peneus Membranaceus Risso, 1816, with the nominal species Peneus siphonoceros Philippi, 1840 ; (b) to suppress for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy the generic name Parapenaeus Claus, 1876 ; (c) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, the specific name cocco Prestandrea, 1833, as published in the binomen Peneus Cocco ; (2) place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Parapenaeus Smith, S. I., 1885 (gender : masculine), (type-species, by original designation, Peneus longirostris Lucas, 1846) ; (b) Solenocera Lucas, 1849 (gender : neuter) (type species by mono- typy, Peneus siphonoceros Philippi, 1840) ; (3) place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— 202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (a) longirostris Lucas, 1846, as published in the binomen Peneus longirostris (type-species of Parapenaeus Smith, 8. I., 1885) ; (b) membranaceus Risso, 1816, as published in the binomen Peneus Membranaceus (sic) (the oldest specific name subjectively available for the type-species of Solenocera Lucas, 1849) ; (4) place the generic name Parapenaeus Claus, 1876, (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (5) place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) cocco Prestandrea, 1833, as published in the binomen Peneus cocco (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above) ; (b) philippit Lucas, 1849, as published in the binomen Solenocera philippu (an invalid replacement name for the specific name siphonoceros Philippi, 1840, as published in the binomen Peneus suphonoceros) ; (6) place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology :— (a) PARAPENAEINAE (emendation by Ortmann, 1898, of PARAPENAEINA) Wood-Mason & Alcock, 1891 (type-genus Parapenaeus Smith, S. I., 1895) ; (b) SOLENOCERINAE (emendation by Ortmann, 1898, of SOLENOCERINA) Wood-Mason & Alcock, 1891 (type-genus Solenocera Lucas, 1849) ; (7) place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :— (a) PARAPENAEINA Wood-Mason & Alcock, 1891 (an incorrect original spelling of PARAPENAEINAE) (type-genus Parapenaeus Smith, S. L., 1885) ; (b) SoLENOCERINA Wood-Mason & Alcock, 1891 (an incorrect original spelling of SOLENOCERINAE) (type-genus Solenocera Lucas, 1849). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 203 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE SPECIFIC NAME LONGICORNE LATREILLE, 1804, AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMEN ACRYDIUM LONGICORNE (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER ORTHOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 675 By D. K. McE. Kevan (Macdonald College, Province of Quebec, Canada) The case for the suppression of the specific name longicorne, Acrydium, Latreille, 1804 (Hist. nat. Crust. Ins. 12 : 159) has been stated by Ander (1943, K. fysiogr. Sdllskap. Handl. Lund, N.F. 58(7) : 21-22). Briefly, the case is that it is impossible to be certain which of two taxonomic species should bear Latreille’s name. These two species are Gryllus parallelus Zetterstedt, 1821 (Orthopt. svec.: 85) and Gryllus montanus Charpentier, 1825 (Hor. Ent, 1825 : 173), and different authors have attempted to show that one or other of them (but not both) should bear the specific name longicorne Latreille, 1804, the name not synonymized with Acrydiwm longicorne being the valid name of another species. Other authors (e.g. Chopard, 1922, Faune de France 3 : 153 ; Burr, 1936, Brit. Grasshoppers and Allies: 96) have held that montanus represents only the macropterous form of parallelus (which they have regarded as distinct from longicorne) and have therefore treated these two names as synonyms ; but it is now generally accepted that montanus and parallelus represent distinct species, both now referable to the genus Chorthippus Fieber, 1852 (in Kelch, Grund. Orth. Oberschles.: 1). The type-species of this genus, by subsequent designation by Kirby (1910, Syn. Cat. Orthopt. 3 : 185) is Acrydium albomarginatum De Geer, 1773, Mem. Ins. 3 : 480. 2. When the specific names parallelus Zetterstedt, 1821, and montanus Charpentier, 1825, were considered synonyms, the adoption of longicorne Latreille, 1804, for the other taxonomic species in question was a cause of confusion, because many authors considered parallelus to be a synonym of that name, longicorne thus being transferred to a different species, to which they believed it had never been attached. The confusion is increased now that the names montanus and parallelus are applied to different species, first because it is not certain which of them should be displaced by Latreille’s name (though current opinion regards parallelus as more likely than montanus to be a synonym of longicorne) ; and secondly, because Hebard (1936, Tech. Bull. N. Dakota Agric. Exper. Sta. 284 : 31-32) has applied the name longicorne Latreille, 1804, to an American species previously known as Chorthippus curtipennis [Locusta (Chloealtis) curtipennis Harris, 1841, Rep. Ins. Mass. : 149] declaring parallelus to be a synonym, but not mentioning montanus, with which the American species seems more closely identified. Hebard (op. cit.), however, implied that he con- sidered all four names to be synonyms. 3. The present proposal, which follows from Dr. Ander’s suggestion made in 1943, is therefore that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should : (1) use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name longicorne Latreille, Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 17, pts. 6-8. April 1960. 204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1804, as published in the binomen Acrydium longicorne, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) place the specific name longicorne Latreille, 1804, as published in the binomen Acrydium longicorne (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above), on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ; (3) place the generic name Chorthippus Fieber, 1852 (gender : masculine), type-species, by subsequent designation by Kirby, 1910 (Acrydiwm albomarginatum De Geer, 1773), on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) albomarginatum De Geer, 1773, as published in the binomen Acrydium albomarginatum (type-species of Chorthippus Fieber, 1852) ; (b) parallelus Zetterstedt, 1821, as published in the binomen Gryllus parallelus ; (c) montanus Charpentier, 1825, as published in the binomen Gryllus montanus. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 205 REQUEST FOR A RULING ON WHETHER THE GENERIC NAME DIEMICTYLUS RAFINESQUE, 1820, OR THE GENERIC NAME NOTOPHTHALMUS RAFINESQUE, 1820, IS TO BE USED FOR THE EASTERN NORTH AMERICAN NEWT (CLASS AMPHIBIA). Z.N.(S.)728 By Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) The present application arises out of changes made over the last eleven years in the rules for determining the relative precedence of synonyms published simultaneously. Article 28 of the old Régles stated that questions of this sort were to be determined by the action of the first reviser, but this was replaced by the Thirteenth Congress (Paris, 1948) by a rule that such cases must be decided by page and line priority (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 330-331). The Fourteenth Congress (Copenhagen, 1953) revoked the Paris decision and restored the “first reviser’’ principle (Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 66-67, paras. 123-124), and this was endorsed by the Fifteenth Congress (London, 1958). 2. In 1952, when I first submitted this application, the Rules then in force required the application of page and line priority to this case, and on the basis of usage up to that time, it seemed to me that the plenary powers should be used to apply instead the first reviser rule. The Rules now in force require the application of the first reviser principle, so that my original proposal would no longer require the use of the plenary powers. I am not now, however, so certain as I then was that this course would be desirable, for while European usage follows the first reviser principle, recent American usage follows page and line precedence. It is for this reason that the Commission is asked to settle the question, for the existing diversity of usage is not likely to be resolved by zoologists themselves. 3. In the Annals of Nature, 1820:5 Rafinesque proposed two new sub- genera of T'riturus, namely Diemictylus (line 8), to contain only his new species Triturus viridescens, and Notophthalmus (lines 26-27), to contain only his new species T'riturus miniatus. These two species, which are the type-species by monotypy of their respective subgenera, have been universally agreed to be congeneric, if not conspecific, and the names are now held to represent the aquatic and terrestrial forms respectively of the same subspecies. The two subgeneric names are, moreover, the oldest available names for the genus (of present classification) concerned. It is clear that Diemictylus has position priority over Notophthalmus, and viridescens over miniatus. 4. The earliest disposition of the subgeneric names was that of Baird (1850, J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. (2) 1(4) : 284). He expressly selected Noto- phthalmus, and synonymized Diemictylus with it. He altered the name to Notopthalmus, but this was an erroneous subsequent spelling with no status in nomenclature, and he gave an unequivocal reference to Rafinesque. In the same year Gray (Cat. Bat. Grad. brit. Mus. : 22) accepted Baird’s revision, Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 17, pts. 6-8. April 1960. 206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature with the names correctly spelled, and with clear references to Rafinesque and Baird. Under the “first reviser rule”’, therefore, Notophthalmus was selected in preference to Diemictylus in the year 1850 on two separate occasions. 5. The species J'riturus viridescens was established on line 3 of page 5 of the Annals of Nature, with a description. Triturus miniatus was established on line 17 of the same page, with a description. Authors prior to Cope (1859, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 11 : 126) regarded the species as separate, although Hallowell (1856, ibid. 8 : 6-11 ; 1858, J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. (2) 8 : 337-366) expressed the opinion that they were but one species. Cope, however, (op. cit.) expressly recognized viridescens (in the binomen Diemictylus viridescens), synonymizing miniatus with it. In acting as first reviser at the specific level, Cope thus adopted the principle of line-priority. His choice of specific name has been generally followed, together with Baird’s choice of generic name. 6. While it is clear that Notophthalmus is the valid genus-group name, and viridescens the valid species-group name under the Rules at the present time, and while also there is no lack of uniformity at the lower level, it is not clear that the application of the Rules would be in the best interests of stability of nomenclature at the higher level. This is on account of the diversity of usage by different authors of the two genus-group names involved, and it is further complicated by the fact that, until the definitive work of Wolterstorff & Herre (1935, Arch. Naturg. N.F. 4(2) : 217-229) had clarified the taxonomic situation, the generic names Molge and Triturus were also in use for the species in question. The usage of the two names of Rafinesque in selected works of significance is summarized below : Diemictylus Hallowell, 1856, op. cit. (in the unjustified emendation Diemyctylus), 1858, op. cit. (as Diemyctylus) ; Cope, 1859, op. cit. (as Diemyctylus, with the erroneous subsequent spelling Diemichylus on p. 128), 1889, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 34, as Diemyctylus ; Gunther, 1901, Biol. centr.-Amer., signature 38 ; Stejneger, 1907, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 58 ; Wolterstorff & Herre, 1935, op. cit. ; Smith & Taylor, 1948', Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 194; Brown, B. C., 1950', Baylor Univ. Studies ; Bragg, A. N., 1952', Wasmann J. Biol. 10(2) : 241-250 ; Schwartz & Duellman, 1952, Bull. Chicago Acad. Sci. 9(12): 219-227; and Schmidt, K. P., 1953, Checklist N. Amer. Amphib. Rept., 6th ed. Notophthalmus Baird, 1850, op. cit. (in the erroneous subsequent spelling Notopthalmus) ; Gray, 1850, op. cit. (in the erroneous subsequent spelling Notophthalmia), 1858, op. cit. (in the erroneous subsequent spelling Notophthalma) ; Gill, 1907, Science, N.S. 26 : 256 ; Stejneger & Barbour, 1917, Checklist N. Amer. Amphib. Rept., 1923, ibid., 2nd ed.; Herre, 1936, Abh. Ber. Mus. Nat. Magdeburg 7(1) : 79-98; Mertens, 1951, Zwischen Atlantik und Pazifik ; von. Wahlert, 1 These three usages reflect the rapid adoption of Wolterstorff & Herre’s 1935 taxonomy, and of Diemictylus with it ; Herre’s 1936 paper pointing out that Notophthalmus is the correct name under the Rules having been generally overlooked. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 207 1952, Copeia 1952(1) : 29-30, 1953, Herpetologica 9 : 95-99. 7. With usage thus divided between the two names, it is clear that only a ruling from the Commission can put a stop to the existing confusion, and that this must be guided to some extent by the wishes of herpetologists. I may add that, although in 1953 (Smith, op. cit.) I concluded that steps should be taken to conserve Notophthalmus, and requested others to adopt that name, recent American usage has tended to follow the example set by Cope, Stejneger (1907) and Schmidt (1953) in adopting Diemictylus, whereas recent European usage has tended to favour Notophthalmus. I therefore set out below the precise results of each of the two alternative courses open to the Commission in this case, and I appeal to my colleagues to inform the Com- mission of their views, so that the eventual decision may be taken on as broad a basis of informed comment as possible. 8. The genus variously known as Notophthalmus and Diemictylus is currently referred to the family SALAMANDRIDAE, and neither of those genus-group names has ever been used as the basis of a family-group name. No family-group name problem therefore arises in this case. 9. I therefore request the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature : (1) to decide whether or not to use its plenary powers to determine the generic name to be used for the eastern North American newt, and then to adopt whichever of the two following alternatives is appropriate : ALTERNATIVE A (2) (a) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Notoph- thalmus Rafinesque, 1820, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (b) to place the generic name Diemictylus Rafinesque, 1820 (gender : masculine), type-species, by monotypy, T'riturus viridescens Rafinesque, 1820, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (c) to place the specific name viridescens Rafinesque, 1820, as pub- lished in the binomen T'riturus viridescens (type-species of Diemictylus Rafinesque, 1820), on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (d) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (i) Notophthalmus Rafinesque, 1820, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (a) above ; (ii) Diemyctylus Hallowell, 1856 (an unjustified emendation of Diemictylus Rafinesque, 1820) ; (iii) Diemichylus Cope, 1859, and Diemyctelus Gunther, 1901, erroneous subsequent spellings of Diemictylus Rafinesque, 1820 ; (iv) Notopthalmus Baird, 1850, Notophthalmia Gray, 1850, and Notophthalma Gray, 1858 (erroneous subsequent spellings of Notophthalmus Rafinesque, 1820). 208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ALTERNATIVE B (3) (a) to place the generic name Notophthalmus Rafinesque, 1820 (a name selected by Baird, 1850, as first reviser, in preference to Diemictylus) (gender : masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Triturus miniatus Rafinesque, 1820, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (b) to place the specific name viridescens Rafinesque, 1820 (the oldest available name through the action of Cope, 1859, for the type- species of Notophthalmus Rafinesque, 1820) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (ce) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (i) to (iii) as (ii) to (iv) under Alternative A above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 209 PROPOSAL TO USE THE PLENARY POWERS TO STABILISE THE NAMES OF THE NORTH EUROPEAN SPECIES BELONGING TO THE TIPULA OLERACEA GROUP WITHIN THE GENUS TIPULA LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA). Z.N.(8.) 896 By A. M. Hemmingsen (Strédam Biological Laboratory, Hilleréd, Denmark) and Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) The group of species of the genus Tipula Linnaeus, 1758, centring around - Tipula oleracea Linnaeus, 1758, which is the type-species of the genus (by selection by Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arachn. Ins. : 442, 379), is a very important one from an economic point of view. The three species from Northern Europe are all among the principal enemies of crops. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to prevent any change in their names for purely nomenclatorial reasons. Recent discoveries, however, have made it clear that all these names are in danger of being altered for reasons of priority. 2. In the following, the three species will be designated by capital letters as follows : Species A has till now been mentioned in the literature as 7’. oleracea Linnaeus, 1758, except in some very few quite recent papers (vide below). Species B is generally called 7’. paludosa Meigen, 1830. Species C' was recognised as distinct by de Jong in 1925 and was given the name 7’. czizeki de Jong, 1925, under which name it has been widely known to workers in applied entomology. At present, our knowledge of the identity of the nominal species involved in these problems may be summarised as follows : 3. (a) Tipula oleracea. When, in 1758, Linnaeus described this species (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 585, 4) he could have had before him one, or more than one, of the three species mentioned, but apparently no other. De Jong (1925, Een Studie over Emelten . . ., Diss. Wageningen : 14) realising that two species were confused under the name of 7’. oleracea L., gave the new name czizeki to one of them, but, as will appear from the following, he happened to choose the wrong one. He refers to a paper by K. Czizek (1913, Tipulidae Moravicae Z. Mihrischen Landesmus. Briinn 13 : 133-142, espec. 137) who regards the species C' as the true oleracea L. De Jong cannot follow Czizek in his conclusions and, therefore, creates the new name for the species C, confining the name oleracea to the species A. 4. Tjeder (1941, Opusc. Entom. 6 : 61) was the first to point to our deficiency in the identification of the true 7’. oleracea. He refers to the rare occurrence of species A in Sweden, concluding that Linnaeus’s species must be either B or C, and in all probability it is B. Mannheims (1952, Tipulidae, in Lindner ; Die Fliegen d. Palaearct. Reg. (15) : 76) reaches a somewhat different result by way of the examination of a specimen in the Linnean Collection at the Linnean Society in Burlington House, London (quoted from a letter from Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 17, pts. 6-8. April 1960. 210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature R. L. Coe to Mannheims). The said specimen belongs to species C, but it does not carry any reference number to the species in the Syst. Nat. Therefore, this specimen cannot safely be regarded as the type. This being the only preserved indication of the real intentions of Linnaeus, however, Mannheims concludes that probably the true oleracea of Linnaeus is the species C. 5. Then, Tjeder (1953, Opusc. Entom. 18 : 111) arguing against Mannheims, stresses the rarity in Sweden of the species A which, having been recorded with certainty from Sweden only six times in all, cannot well have had any real chance to be the species used by Linnaeus for his description. The species B, however, is most common and—according to Tjeder—should be accepted as the one described by Linnaeus under the name oleracea. Tjeder, too, mentions that in Sweden the species C has been found in a number of places scattered over most of the country, but he gives no reason at all why Linnaeus could not have used a specimen of this species for his description. 6. Further, Tjeder (1953, loc. cit.) argues at length over the question whether the confusion of the different species has ever been introduced into the Scandinavian literature on this subject. Again, he states that the name oleracea has not been applied to species A by the Scandinavian authors (which is evidently because the species is so rare in this region and, also, because the species A and B were universally confused up till the year 1925). As to Norway, Tjeder (1953, loc. cit.) cites Lackschewitz (1933, Norsk Ent. Tidskr. 3 : 247) who records that out of seven specimens investigated, five belonged to B, and two to C. Therefore, from the facts stated by Tjeder, it appears that although it is very improbable that the oleracea of Linnaeus was really the species A, the chance that it is C cannot be excluded. At the same time it appears that earlier Scandinavian authors have confused the three species in exactly the same way as have those working in other areas, but that they have had less occasion to involve the species A in their considerations. 7. Mannheims (1954, Bonn Zool. Beitr. 5 : 166) adds the new and still more confusing information that a re-examination of the severely damaged original specimen—a male—of Meigen (1818, Syst. Beschr. zweifl. Ins. : 189, 30) of his “‘ oleracea Linnaeus ”’, now in the Paris Collections, has turned out to show that the specimen belongs to the species C. 8. (b) Tipula fimbriata Meigen, 1818 (Syst. Beschr. zweifl. Ins. 1 : 190, 31) is unquestionably the species B (vide Mannheims, 1952: 78), but the name is totally out of use. (c) Tipula paludosa Meigen, 1830 (Syst. Beschr. zweifl. Ins. 6 : 289, 5) has always been regarded correctly as being the species B. (d) Tipula fusca Staeger, 1840 (Kroyer, Naturh. Tidsskr. 3 : 14) is the species C (vide Mannheims, 1952: 81). Tjeder (1953 : 115) cites fusca Staeger as being preoccupied, but it has not been possible to trace the reference in question. Sherborn (Ind. Anim.) does not contain any indication thereon. Therefore, until more evidence is brought forward, the name fusca Staeger is to be treated as an available name. (e) Tipula subcunctans Alexander, 1921 (Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer. 14 : 127) is a name given to specimens from Northern Japan. Later, Alexander (1942, Conn. Geol. Nat. Hist. Surv. Bull. 64: 261) writes: “ subcunctans Alex. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 211 (czizeki de Jong) occurs throughout Europe and Northern Asia into Northern Japan...” Mannheims (1952, loc. cit. : 81) who records the species C from Siberia, accepts the view of Alexander that subcunctans is the species C but, having had no opportunity of inspecting the type of swbeunctans, he makes the identification with qualification only. (f) Tipula czizeki de Jong, 1925 (loc. cit. : 14) is the species C. (g) Tipula submendosa Tjeder, 1941 (Opusc. Entom. 6 : 62) is a nomen novum for Tipula oleracea Auctt. non Linnaeus, and is thus the species A. 9. Summarising, according to the Rule of Priority, we may state that the names to be used would in all probability be as follows : A. oleracea Linnaeus is to be changed to submendosa Tjeder B. paludosa Meigen is to be changed to __ either fimbriata Meigen or to oleracea Linnaeus C. czizeki de Jong is to be changed to either oleracea Linnaeus or to fusca Staeger The confusion of the three species has been universal up to the year 1925. Then, unfortunately, de Jong renamed the wrong species. After him, the names have been used in the sense proposed by him, except that a few specialists have realised that this use of the names is contrary to the Rule of Priority. The taxonomists seem unable to arrive at any final opinion as to what is the correct use of the names, and the applied entomologists and other non-taxono- mists cannot wait indefinitely for such a decision which, in any case, will run counter to established practice. Therefore, although we are not taxonomists in the group of species here treated, we feel the necessity that something should be done to settle the question. Two things need to be done : (1) a neotype of 7’. oleracea is to be defined, and (2) established practice in the use of the three names should be legalised. 10. As to the first of these two problems, Mannheims (1954 : 166) proposes to use the definition of oleracea given by Schiner (1864, Fauna Austr. Dipt. 2: 518). However, this description, although very good, does not contain any figure, and it is not possible in this way to select any neotype. The purpose of establishing a definition of the said species beyond any doubt would thereby not be fulfilled. This solution being impossible, we would have preferred to use as the type the specimen figured by de Jong (1925) who was the first to distinguish correctly between these species—if it was not for the difficulties involved in references to rather remote papers. Therefore, we have chosen a specimen which, being figured in one of the central publications in the literature on the diptera, has been thoroughly investigated and is still existing. It is a specimen figured by Mannheims (1952), with its locality given as a place—Kochem/Mosel—in Southern Germany, i.e. approximately in the middle of the region from which most of the material relating to this species (A) has come. 11. In the hope that this application will elicit comments from any specialist who becomes aware of any relevant fact which we have been unable to grasp in our attempts to avoid the disturbance to the work of non-taxonomists in these fields, we hereby present the proposal to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (1) To use the plenary powers : (a) to set aside all type designations prior to the Ruling now asked for for the species oleracea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Tipula oleracea, and to designate as its neotype the specimen, the hypopygium of which is figured by Mannheims (1952, im Lindner: Die Fliegen d. Palaearkt. Reg. (15) : 77, fig. 39 b—from Kochem/Mosel) ; (b) to suppress for the purposes of priority, but not for those of homonymy, the specific names :— (i) fimbriata Meigen, 1818, as published in the binomen Tipula fimbriata ; (ii) fusca Staeger, 1840, as published in the binomen Tipula fusca ; (iii) swbcunctans Alexander, 1921, as published in the binomen Tipula subcunctans. (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Tipula Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: feminine), type-species by selection by Latreille, 1810, Tipula oleracea Linnaeus, 1758. (3) to place the under-mentioned names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) oleracea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Tipula oleracea and now defined under (1)(a) above ; (b) paludosa Meigen, 1830, as published in the binomen Tipula paludosa ; (c) czizeki de Jong, 1925, as published in the binomen Tipula czizeki. (4) to place the under-mentioned names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, (a) as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above :— (i) fimbriata Meigen, 1818, as published in the binomen Tipula Jimbriata ; (ii) fusca Staeger, 1840, as published in the binomen T'ipula fusca ; (iii) subeunctans Alexander, 1921, as published in the binomen Tipula subcunctans ; and (b) submendosa Tjeder, 1941, as published in the binomen Tipula submendosa, a junior objective synonym of Tipula oleracea Linnaeus, 1758. (5) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the family-group name TIPULIDAE (correction of TIPULARIAE) Latreille, [1802-1803], type-genus Tipula Linnaeus, 1758 ; (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the family-group name TIPULARIAE Latreille, [1802-1803] (an incorrect original spelling for TIPULIDAE). APPENDIX The specimen proposed as the neotype of Tipula oleracea L. is the specimen, the hypopygium of which is figured by Mannheims (1952) in Lindner: Die Fliegen der Palaearkt. Region 15 : 77, fig. 39b. Dr. Mannheims kindly informs Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 17 gp N\\, 10-24, SCRUTTON STREET, LonbDoNn, E.C.2. Dear Sir/Madam, We trust that you have already received your copy of THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, Volume 17, Triple Part 6-8, printed by us on behalf of the International Commission. By an unfortunate error on our part, the plate which should face page 212 of this Volume was omitted. We enclose herewith a copy of this plate for insertion in the appropriate place, and ask you to accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused by this oversight. Yours faithfully, METCALFE & Cooper Lip. Plate 1] 212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (1) To use the plenary powers : (a) to set aside all twne designations prior to the Ruling now asked for (b) to (2) to plac name select (3) to plac Nam: (a) ol (b) p (c) cz (4) to plac and . plenz (b) si (5) to plac fami [180: (6) to plac Nam [180: The specin the hypopygi Fliegen der Pi Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 17 Plate J For explanation see pp. 213 (figs. 1-3) and 219 (figs. 4-6). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 213 us that the labels for this specimen are as follows :— “Das ... Exemplar von Tipula oleracea befindet sich im Zoologischen Forschungsinstitut und Museum A. Koening, Bonn—also in einer 6ffent- lichen Sammlung. Es tragt folgende Etiketten : (a) Kochem/Mosel, Rhld. Germania 9.IV.46 leg. Mannheims. Darunter : (b) Kochem-Kond, Moseluferwiesen, 9.IV.46. Darunter : (c) Tipula oleracea Linn., 1758 det Mannheims, 1947. Unter diese 3 Etiketten habe ich noch einen roten Zettel gesteckt mit der Aufschrift “‘ Neotypus Hemmingsen, Lemche, Mannheims 1955 ”’. The three species A, B and C concerned in the present application may be distinguished as follows :-— Antennae 14-jointed, female wings shorter than abdomen, eyes widely separate beneath head, antennae pale at base — species B (paludosa). Antennae 13-jointed, female wings longer than abdomen, eyes almost touching beneath head, basal joints of antennae pale, the upper edge of id-pars, (part 3 of inner dististylus) without hairs — species A (oleracea). Antennae 13-jointed, female wings about as long as abdomen, eyes widely separate beneath head, antennae practically wholly dark, sometimes the second basal joint thereof light, the upper edge of id-parss with hairs — species C (czizekt). Explanation of Plate 1 Figs 1-3. (1) Neotype of species A (proposed name, Tipula oleracea Linnaeus, 1758) from Kochem/Mosel, Germany. Coll. 9.1V.1946. Hypopygium only (Mannheims, 1952, fig. 39b) (2) Species B (Tipula paludosa Meigen, 1830) from Detmold, Germany. Coll. 27.VIII.1940. (Mannheims, 1952, fig. 40c) Hypopygium only (3) Species C (Tipula czizeki de Jong, 1925) from Corno Renon at Bolzano, Italy, 2100 m. Coll. 5.X.1947. Hypopygium only (Mannheims, 1952, fig. 41c) 214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAMESPATAGUS 0. F. MULLER, 1776 (CLASS ECHINOIDEA) ; Z.N.(S.)1195 By R. V. Melville (Geological Survey & Museum, London)* The present report was first prepared in response to a request from Mr. Hemming, at that time Secretary to the Commission, for advice as to the status of the names Spatagus and spatagus, in the Class Echinoidea. 2. The words Spatagus and Spatangus were used throughout pre-Linnean natural history as alternative spellings of the Greek word variously spelt omatdyos, onatdyyos, oratadyyns and used by Aristotle to denote a heart- urchin. Since 1757 the former has been used both as a generic and as a specific name. The latter, as Spatangus Gray, 1825, has been added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in Opinion 209. The same word has also been used as a specific name. 3. The first available use of the word spatagus as a specific name is by Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 665) in the binomen Hchinus spatagus. The recognition of this species has not always been beyond doubt, but it is now generally accepted that Lovén, 1887 (Bihang k. svenska Vetensk.-Akad. Handl. 13 (4) No. 5 : 163) correctly identified Spatangus brissus var. maculosus Leske, 1778 (Addit. Kleinii nat. Disp. Ech. : 247) as a synonym of Echinus spatagus, and Linnaeus’s name is now well established as representing a species of the genus Metalia J. E. Gray, 1855 (see Mortensen, 1952, Monogr. Ech. 5(2) : 540- 542). The specific name spatagus (Echinus), Linnaeus, 1758, should therefore be placed on the Official List. 4. The first available use of the word spatangus as a specific name is by Lamarck, 1816 (Hist. nat. Anim. s. Vert. 3 : 26), in the binomen Ananchytes spatangus. In 1822 Brongniart (in Cuvier & Brongniart, Descr. géol. paléont. Env. Paris : 388) recognized that Lamarck’s species was doubtfully distinct from Spatangus coranguinum Leske, 1778 : 221 (type-species, by selection by Forbes, 1850, Mem. Geol. Surv. U.K. Dec. 3: pl. 10, p. 2, of Micraster J. L. R. Agassiz, 1836, Mém. Soc. nat. Neuchatel 1 : 184), and it has universally been regarded as a synonym of that species ever since. Micraster coranguinum (Leske) is a species of considerable stratigraphical importance in the Chalk facies of the European Upper Cretaceous, and it has also been the subject of important evolutionary, statistical and palaeo-ecological studies, so that both the generic and the specific name should be placed on the Official List. 5. The first available use of the word Spatagus as a generic name is by O. F. Miiller, 1776, Zool. Dan. Prodr. : xxix, 236. On p. xxix the name is indexed under ‘“‘ Characteres vermium’”’ in the fourth group of Vermes as follows : “4. TESTACEA a. Univalvia * Testa pervia Crustacea, ano infero, tentaculatis penicillatis sPATAGUS.” 1 Published by permission of the Director, Geological Survey & Museum. Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 17, pts. 6-8. April 1960. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 215 On p. 236 three species are referred to the genus, as follows : “2849. spatacus flavescens ovatus, gibbus, ambulacris depressis. Guld- Igel-Kiaer. Ech. spatagus Linn. 2850. S. purpureus cordiformis, spinis majoribus raris albis.*+ 2851. 8S. pusillus ovalis ambulacris quinis, ano remoto. **Fol-Trin, APH. 2, 485. nom. gen.” The sign * indicates that the species was not known to Linnaeus, and the sign } that the species had been discovered by Miiller himself. The generic name clearly satisfies the requirements of availability. 6. The first of the three specific names listed under the generic name Spatagus is clearly intended as a replacement-name for the specific name spatagus Linnaeus. This is shown by the word-for-word agreement between the descriptions given by Linnaeus and by Miller, and by the fact that Miiller listed Linnaeus’s name in synonymy. The replacement was presumably made to avoid a tautonymous combination, but Miiller’s action has no validity under the Rules and Spatagus flavescens Miiller is a junior objective synonym of Spatagus spatagus (Linnaeus). 7. Unfortunately, the strict application of the Rules in this case would produce great confusion, for the specific names spatagus Linnaeus and flavescens Miller have for a very long period been applied to two different species. The former, as already explained, is used for a species of the genus Metalia Gray, 1855 (type-species, by monotypy, Spatangus sternalis Lamarck, 1816, 3 : 31), which is placed in the family BRissmpak ; the latter is used for a species of the genus Echinocardium J. E. Gray, 1825 (type-species, by the use of the plenary powers in Opinion 209, Echinus cordatus Pennant, 1777), which is the type- genus of the subfamily EcHINocaRDINAE of the family LovENmIDAE. Neither species is the type-species of the genus to which it is referred, but if the binomen Spatagus spatagus (Linnaeus) is adopted as a valid name, then Metalia Gray becomes a junior subjective synonym of Spatagus and a new specific name is required for the species now known as Echinocardium flavescens (O. F. Miiller). A further undesirable result would be the co-existence of two generic names differing in only a single letter (Spatagus and Spatangus) in the same suborder (or order, according to taxonomic usage) of Echinoidea. 8. Current nomenclature, so far as the two taxonomic species involved are concerned, dates from 1917 in the case of Metalia spatagus, and from 1872 in the case of Echinocardium flavescens. Since under the Rules these two nominal species are identical, stability of nomenclature can only be preserved if one of those nominal species is given a new type in harmony with current usage of the name. Since the type-specimen in the Linnean collection of Echinus spatagus is identified as a specimen of Metalia spatagus (Linnaeus), it would be preferable to designate a neotype for Spatagus flavescens O. F. Miiller, especially in view of the fact that it is this specific name that has been wrongly applied. Through the courtesy of Dr. F. Jensenius Madsen (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen), I have been able to borrow for study three specimens which undoubtedly belong to the species, and which serve admirably as the source of a neotype. I therefore ask that the plenary powers be used to designate one of these specimens (figured in the accompanying plate, facing 216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature page 212) as the neotype of Spatagus flavescens O. F. Miiller, 1776. The three specimens are in a bottle labelled ‘““Echinocardium flavescens (O.F.M.), N.W. of Hantsholm, Skaggerak ; Datum 3.5.1926 ; Legit ‘Dana’ St. 3558 ”’. 9. Spatagus purpureus, the second species listed by Miiller under Spatagus, was adopted by Leske (1778 : 235) as the fifth species of his genus Spatangus, with a reference to Miiller in the synonymy. The spelling Spatangus has been virtually universally adopted by all authors since Leske, including Gray, 1825, to whom the generic name is attributed in Opinion 209. However, Spatagus does not call for correction under any mandatory rule, and was in any case a direct latinization of one of the various spellings of the ancient Greek word. Spatangus, though equally respectable from the linguistic standpoint, thus appears as an unjustified emendation under the Rules. This was not made clear to the Commission when the draft ruling in Opinion 209 was submitted for a vote. 10. Miiller’s third species, Spatagus pusillus, is the type-species of Echinocyamus Van Phelsum, 1774, through the use of the plenary powers in Opinion 207. This ruling has established the genus in the sense that has universally, except for a few French authors, been given to it. 11. It is clear that the early authors regarded Spatagus and Spatangus as alternative spellings of the same word. This is shown by the fact that Leske (1778 : 237), Gray (1825, Ann. Philos. 26 : 424), Fleming (1828, Hist. Brit. Anim. : 480) and Forbes (1841, Hist. British Starfishes : 182) all refer to “Spatangus purpureus Miiller’’. As late as 1925, H. L. Clark (Cat. rec. Ech. B.M. : 224) spoke of “Spatangus O. F. Miiller, 1776 . . . (printed Spatagus).” 12. Although the Ruling given in Opinion 209 is defective in several respects apart from that noted in paragraph 9 above, the decision was adopted under the plenary powers and should not therefore be tampered with. The generic name Spatangus must be regarded as finally stabilized, and is to be attributed to Gray, 1825 (instead of to Leske, 1778), and the fixation of Spatagus purpureus as its type-species was certainly the only acceptable course. Since Spatagus pusillus O. F. Miiller was also finally stabilized in Opinion 207 as the type- species of Echinocyamus, the second and third of the three species originally included in Spatagus are finally disposed of, and the generic name can now be attached only to the first species, Spatagus flavescens O. F. Miller, of which the valid specific name is spatagus Linnaeus. The name of the genus to which the species flavescens is wrongly attributed, namely Echinocardium J. E. Gray, 1825, has been placed on the Official List in Opinion 209, so that the only generic name whose stability is threatened by the continued existence of Spatagus is Metalia Gray, 1855 (Cat. rec. Ech. B.M. (1) Ech. Irreg.: 51). The status of this name must now, therefore, be examined. 13. The generic name Metalia rests on somewhat insecure foundations. In Gray’s catalogue, some of the larger genera of the SPATANGIDAE are divided into sections, some of which are named and some not. Each section is ‘marked by one or more asterisks, according to its numerical position within its genus, and is given a brief diagnosis. Under Brissus, after the definition of the genus and a list of synonyms, there is a single asterisk prefixed to a generic description ending with the name Metalia. Then follows species 1, Brissus sternalis with Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 217 its definition and synonyms. After this are two asterisks prefixed to a generic description ending with the name Brissus. This is further divided into two sections, marked by one and two asterisks respectively, neither of which is named. Whereas the name Brissus O. F. Miiller, 1781, was already established, Metalia was here used for the first time. Like the other two new names similarly proposed in the same work (and discussed below), Metalia is nowhere used in a binomen and does not appear in the systematic index at the end of the work, although it is included in the general index. It is thus not firmly established that Gray intentionally used the word as a generic name, but since Metalia and the other two names of a similar origin have been universally adopted as though he had done so, and since it is possible on that assumption to fix their type-species in accordance both with the Rules and with general practice, the proper course is clearly to seek the addition of all three names to the Official List. In the case of Metalia, as established by Gray, 1855, it is clear that Spatangus sternalis Lamarck, 1816, is the type-species by monotypy. 14. The two other names concerned are Peronella Gray, 1855 (: 13) and Maretia Gray, 1855 (: 48). In the former case, the genus Laganum Link, 1807, is divided into three sections. The first two are not named, but the third is named Peronella and is associated with only one species, namely, Laganuwm perontt J. L. R. Agassiz, 1841 (Mon. Ech. 2 : 123). This species is always cited as the type-species of Peronella and in fact it is so by monotypy. Laganum Link, 1807, was proposed (Beschr. Nat.-Samml. Univ. Rostock: 161) with two included species, Hchinus biforis Gmelin, 1790 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 3188) and Laganum petalodes Link. The first name is a junior objective synonym of Echinodiscus bisperforatus Leske, 1778, which was fixed as the type-species of Echinodiscus by the Commission at its Paris meeting in 1948 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 530-536). Laganum petalodes Link is a replacement-name (presumably proposed to avoid tautonymy) for Echinodiscus laganum Leske, 1778 : 204, so that the type-species of Laganum Link-is Echinodiscus laganum by absolute tautonymy. 15. The generic name Maretia Gray, 1855, ends the description of a section of Spatangus. The only species with which this description is associated is Spatangus planulatus Lamarck, 1816 (3 : 31) and this is thus, as it is always cited, the type-species of Maretia, by monotypy. Mortensen, 1952 (Mon Ech. 5(2) : 37) has shown that this is also the oldest available name for the species, and not Spatangus ovalis Leske, 1778 (: 252) as had been suggested. 16. The following family-group names are involved in the present case. Echinocardium J. E. Gray, 1825, is the type-genus of the subfamily ECHINO- CARDIINAE Wythe Cooke, 1942 (J. Paleont. 16 : 59). The family-name sPATANG- IDAE J. E. Gray, 1825 (Ann. Phil. 26 : 430) is one of the oldest such names in the Echinoidea, and denotes one of the largest and most important families ; it should be placed on the Official List in completion of the Ruling given in Opinion 209. This family includes the subfamily MARETIINAE Lambert, 1905 (in Doncieux, Ann. Univ. Lyon (17): 162), based on Maretia Gray, 1855. Laganum Link, 1807, is the type-genus of the family LaGaNmD4z, generally attributed to Desor, 1858 (Syn. Ech. foss. : 216-7). He published the name in the vernacular form ‘“‘ Les Laganes”’, and the correct form of the name was 218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature first used by A. Agassiz, 1873, Mem. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard 8 : 516. 17. For the reasons set forth above I therefore ask the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature : (1) to use its plenary powers : (a) to suppress the generic name Spatagus O. F. Miiller, 1776, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (b) to direct that the nominal species Spatagus flavescens O. F. Miiller, 1776, is to be interpreted by reference to the neotype designated for it in paragraph 8 of the present application ; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Laganum Link, 1807 (gender : neuter), type-species, by absolute tautonymy, Echinodiscus laganum Leske, 1778 ; (b) Micraster Agassiz (J.L.R), 1836 (gender : masculine), type-species, by selection by Forbes, 1850, Spatangus coranguinum Leske, 1778 ; (c) Peronella Gray, 1855 (gender : feminine), type-species, by mono- typy, Laganum peronii Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1841 ; (d) Maretia Gray, 1855 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy Spatangus planulatus Lamarck, 1816 ; (e) Metalia Gray, 1855 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Spatangus sternalis Lamarck, 1816 ; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) flavescens O. F. Miller, 1776, as published in the binomen Spatagus flavescens, and as interpreted under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above ; (b) coranguinum Leske, 1778, as published in the binomen Spatangus coranguinum (type-species of the nominal genus Micraster Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1836) ; (c) laganum Leske, 1778, as published in the binomen Echinodiscus laganum (type-species of the nominal genus Laganum Link, 1807) ; (d) planulatus Lamarck, 1816, as published in the binomen Spatangus planulatus (type-species of the nominal genus Maretia Gray, 1855) ; (e) sternalis Lamarck, 1816, as published in the binomen Spatangus sternalis (type-species of the nominal genus Metalia Gray, 1855) ; (f) spatagus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Echinus spatagus ; (g) peronit Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1841, as published in the binomen Laganum peronit (type-species of the nominal genus Peronella Gray, 1855) ; (4) to place the generic name Spatagus O. F. Miller, 1776, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 219 (5) to place the following family-group names on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology : (a) SPATANGIDAE Gray, 1825 (type-genus Spatangus Gray, 1825) ; (b) EcHINOcARDIINAE Wythe Cooke, 1942 (type-genus Echinocardium Gray, 1825) ; (c) MARETIINAE (correction of MARETINAE) Lambert, 1905 (type-genus Maretia Gray, 1855) ; (d) LAGANIDAE (correction by A. Agassiz, 1873, of “ Les Laganes ’’) Desor, 1858 (type-genus Laganum Link, 1807) ; (6) to place the following family-group names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-group Names in Zoology : (a) MARETINAE Lambert, 1905 (type-genus Maretia Gray, 1855), an incorrect original spelling of MARETIINAE ; (b) “‘ Les Laganes ”’ Desor, 1858 (type-genus Laganum Link, 1807), an incorrect (vernacular) original spelling for LAGANIDAE. Explanation of Plate 1 figs. 4-6. 4, adapical ; 5, lateral ; 6, adoral views of proposed neotype of Spatagus flavescens O. F.Miiller 1776, all x 1, from N.W. of Hantsholm, Skaggerak. Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen. ' 220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSALS CONCERNING HOMONYMOUS FAMILY-GROUP NAMES BASED ON THE GENERIC NAMES DREPANA SCHRANK, 1802 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA), AND DREPANIS TEMMINCK, 1820 (CLASS AVES) ; REQUEST FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAME DREPANIS BRISSON, 1760. Z.N.(8.) 901 By Dean Amadon (American Museum of Natural History, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) and John Franclemont (New York State College of Agriculture, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) The present case arises out of the use of the same word, DREPANIDAE, for a family of birds (type-genus Drepanis Temminck, 1820) and for a family of moths (type-genus Drepana Schrank, 1802). The case is a simple one except for the fact that the bird generic name involved is a junior homonym of Drepanis Brisson, 1760, a name which, so far as is known, has never been used since its first publication. 2. The nominal genus Drepanis Temminck, 1820 (Man. d’Orn. (ed. 2) 1 : lxxvi) was proposed with three species definitely included and a fourth species doubtfully referred to the genus. No type-species was designated or indicated. Of the three species definitely included in the genus, Certhia pacifica Gmelin, 1788 (in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1(1) : 470) was designated as type-species by G. R. Gray, 1840 (List Genera Birds :12). This is the earliest type-designation known for the genus, and the specific name in question is the oldest available name for its species. 3. The oldest family-group name based on this generic name is DREPANIDIDAE H. Gadow, 1891, in S. B. Wilson & A. H. Evans, Aves Hawait- enses (2) : 235. The same spelling was used by Wilson & Evans in the intro- duction to this work (: xxiv), but this appears to have been published later, and Gadow is always regarded as the author of the name. The spelling DREPANIDAE was used by P. Sushkin, 1929, Verh. VI Int. Ornith. Kongr. Kopenhagen : 375, while E. Mayr (1948, Condor 45 : 46) maintained that the correct spelling should be DREPANIIDAE. 4. The senior homonym mentioned in paragraph 1 above is Drepanis Brisson, 1760 (Ornithologie 2 : 506). In speaking of the sand-martin (or bank- swallow), Brisson said ‘‘ Hirundo riparia sive Drepanis”’, so that Hirundo riparia Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 192 is the type-species by mono- typy. This species, which is not related to the Hawaiian honey-creepers for which Temminck used the generic name Drepanis, is referred to the genus Riparia Forster, 1817 (Syn. Cat. brit. Birds: 17), of which the type-species, by monotypy, is Riparia europaea Forster, 1817, ibid. Forster’s specific name was proposed, however, as a replacement name for riparia Linnaeus, 1758 (Hirundo), presumably to avoid tautonymy, and is therefore a junior objective synonym of the latter. Hirundo riparia Linnaeus thus becomes, “under Declaration 21, the type-species of Riparia Forster, 1817. It is recommended Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 17, pts. 6-8. April 1960. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 221 that the Commission use its plenary powers to suppress Drepanis Brisson, 1760, so as to validate (a) the junior homonym Drepanis Temminck, 1820, and (b) the junior objective synonym Riparia Forster, 1817. 5. The generic name Drepanis was also used by Rafinesque, 1815 (Analyse de la Nature : 69), but this name is a nomen nudum, as shown by Richmond (1909, Auk. 26 : 37-55). It should therefore be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 6. The nominal genus Drepana Schrank, 1802, Fauna Boica 2(2) : 155, has as type-species Phalaena falcataria Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 519, by subsequent designation by Westwood, 1840, Introd. Mod. Class. Ins., Synopsis : 104. Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (10) : 140, emended the generic name to Drepania and used it as the basis of the “ Coitus ”’ name ‘‘ Drepaniae ’’, but Hiibner’s Coitus names are not generally accepted as family-group names, and indeed it appears that they ought not to be so, for they were used as plural epithets for the members of a genus rather than for suprageneric taxa. At the next higher level Hiibner used the “ Stirps ” name “ Platypterices ”’, but this is not a valid family-group name since it was not based on the name of an included nominal genus. Boisduval, [Nov. 1828], used the tribe name DREPANULIDI (Hur. Lep. Ind. meth. : 55), and this, though incorrectly formed from the generic name, should be accepted as the first family-group name based on Drepana Schrank, 1802. It has priority over PLATYPTERICIDAE [sic] Stephens, 1829 (1 June), Nomencl. brit. Ins. : 45, based on the generic name Platypteryx Laspeyres, 1803, N. Schrift. Ges. naturf. Freunde 4:29; and this generic name is in any case a junior objective synonym of Drepana Schrank, 1802, for Phalaena falcataria Linnaeus, 1758 was designated as its type-species by Curtis, 1835, Brit. Ent.: pl. 555. The family-name DREPANIDAE was first correctly spelled by Comstock, 1893, Wilder Quarter-Century Book : 98, 110. 7. Professor L. W. Grensted, Consulting Classical Adviser to the Com- mission, reported as follows on the formation of the family-group names involved in this case: ‘‘ Drepana is undoubtedly derived directly from the Greek Spemavy, a sickle, and not from the Latin neuter plural place name Drepana. In any case, the family name must be DREPANIDAE. Drepanis is the Greek 5pemdvis, found in Aristotle, with stem Speravid. I have no doubt that Gadow and those who have followed him took this as sufficient to establish DREPANIDIDAE as the family name. Unfortunately drepanis occurs in late Latin once (in Pliny, Nat. Hist.), with genitive drepanis and not, as it should be, drepanidis. My feeling is, however, that the Commission must confirm DREPANIDIDAE in view of the existence of DREPANIDAE in Insecta, where it is inevitably right. This can be defended on the grounds (1) of convenience, to keep the distinction from DREPANIDAE clear, (2) of the definite origin from the Greek Spemavis, with the undoubted stem Spe7avcd as certified by Liddell & Scott’s Greek Lexicon, and (3) of the constant usage in classical Latin whereby such stems were retained in forming the Latin genitive. Against this there is only the single use of the word by Pliny, and it may be argued that this is so unusual that there must be some explanation, unknown to us, for the irregularity. There is no case for the other alternative 222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DREPANUDAE. It is now the rule (since E. Mayr wrote in 1943) that the grammatical stem ending in a vowel is not that to be used in forming family names, but that the termination -1Daz is simply substituted for the genitive termination (Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 34, paragraph 50(1), a).” Professor Grensted’s help in thus clarifying the family-group name problem is gratefully acknowledged. 8. In view of the facts set out above, we ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Drepanis Brisson, 1760 for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Drepanis Temminck, 1820 (gender: feminine), type-species, by selection by G. R. Gray, 1840, Certhia pacifica Gmelin, 1788 (Class Aves) ; (b) Riparia Forster, 1817 (gender : feminine), type-species, by mono- typy, Hirundo riparia Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves) ; (c) Drepana Schrank, 1802 (gender: feminine), type-species, by selection by Westwood, 1840, Phalaena falcataria Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) ; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) pacifica Gmelin, 1788, as published in the binomen Certhia pacifica (type-species of Drepanis Temminck, 1820) ; (b) riparia Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Hirundo riparia (type-species of Riparia Forster, 1817) ; (c) falcataria Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Phalaena falcataria (type-species of Drepana Schrank, 1802) ; (4) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Drepanis Brisson, 1760, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above ; (b) Platypteryx Laspeyres, 1803, a junior objective synonym of Drepana Schrank, 1802 (c) Drepanis Rafinesque, 1815, a nomen nudum ; (ad) Drepania Hiibner, [1819], an unjustified emendation of Drepana Schrank, 1802 ; (5) to place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology : (a) DREPANIDIDAE Gadow, 1891 (type-genus Drepanis Temminck, 1820) ; (b) DREPANIDAE Boisduval [Nov. 1828] (correction of DREPANULID!) (type-genus Drepana Schrank, 1802) ; (6) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology : (a) DREPANIDAE Sushkin, 1829, an unjustified emendation of DREPANIDI- a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 223 DAE Gadow, 1891 (type-genus Drepanis Temminck, 1820) ; (b) DREPANIIDAE Mayr, 1943, an unjustified emendation of DREPANID- IDAE Gadow, 1891 (type-genus Drepanis Temminck, 1820) ; (c) DREPANULIDI Boisduval, [Nov. 1828], an_ incorrect original spelling of DREPANIDAE (type-genus Drepana Schrank, 1802) ; (d) PLATYPTERICIDAE [sic] Stephens, 1831, invalid because the name of its type-genus (Platypteryx Laspeyres, 1803) is a junior objective synonym. COMMENTS ON THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE SPECIFIC NAME SACCHARIVORA PETERKIN, 1790 (PHALAENA). Z.N.(S.) 1315 (See this volume, pages 56-60.) By F. D. Bennett and F. J. Simmonds (Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Trinidad, W.I 4) I fully support Mr. Harold Box’s proposal (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17, nos. 1-2, pp. 56-60, September 1959) that the use of the plenary powers to suppress the name saccharivora Peterkin, 1790 (Phalaena) and to place the generic name Diatraea Guilding, 1828, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) be invoked. By C. E. Pemberton (Experimental Station, Hawaiian Sugar Planters Association, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A.) In the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, Volume 17, Part 1-2, pages 56-60, dated 1 October 1959, appears a communication by Harold E. Box appealing for the retention of the well-established name, Diatraea saccharalis (F.) for one of the most notorious and destructive insect pests of sugar cane. My colleagues and I most heartily approve the reasoning presented by Mr. Box in his communication and sincerely hope that this name will not be altered. By J. R. Metcalfe (Department of Science and Agriculture, Barbados, W.I.) With reference to the paper by H. E. Box which appeared in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, Vol. 17, Nos. 1-2, pp. 56-60, I would like to say that I fully support his suggestion that the sugar cane moth-borer should remain known as Diatraea saccharalis (F.) and that the name saccharivora Peterkin should be suppressed. By E. L. Martin (Bourne End, Bucks, England) I would like to give my full support for Mr. Box’s application. It is not necessary for me to repeat the arguments for the suppression of the specific name saccharivora Peterkin : a name which would have remained unknown in the absence of Mr. Box’s researches. It is highly desirable that Diatraea saccharalis Fabricius shall be the name accepted for this important sugar-cane borer. 224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED ADDITION OF THE GENERIC NAME 4 RCHAEOPTERY X VON MEYER, 1861, AND THE SPECIFIC NAME LITHOGRAPHICA VON MEYER, 1861, AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMEN ARCHAE- OPTERYX LITHOGRAPHICA TO THE OFFICIAL LISTS (CLASS AVES). Z.N.(S.) 1084 By W. E. Swinton (British Museum (Natural History), London) The recent publication by Sir Gavin de Beer of an exhaustive study of the holotype of Archaeopteryx lithographica in the British Museum (Natural History) (de Beer, 1954 “‘ Archaeopteryx lithographica : a study based upon the British Museum specimen ’’, 68 pp., 16 pls.) makes it desirable to place the generic and specific names of this species on the Official Lists. This is the more necessary because a number of invalid names were given to the species in the years following its discovery. The species is of special interest as the earliest known bird, and for this reason its name is extensively quoted both in taxonomic and evolutionary studies and in general works of an educational as well as a popular nature. 2. On 15 August 1861, Hermann von Meyer wrote a letter to Professor H. G. Bronn announcing the discovery of the impression of a feather in a slab of Upper Jurassic (Kimeridgian) lithographic limestone from Solnhofen, Bavaria, but without giving a name to the fossil. This letter was published in the Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie for 1861: 561. In a further letter, dated 30 September 1861, and published on pp. 678-9 of the same volume (in Heft 6, received at the Geological Society of London between 1 November and 31 December 1861), von Meyer announced the receipt of a nearly complete skeleton and gave the name Archaeopteryx lithographica to the species repre- sented by this skeleton and the isolated feather already recorded. It may be supposed that he had deferred naming the species until more complete evidence than a single feather was available, and thus that the skeleton (which is now in the British Museum) was the holotype. This is not clearly stated in the second of the two letters, but it is made plain that such was the case by a passage in von Meyer’s monograph published in April 1862 (Palaeontographica 10 : 56). On p. v of the 1861 volume of the Newes Jahrbuch the generic name was spelt Archaeopterix, but this page forms part of the table of contents of the volume so that the change in the name ranks as an erroneous subsequent spelling, and as such is not available. 3. The next name to be considered is the generic name Griphosaurus Wagner (Sitzungsber. bayer. Akad. Wiss. Miinchen 2 : 146-154), based on the same specimen as that to which von Meyer had given the name Archaeopteryx lithographica. Wagner cited no specific name for the species which he described, but since only the unique holotype was then available, that species can be none other than the one named by von Meyer, so that Griphosaurus and Archae- opteryx are objective synonyms of one another. The volume containing Wagner’s work is dated 1861 on the title-page, but the Heft in which his article Bull, zool. Nomencl. Vol. 17, pts. 6-8. April 1960. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 225 appeared contains references (: 429) to works known to have been published in 1862. The earliest known date for the receipt of this Heft in any library is 20 April 1862 (Berlin Akademie der Wissenschaften) and the name Gripho- saurus must rank for priority as from that date. It is therefore invalid as a junior objective synonym of Archaeopteryx von Meyer, 1861. In 1933 Lambrecht (Handb. Paleorn.: 80) erroneously spelt this generic name as Gryphosaurus. 4, In 1862 (Intellectual Observer 2 : 313-319, pl. 1), H. Woodward, who used the name Archaeopteryx lithographica, stated that the British Museum specimen would shortly be described by Owen before the Royal Society under the name Griphornis longicaudatus, but added in a footnote that Owen had decided to retain the name already published by von Meyer. In the legend to his plate of that specimen, Woodward published three names. The first was Archaeopteryx lithographica, the second Griphosaurus problematicus, attributed to “A. Wagner, 1861. Sitzung der Miinchner Akad. der Wiss.’’, and the third Griphornis longicaudatus, attributed to ““Owen, Nov. 1862, Trans. Royal Society’. As already explained, the last of these names was abandoned by Owen even before Woodward’s paper was published, and it was never in fact published by Owen. Similarly, Wagner never published the specific name problematicus. These new names must therefore be attributed to Woodward. They are objectively invalid, being based on the holotype of Archaeopteryx lithographica ; moreover, since they were published in a synonymy without independent descriptions, they are not even available. In 1933 (loc. cit. : 80) Lambrecht published the erroneous subsequent spelling Gryphornis. 5. In 1863 Owen (Proc. roy. Soc. Lond. 12 : 272-273) published the name Archeopteryx [sic] macrurus for the British Museum specimen. There is no evidence that the change in the spelling of the generic name was deliberate, so that the name ranks as an erroneous subsequent spelling of Archaeopteryx. The specific name is a junior objective synonym of lithographica von Meyer, 1861. 6. In 1921 (‘‘ Uber das Becken, den Schultergiirtel und einige andere Teile der Londoner Archaeopteryx’: 10) B. Petronievics published the new name Archaeopteryx oweni for the British Museum specimen. This specific name is another junior objective synonym of lithographica von Meyer, 1861. 7. Another specimen, found in 1877 near Eichstatt, was at first regarded as conspecific with the holotype of Archaeopteryx lithographica ; it is now in the Berlin Museum. In 1897 (Sitzungsber. preuss. Akad. Wiss. No. 2 : 829) Dames described it as a new species Archaeopteryx siemensii, and in 1917 Petronievics proposed the new genus Archaeornis for this species (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1917: 5, footnote). In my view these two specimens are indeed conspecific, so that neither the generic name Archaeornis nor the specific name siemensit is required. These names, however, are subjective, not objective synonyms of Archaeopteryx lithographica and remain available. No proposals are therefore made to the Commission concerning them. 8. Archaeopteryx is referred to the family ARCHAEOPTERYGIDAE T. H. Huxley, 1871 (Man. Anat. Vert. Anim. : 233) and this name should be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9. In the light of the above considerations I ask the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature : (1) to place the generic name Archaeopteryx von Meyer, 1861 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (2) to place the specific name lithographica von Meyer, 1861, as published in the binomen Archaeopteryx lithographica (type-species of Archae- opteryx von Meyer, 1861) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Griphosaurus Wagner, (1862) and (b) Griphornis (Owen MS.) H. Woodward, 1862, both junior objective synonyms of Archae- opteryx von Meyer, 1861 ; (c) Archaeopterix (Anon), 1861 and (d) Archeopteryx Owen, 1863, both erroneous subsequent spellings of Archaeopteryx von Meyer, 1861 ; (e) Gryphosaurus Lambrecht, 1933, an erroneous subsequent spelling of Gripho- saurus Wagner, (1862); (f) Gryphornis Lambrecht, 1933 an erroneous subsequent spelling of Griphornis (Owen MS.) H. Woodward, 1862 ; (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the following junior objective synonyms of lithographica von Meyer, 1861, as published in the binomen Archaeopteryx litho- lithographica : (a) problematicus (Wagner MS.) H. Woodward, 1862, as published in the binomen Griphosaurus problematicus ; (b) longicaudatus (Owen MS.) H. Woodward, 1862, as published in the binomen Griphornis longicaudatus ; (c) macrurus Owen, 1863, as published in the binomen Archeopteryx (sic) macrurus ; (d) owent B. Petronievics, 1921, as published in the binomen Archaeopteryx owent ; (5) to place the family-group name ARCHAEOPTERYGIDAE T. H. Huxley, 1871 (type-genus Archaeopteryx von Meyer, 1861) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 227 PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY OF THE GENERIC NAME BEYRICHIA M‘COY, 1846 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER OSTRACODA). Z.N.(8.)1117 By P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (University of Leicester, England) and Stuart A. Levinson (Humble Oil and Refining Co., Houston, Texas, U.S.A.) The purpose of the present application is to add to the appropriate Official Lists the name of the ostracod genus Beyrichia and that of its type-species, B. kloedeni, and thus, by specifying type-species and type-specimen, remove ambiguity which at present exists with regard to the identity of the type- species. Beyrichia is the type-genus of the best known and oldest established family and superfamily of Palaeozoic ostracods, and is in a forthcoming volume of the Treatise of Invertebrate Paleontology to be designated type-genus of the suborder Paleocopa. 2. The genus Beyrichia was established by M‘Coy (1846, Syn. Sil. Fossils Ireland : 57) for a single species which he named B. klédeni. At the time he introduced this specific name, M‘Coy clearly regarded it as synonymous with the previously named Battus tuberculatus Kloden, 1834 (Verstein. Mark Brandenburg : 112), for he specifically listed Kléden’s name as synonym, and stated (op. cit. : 58) ‘‘ The species I propose naming after its original discoverer.” 3. Boll (1847, Palaeontographica 1 : 127) introduced the name Beyrichia, perhaps as a new name, perhaps after M‘Coy, with the single mentioned species B. tuberculata Kléden. There is doubt as to whether the generic name was intended as a new name or not, but from the following quotation, the former seems probable: “ Den falschlich so genannten, und schon so verschieden gedeuten Battus tuberculatus Kléden schliesse ich mit Beyrich von den Trilobiten aus ... Ich schlage fiir dieselbe, da Beyrich diesem Ko6rper zuerst seine richtige Stellung im System eingewiesen hat, den namen Beyrichia vor...” It is clear that M‘Coy and Boll had the same taxonomic concept in mind, but the fact remains that Beyrichia M‘Coy, 1846 and Beyrichia Boll, 1847 are genera based on different nominal species (see paragraph 12 below), and that the latter is to be regarded as a junior homonym of the former. 4. M‘Coy, 1851 (Syst. Descr. brit. Palaeozoic Fossils in Sedgwick, 1851-55, Syn. Class. brit. Palaeozoic Rocks: 135) later revised his opinion as to the identity of Beyrichia kloedeni and Battus tuberculatus, and in the synonymy of the former included the definite statement “not B. tuberculatus of Kléden ”’. 5. Ulrich, 1894 (Minnesota Geol. nat. Hist. Surv. Rept. 3, chap. 7 (advance ed.) : 63z) introduced BEYRICHIIDAE as a family name. 6. Ulrich & Bassler, 1908 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 35 : 283) stated: “As M‘Coy ranks ‘Battus tuberculatus’ of Kloeden as a synonym of his Beyrichia kloedeni, and as the two forms are distinguishable species, it is difficult to decide which of the two should rank as the genotype. However, as they are unquestionably congeneric, the point is of little consequence.” 7. Ulrich & Bassler, 1923 (Maryland geol. Surv., Amer. Silurian Form.: 311) Bull, zool. Nomencl. Vol. 17, pts. 6-8. April 1960. 228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature made the definite statement under the genus Beyrichia: ‘‘ Genotype.— Beyrichia kloedeni M‘Coy ”’. 8. Straw, 1928 (Mem. Proc. Manchester lit. phil. Soc. 72 : 197) quoted B. kloedeni as “ genotype ” of Beyrichia and (: 198-203) redescribed the type- specimens of the species. 9. Swartz, 1936 (J. Paleont. 10 : 548) quoted B. kloedeni as ‘‘ genotype ” of Beyrichia, but on a later page (: 586), after referring to M‘Coy’s remark ‘* This species I propose naming after its original discoverer, Beyrichia kloedeni ”’ (para. 2 above), stated: “It seems clear, especially from the latter remark, that Beyrichia tuberculatus [sic] (Kloeden) not only can, but must be regarded as the genotype of Beyrichia”’. 10. Henningsmoen, 1954 (Norsk geol. Tidsskr. 34 : 21, 22) disagreed with Swartz, and stated : “‘ It appears therefore that B. kloedeni may still be regarded as the type-species’. He divided the genus Beyrichia into a number of sub- genera, and placed B. tuberculata (Kloeden) in his new subgenus Nodibeyrichia (type-species, by original designation, Beyrichia bronni Reuter, 1885) (op. cit. : 26). 11. Kesling & Wagner, 1956 (Contr. Mus. Paleont. Univ. Michigan 18 : 39- 42) set out the history of the nomenclature of Beyrichia and its type-species in some detail, and came to the following conclusions : (1) ‘““In as much as Kléden’s name Battus tuberculatus was established in 1834, M‘Coy’s name for the same species, Beyrichia klédeni, was a junior synonym and stillborn at the time of publication. If our interpretation is correct, M’Coy invalidated for all time the trivial name klédeni for any species of Beyrichia ” (op cit. : 42). (2) ‘“‘Henningsmoen . . . placed Beyrichia tuberculata (Kléden) in the subgenus Nodibeyrichia. If B. tuberculata is, as we maintain, the type-species of the genus Beyrichia, it should also be the type-species of the subgenus Beyrichia. As the subgenera of Beyrichia are defined by Henningsmoen, B. tuberculata has the characteristics of Nodi- beyrichia and not those of the subgenus Beyrichia. .We believe, therefore, that Henningsmoen’s subgenus WNodibeyrichia should rightly be called the subgenus Beyrichia, and that Henningsmoen’s subgenus Beyrichia should be renamed ”’ (op. cit. : 48). 12. We cannot agree with Kesling & Wagner. In our view: (1) Beyrichia kloedeni, when introduced, was a junior subjective synonym of Battus tuberculatus ; as such it was, and is, an available name ; junior subjective synonyms have never been regarded as “ stillborn ”’ ; (2) M‘Coy (1851, loc. cit.) and later authors ceased to regard the two species as synonymous, and from that time forth Beyrichia kloedeni became not only an available name, but the valid name of the species described by M‘Coy from Ireland ; (3) The genus Beyrichia is to be regarded as monotypic, with Beyrichia kloedent M‘Coy as the type-species, in terms of Declaration 26 (Ops. Decls. Int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 13 : xxxvii-l, 1956), of which paragraph (2) states, among other things : ‘‘ Where an author, when publishing a new generic name, cites by name only one species as a ie i oe hl ey? aad Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 229 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 . . . cited in the synonymy of that species the name of another, or the names of other, nominal species.” 13. The circumstances outlined in the preceding paragraphs show that disagreement as to the application of the Rules to the present case has always existed. We feel, especially in view of the fact that the two species in question are now referred by some to different subgenera, that it has become essential to seek an authoritative ruling from the Commission as to the correct inter- pretation, which we believe to be that given in paragraph 12(3) above. 14. So far as we are aware, there has as yet been no valid designation of lectotypes for either Battus tuberculatus or Beyrichia kloedent. We believe that it is desirable in the present case to render the identity of these species objective, and accordingly make formal designations as under : (1) We designate as lectotype of Battus tuberculatus Kldden, 1834, the specimen which formed the original of pl. 1, fig. 21 of Kloden (1834, op. cit.). (2) We designate as lectotype of Beyrichia kloedeni M‘Coy, 1846, the specimen figured by Straw (op. cit., pl. 1, fig. 1) from Boocaun, Co. Galway, Eire, in the Griffiths Collection, National Museum of Eire, Dublin. It seems to us that the evidence quoted by Straw (op. cit. : 198) is sufficient to warrant classing this specimen as a syntype, and not merely as a topotype. Straw states: “‘M‘Coy’s type- specimens were obtained from the sandstones of Boocaun . . . and formed part of the collection of the late Sir Richard Griffiths. Through the kindness of A. W. Stelfox, Esq., of the Dublin Museum, I have been able to borrow from that Institution, a number of specimens of B. kloedeni belonging to the Griffiths collection and from the type- locality of Boocaun ... It has not been possible to identify with certainty M‘Coy’s types from these specimens, which must, therefore, be regarded as topotypes.” Although the specimen figured by Straw may not have been the same as the one figured by M‘Coy, it seems almost certain that it will have been examined by M‘Coy together with the other specimens in the Griffiths Collection, and can therefore rank as a syntype, and as such is available for selection as lectotype. 15. We therefore formally ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : (1) to place the generic name Beyrichia M‘Coy, 1846 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Beyrichia kloedent M‘Coy, 1846 (as interpreted by the lectotype selected in paragraph 14(2) above) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (2) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) kloedeni M‘Coy, 1846, as published in the binomen Beyrichia kloedeni, and as interpreted by the lectotype selected in para- graph 14(2) above (type-species of Beyrichia M‘Coy, 1846) ; (b) tuberculatus Kléden, 1834, as published in the binomen Battus 230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature tuberculatus, and as interpreted by the lectotype selected in paragraph 14(1) above ; (3) to place the family-name BEYRICHMDAE Ulrich, 1894 (type-genus Beyrichia M‘Coy, 1846) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. (4) to place the generic name Beyrichia Boll, 1847 (a junior homonym of Beyrichia M‘Coy, 1846) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. COMMENT ON THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE SPECIFIC NAME SACCHARIVORA PETERKIN, 1790 (PHALAENA). Z.N.(S.) 1315 (See this volume, pages 56-60.) By J. H. Kuchlein (Laboratorium voor Toegepaste Entomologie der Universiteit van Amsterdam) I am very much in favour of the suspension of the Rules to allow the use of the specific name saccharalis Fabricius, 1794, as proposed by Mr. Box. The name saccharivora Peterkin, 1790 has never been used after its first appearance in a “ rare and obscure ” work. There exists a considerable literature on this insect, especially in the field of applied entomology, and a change of the name would needlessly lead to confusion. By L. C. Scaramuzza (Compania Azucarera Ailantica del Golfo, Central Mercedes, Matanzas, Cuba) I am a practical economic entomologist, especialized in the biological control of Diatraca saccharalis F., with more than thirty years of active practice and over 45 papers using the above-mentioned name, and consequently I do not consider it advisable to alter the name to D. saccharivora (Peterkin) (based on Phalaena saccharivora Peterkin, 1790), even though the Law of Priority requires this change. Therefore, I fully support Mr. Harold E. Box’s request to the International Commission for the permanent conservation of the name Diatraea saccharalis F. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 231 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE A TYPE-SPECIES FOR THE GENUS SPHAEROCORYPHE ANGELIN, 1854 (CLASS TRILOBITA) IN HARMONY WITH ACCEPTED USE. Z.N.(S.) 1152 By C. J. Stubblefield (Geological Survey & Museum, London) and G. Henningsmoen (Paleontologisk Museum, Oslo) The generic names Sphaerometopus and Sphaerocoryphe were introduced for one and the same trilobite genus by Angelin in the second fascicle of Palaeontologia Scandinavica, Pt. 1, Iconographia crustaceorum formationis transitionis, 1854 (: I-X, 21-92, pls. 25-42). Sphaerometopus was mentioned on page VI, but was not accompanied by a description, definition, or indication, and is therefore a nomen nudum. The genus Sphaerocoryphe was established on page 65, and two new species were referred to it, Sphaerocoryphe dentata (: 66, pl. 34, fig. 6) and S. granulata (: 76, pl. 39, fig. 4). 2. In the “Addenda et Corrigenda’”’ printed in the same fascicle, the following statement is given: “ Pag. VI. lin. 21 loco Sphaerometopus lege : Sphaerocoryphe ”. Thus Sphaerometopus, in addition to being a nomen nudum, was rejected in favour of Sphaerocoryphe in the original publication and ranks as an incorrect original spelling. 3. According to Westergard, 1910 (Kungl. fysiogr. Sdllsk. Handl. N.F. 21(2) : 5, footnote 2; also Lunds Univ. Arsskr. N.F. Avd. 2, 6(2)) there exist “two somewhat different editions’ of pages 65-66 of Pal. Scand. In one version, on pages 65-66, the genus is named Sphaerometopus and the species is named Sphaerometopus dentatus (cf. Westergird, 1910: 44-45). It is evident that during the preparation of his work, Angelin changed the name of the genus from Sphaerometopus to Sphaerocoryphe, and that some copies have been distributed with the uncorrected version of pages 65-66, showing the subsequently rejected name Sphaerometopus. 4. In 1878, G. Lindstrém edited a new and revised version of Angelin’s work including some of the pages and plates “ ab auctore rejecta’’. This 1878 publication retained the spelling Sphaerometopus on page VI, and Sphaero- coryphe on pages 65, 66 and 76 ; it also included the Addenda and Corrigenda page correcting the spelling on page VI. 5. The name Sphaerocoryphe has been used by all authors dealing with Angelin’s genus both before and after Lindstrém’s publication. 6. S. A. Miller, 1889 (N. Amer. Geol. Palaeont. for the use of Students : 567) designated S. granulata as the type-species of Sphaerocoryphe, and this is the first valid type-designation. However, S. granulata was assigned to Hemi- sphaerocoryphe Reed, 1896 by Elsa Warburg, 1925 (Bull. geol. Inst. Upsala 17 : 388). Thus if Miller’s designation is accepted, Hemisphaerocoryphe would become a junior subjective synonym of Sphaerocoryphe, and a new generic name would be required for S. dentata and its allies, hitherto uniformly referred to Sphaerocoryphe. It would therefore be in harmony with past and current usage to designate S. dentata as the type-species of Sphaerocoryphe. Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 17, pts. 6-8. April 1960. 232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7. The genus Sphaerocoryphe is currently referred to the family CHEIRURIDAE, subfamily DEIPHONINAE, and the name has never been used as the basis of a family-group name. 8. We therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature : (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the genus Sphaerocoryphe Angelin, 1854, made prior to the ruling now asked for, and having done so to designate Sphaerocoryphe dentata Angelin, 1854, as the type-species of that genus ; (2) to place the generic name Sphaerocoryphe Angelin, 1854 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Sphaerocoryphe dentata Angelin, 1854, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name dentata Angelin, 1854, as published in the binomen Sphaerocoryphe dentata (type-species of Sphaerocoryphe Angelin, 1854) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the generic name Sphaerometopus Angelin, 1854 (a nomen nudum) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. ee ~~ =, ee ~* Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 233 REQUEST FOR A RULING AS TO WHETHER LICHAS ARANEA HOLZAPFEL, 1895, IS TO BE TREATED AS A JUNIOR PRIMARY HOMONYM OF JLICHAS ARANEUS LINDSTROM, 1885 (CLASS TRILOBITA). Z.N.(8)1155 By R. P. Tripp (Sevenoaks, Kent) The generic name Lichas Dalman, 1827 (K. svensk. Vetensk. Akad. Handl. 1826 : 287) is generally regarded as of masculine gender, and may thus be presumed to be derived from the name of the squire, or servant, of Hercules. Certain authors, however, (e.g. Hawle & Corda, 1847, Prodr. Monogr. bohm. Tril.: 141; Barrande, 1852, Syst. sil. centre Bohéme : 596-609) have treated it as feminine, and it should be noted that there is a classical Greek noun Aiwyas meaning the space between the thumb and the forefinger, which is feminine. 2. The specific name araneus Lindstrém, 1885 (K. Vetensk. Akad. Forh. Ofvers. 6 : 58), as published in the binomen Lichas araneus, is always regarded as an adjective agreeing in gender with Lichas if this is taken to be masculine. If the generic name is feminine, however, then the specific name would have to be changed to aranea. It would then become a senior primary homonym of Lichas aranea Holzapfel, 1895 (K. preuss. geol. Landes, 16 : 32). Holzapfel, however, either regarded Lichas as masculine (as when he used the binomen Lichas granulosus Roemer), or was inconsistent in his use of genders. His specific name can be regarded as a noun in apposition to the generic name, and in that case it would not fall as a junior primary homonym of Lichas araneus Lindstrom. The question is further complicated by the fact that classical Latin contains both the masculine noun araneus and the feminine noun aranea, both meaning “ spider ’’, while the adjective araneus—a—uwum is found in late Latin (Pliny). Professor L. W. Grensted, consulting classical adviser to the Commission, regards araneus Lindstrém as an adjective, and aranea Holzapfel as a noun in apposition, since this is the most obvious reading of the Latin words, and he points out that homonymy would certainly result if Iichas (masculine) were to be replaced by a feminine generic name. Pribyl & Erben, 1952 (Paldont. Zeitsch. 26 : 168) changed Holzapfel’s aranea to araneus, presumably because they regarded it as an adjective, and the generic name as masculine. 3. Lichas araneus Lindstrém, 1885, is now referred to the genus Arctinurus Castelnau, 1843. L. aranea Holzapfel, 1895, is the type-species, by monotypy, of Radiolichas Reed, 1923 (Geol. Mag., 60 : 455), so that there is little risk of confusion at the present time. Nevertheless, it seems desirable, for the reason explained in the next paragraph, to seek a ruling on the relative status of the two names under the Law of Homonymy. 4. If the Commission rules that the two specific names are to be treated as homonyms, then a replacement-name will be needed for Lichas aranea Holzapfel, 1895, the junior name involved, since no junior synonym exists. Such a replacement-name was in fact introduced by me in 1957 (Geol. Mag. 94 : 118) Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 17, pts. 6-8. April 1960. 234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as ‘“‘Radiolichas araneiformis nom. nov.,” pending the Commission’s decision on the present application. If the Commission rules that the two specific names are not homonyms, then Radiolichas araneiformis Tripp, 1957, falls as a junior objective synonym of Radiolichas aranea (Holzapfel, 1895). It is clearly important to clarify the status of the replacement-name as soon as possible. 5. I therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to adopt one of the following alternatives. Alternative A sets out the conse- quences of a decision that Lichas aranea Holzapfel is not a junior homonym of Lichas araneus Lindstrém, and Alternative B sets out the consequences of the opposite decision. ALTERNATIVE A (1) to rule that the generic names Lichas Dalman, 1827, and Radtolichas Reed, 1924, are masculine in gender, in accordance with general use ; (2) to place the generic name Radiolichas Reed, 1923 (gender : masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Lichas aranea Holzapfel, 1895, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) araneus Lindstrém, 1885, as published in the binomen Lichas araneus ; (b) aranea Holzapfel, 1895, as published in the binomen Lichas aranea (type-species of Radiolichas Reed, 1923) ; (4) to place the specific name araneiformis Tripp, 1957, as published in the binomen Radiolichas araneiformis, (a junior objective synonym of Lichas aranea Holzapfel, 1895) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. ALTERNATIVE B (1) as (1) in Alternative A above ; (2) to place the specific name aranea Holzapfel, 1895, as published in the binomen Lichas aranea, (hereby ruled to be treated as a junior primary homonym of Lichas araneus Lindstrém, 1885) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the generic name Radiolichas Reed, 1923 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, through Lichas aranea Holzapfel, 1895, Radiolichas araneiformis Tripp, 1959, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) araneus Lindstrém, 1885, as published in the binomen Lichas araneus ; : (b) araneiformis Tripp, 1957, as published in the binomen Radiolichas araneiformis (type-species of Radiolichas Reed, 1923). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 235 PROPOSED ADDITION OF CERTAIN GENERIC AND SPECIFIC NAMES IN THE FAMILY PHASMATIDAE (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER PHASMATODEA) TO THE OFFICAL LISTS AND INDEXES. Z.N (S.) 1167 By K. H. L. Key (Division of Entomology, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, Australia) Three species of Australian phasmatids are of economic importance as defoliators of eucalyptus trees. Papers on the biology of these species have been published or are in course of publication and more may be expected to be published in the future. Thus the workers concerned have an interest in the continued stability of the nomenclature of these species. A study of the literature reveals that considerable confusion exists in the nomenclature of the genera concerned and some of their near relatives. This can be resolved by a strict application of the Rules and of the decisions in regard thereto adopted by the Paris (1948) and Copenhagen (1953) Zoological Congresses. In the present paper, the International Commission is asked to endorse this application of the Rules by placing the relevant names on the Official Lists and Indexes as specified in paragraph 11 below. Genus Podacanthus Gray 2. The genus Podacanthus Gray, 1833 (Ent. Aust. 1:17) presents no difficulty. Its type species by monotypy is Podacanthus typhon Gray, 1833 (wbid. : 17, pl. 2, fig. 1). In the British Museum (Natural History) there is a female of this species labelled “ Sydney, New South Wales ” and bearing the museum registration number 40.4.2.1304. The museum register contains the following entry against this number : “‘ Phasma. New Holland. Bought at Mr. Children’s sale’. There is every probability, therefore, that this is the female figured. by Gray, which he stated was in the collection of J. G. Children and came from Port Jackson (i.e. Sydney). I hereby select this specimen to be the lectotype and have labelled it as such. P. wilkinsoni Macleay (W.J.), 1881 (Proc. linn. Soc. N.S.W. 6 : 538)—not 1882 as commonly cited (see Musgrave, 1932, Bibl. Aust. Ent. : 213)—is an economic species. However, Macleay employs an erroneous subsequent spelling for the name Podacanthus, which he gives as Podocanthus. Macleay’s original material is preserved in the Macleay Museum, University of Sydney. It consists of two males and a female, all of which have been dried from spirit, as stated by the author. One of the males bears the label “ Podocanthus Wilkinsoni, Macl. Binda Caves. March 1881” in the handwriting of George Masters, Macleay’s preparator. I have selected this specimen to be the lectotype and labelled it as such. The other two specimens were unlabelled but closely associated with the labelled one (one on each side of it). I have labelled them “ Original material of Macleay, 1881 ”’. Genus Didymuria Kirby 3. Gray (1883, Ent. Aust. 1 : 26) employed the generic name Diura for a group of Australian phasmatids. However, this name was preoccupied Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 17, pts. 6-8. April 1960. 236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature by Diura Billberg, 1820 (Enum. Ins. Mus. Billberg : 96), in the Neuroptera. Kirby, 1904 (Syn. Cat. Orthopt. 1 : 381) proposed the name Didymuria as a nom. nov. for Diura Gray and designated as its type species Phasma violescens Leach, 1814 (Zool. Miscell. 1 : 26, pl. 9), one of the species originally included in Diura Gray. This species has been cited under the erroneous subsequent spelling of violascens by Gray (1833, Ent. Aust. 1 : 21, 27, pl. 6, fig. 1) and most later authors (but not Kirby, 1904) in combination with Diwra Gray (non Billberg), Acrophylla Gray and Cyphocrania Burm. For the present it should be interpreted by reference to Leach’s plate, but the designation of a neotype would be desirable when the genus is revised. The original material appears to be lost. Diuwra roseipennis Gray (ibid. 1 : 22, pl. 7, fig. 2) has been sub- jectively identified as the female of violescens. Its alleged holotype is in the British Museum, but there is in fact nothing to identify it as Gray material. Didymuria violescens is an economic species. Genera Ctenomorpha Gray, Acrophylla Gray, Ctenomorphodes Karny 4. The generic name Ctenomorpha was published by Gray, 1833 (Ent. Aust. 1 : 16, 27) with two included species, marginipennis Gray and spinicollis Gray. The first selection of a type species was by Kirby (1904, Syn. Cat. Orthopt. 1 : 388) who selected Ctenomorpha marginipennis Gray, 1833 (Ent. Aust. 1 : 16, pl. 1, fig. 2). In addition to this spelling, Gray used the form marginipenne in the same publication (: 27). He was himself the first subse- quent user of the name (Gray, 1835, Syn. Phasm. : 41), when he selected the spelling marginipennis. The female of Gray’s Diura chronus, described in the same publication (: 20, 26, pl. 5, fig. 2) and on the same date as Ctenomorpha marginipennis, has been regarded as conspecific with the latter. The synonymy was first proposed by Westwood (1859, Cat. Phasm. : 114), who, acting as first reviser, adopted chronus (in combination with Acrophylla Gray) in preference to marginipennis as the name for this species, an action which must be endorsed under the Copenhagen Decisions. In accordance with common practice in this group of phasmatids, the name chronus, which Gray wrote with a capital ““C”, is apparently based on the name of a Greek mythological personage, in this case Kpévos, the father of Zeus. This should be latinised “ Cronus ”’, not “‘Chronus”’. However, the spelling of chronus has never been called in question, and no emendation of it is called for under the Copenhagen Decisions, since (1) there is no clear evidence, in the original publication, that it is in fact based on the name of the god, and (2) errors of transliteration are exempted from emendation. The synonymy of marginipennis and chronus is likely to be accepted on taxonomic grounds only so long as the former is interpreted on the male and the latter on the female. These are the sexes figured respectively by Gray, but that author also described in each case what he took to be the opposite sex. In the interests of stability, and since all the original material appears to be lost, I hereby select the specimen figured as pl. 1, fig. 2 by. Gray (1833, Ent. Aust. 1) to be the lectotype of Cienomorpha marginipennis Gray and that figured as pl. 5, fig. 2 in the same publication to be the lectotype of Diura chronus Gray. 5. The genus Acrophylla was established by Gray (1835, Syn. Phasm. : 39) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 237 with several included species, one of which was Phasma titan Macleay (W.S.), 1826 (in King, Surv. Coasts Aust. 2 : 454)—published in April 1826, not in 1827 as often cited : see Musgrave, 1932, Bibl. Aust. Ent. : 214. This species was the first to be selected as the type species of Acrophylla Gray, namely by Karny, 1923 (Treubia 3 : 240), not by Kirby, 1904, as stated by Karny. 6. Redtenbacher, 1908 (in Brunner & Redtenbacher, Insektenfam. Phasm.) ignored Kirby’s type selections and, without citing any type species himself, referred Diura chronus and, as a synonym, Ctenomorpha marginipennis (type species of Ctenomorpha Gray) to the genus Acrophylla, and Phasma titan (type species of Acrophylla Gray) to the genus Vetilia Stal. In the genus Ctenomorpha he placed four species, of which one was an originally included species, one was Phasma (Diura) briareus Gray, 1834, and another “ Cteno- morpha tessellata Gray, 1835” (see below, paragraph 7). The limits of Acrophylla (sensu Redt. non Gray) are essentially those of Ctenomorpha Gray and quite different from those of Acrophylla Gray. On the other hand, Ctenomorpha (sensu Redt., op. cit. : 458) has been regarded by later authors as representing a distinct taxon ; the name Ctenomorphodes Karny, 1923 (Treubia 3 : 240) has been proposed as a new name for this unit, with Phasma (Diura) briareus Gray, 1834 (Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1 : 45) as type species by original designation. 7. One of the species referable to Ctenomorphodes Karny is the species described by Gray (1835, Syn. Phasm. : 44) as Ctenomorpha tessulata. West- wood, 1859 (Cat. Phasm. : 115) and all subsequent authors have cited this name as “ tessellata”’. While it is very probable that in naming his species Gra y wished to refer to the tessellated pattern of the wing, there is no evidence in the original publication that this was his intention, and he does not use the word “ tessellated ” in his description of that pattern. Thus “ tessulata”’ is a valid original spelling in the sense of the Copenhagen Decisions and must be preserved. Although later authors have uniformly employed the spelling “ tessellata a, the number of papers actually involved does not exceed about half-a-dozen : there is thus no occasion for the Commission to consider validating this erroneous subsequent spelling under the Plenary Powers. Furthermore, the Rev. Professor L. W. Grensted (Consulting Classical Advisor to the Commission) has reported that the generic name Ctenomorphodes is masculine. The species, which is of economic importance, should therefore be cited as Ctenomorphodes tessulatus. Family-group Names 8. The genus Diwra Gray, 1833 (non Billberg) has been used by Redten- bacher, 1908 (in Brunner & Redtenbacher, Insektenfam. Phasm. : 379) as the basis for the “ sectio” pruraz of his “ tribus ’’ PHIBALOSOMINI. Since, as already indicated, Diura Gray has been replaced by Didymuria Kirby, 1904, it is necessary under the Copenhagen Decisions to replace pruRaE Redt. by a family-group name based on the latter generic name. However, Giinther (1953, Beitr. Ent. 3 : 548, 553) has erected a subfamily PoDACANTHINAE on the genus Podacanthus Gray, 1833, and given to it the limits ‘‘ die Redtenbacher (1908) seinen ‘ Diurae’ gab ”, Didymuria being one of the included genera. The name PODACANTHINAE has been used in important recent works, whereas 238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DIURAE never had general currency. Thus a replacement for DIURAE Redt. would be required only by workers who placed Didymuria in a different family- group taxon from Podacanthus. 9. The genus Acrophylla Gray has similarly been used as the basis for the tribe ACROPHYLLINI Redt., 1908 (in Brunner & Redtenbacher, Insektenfam. Phasm. : 436). However, Redtenbacher misidentified Gray’s genus (see para- graph 6 above). The International Commission is asked to rule to this effect, whereupon, under Declaration 28 (Ops. Decls. Int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 14 : xiii), the name ACROPHYLLINI will be automatically rejected. Acrophylla Gray, as well as Ctenomorpha Gray (corresponding to Redtenbacher’s inter- pretation of Acrophylla) are currently placed in the nominate subfamily and tribe of the family “‘ PHASMIDAE”’ Gray, 1835 (Syn. Phasm. : 1-44) based on the genus Phasma Lichtenstein, 1796 (Cat. Mus. Zool. Hamb.3 : 77). The selection by Latreille, 1810 (Consid. gen. Anim. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 246, 433) of “‘ Mantis rossia Fabr.” (1793, Ent. syst. 2 :13) (i.e. Mantis rossia Rossi, 1790, Fauna Etrusca 1 : 259; ibid. 2: pl. 8, fig. 1)3 to be the type species of Phasma Lichtenstein, 1796 is invalid, not for the reasons given by Kirby (1904, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) 13 : 439), but because this was not an originally included species. It appears that Kirby may have confused this name with Mantis rosea Fabricius, 1793 (Ent. syst. 2:16), which was in Lichtenstein’s list. Although, further, Kirby’s reasons for regarding Phasma empusa Licht., 1796 as the type species are not valid, he has in fact validly selected that species, which must be accepted as the type species of Phasma. 10. The family-name PHASMIDAE Gray is defectively formed and under the Copenhagen Decisions should be automatically corrected to the form ““PHASMATIDAE”’ Gray, 1835. This spelling has been used by a number of authors from at least as early as 1881 (Macleay, Proc. linn. Soc. N.S.W. 6 : 536) right up to recent years, although “‘ PHASMIDAE ”’ has probably predominated. I do not see sufficient reason for seeking the use of the Plenary Powers to validate “ PHASMIDAE ”’. 11. For the reasons detailed above, I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Podacanthus Gray, 1833 (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Podacanthus typhon Gray, 1833, as defined by the lectotype selected in paragraph 2 above ; (b) Didymuria Kirby, 1904 (gender : feminine), type species, by original designation, Phasma violescens Leach, 1814; (c) Ctenomorpha Gray, 1833 (gender: feminine), type species, by selection by Kirby, 1904, Ctenomorpha marginipennis Gray, 1833, as defined by the lectotype selected in paragraph 4 above ; (d) Acrophylla Gray, 1833 (gender : feminine), type species by selection by Karny, 1923, Phasma titan Macleay, 1826 ; 1Baccetti (Mem. Soc. ent. Ital. 36 : 61-64 (1957)) has shown that this name was first published by Rossi two years earlier than has generally been supposed (Mem. mat. fis. Soc. ital. 4 : 134 (1788)), in the combination Pseudomantes rossia. ON IE EES ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 239 (e) Ctenomorphodes Karny, 1923 (gender: masculine), type species, by original designation, Phasma (Diura) briareus Gray, 1834 ; (f) Phasma Lichtenstein, 1796 (gender: neuter), type species, by selection by Kirby, 1904, Phasma empusa Lichtenstein, 1796 ; (2) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Podocanthus Macleay, 1881 (an erroneous subsequent spelling of Podacanthus Gray, 1833) ; (b) Diura Gray, 1833 (a junior homonym of Diura Billberg, 1820) ; (3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) typhon Gray, 1833, as published in the binomen Podacanthus typhon, and as defined by the lectotype selected in paragraph 2 above (type species of Podacanthus Gray, 1833) ; (b) wilkinsont Macleay (W.J.), 1881, as published in the binomen Podacanthus wilkinsoni, and as defined by the lectotype selected in paragraph 2 above ; . (c) violescens Leach, 1814, as published in the binomen Phasma violescens (type species of Didymuria Kirby, 1904) ; (d) chronus Gray, 1833, as published in the binomen Diura chronus, and as defined by the lectotype selected in paragraph 4 above ; (e) titan Macleay (W.S.), 1826, as published in the binomen Phasma titan (type species of Acrophylla Gray, 1835) ; (f) briareus Gray, 1834, as published in the binomen Phasma (Diura) briareus (type species of Ctenomorphodes Karny, 1823) ; (g) tessulata Gray, 1835, as published in the binomen Ctenomorpha tessulata ; (h) empusa Lichtenstein, 1796, as published in the binomen Phasma empusa (type species of Phasma Lichtenstein, 1796) ; (4) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology : (a) violascens Gray, 1833, as published in the binomen Diura violascens (and later usages in combination with Acrophylla Gray, Cypho- crania Burm., Didymuria Kirby, etc.) (an erroneous subsequent spelling of violescens Leach, 1814, as published in the binomen Phasma violescens); (b) tessellata Westwood, 1859, as published in the binomen Acrophylla tessellata (and later uses in combination with Acrophylla Gray and Ctenomorpha Gray) (an erroneous subsequent spelling of tessulata Gray, 1835, as published in the binomen Ctenomorpha tessulata) ; (5) to rule that Redtenbacher, 1908, misdetermined the genus Acrophylla Gray, in proposing the family-group name ACROPHYLLINI ; (6) to place the following names on the Official List of Family-group Names in Zoology : (a) PODACANTHINAE Giinther, 1953 (type genus Podacanthus Gray, 1833) ; 240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (b) PHASMATIDAE (correction of PHASMIDAE) Gray, 1835 (type genus Phasma Lichtenstein, 1796) ; (7) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-group Names in Zoology : (a) pruRAE Redtenbacher, 1908 (type genus Diura Gray, 1833), invalid because the name of the type genus is a junior homonym of Diura Billberg, 1820 ; (b) ACROPHYLLINI Redtenbacher, 1908 (type genus Acrophylla Gray, 1833), invalid under Declaration 28 by the ruling requested under (5) above ; (c) PHASMIDAE Gray, 1833 (an invalid original spelling of PHasMa- TIDAE). COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE SPECIFIC NAME SACCHARIVORA PETERKIN, 1790 (PHALAENA). Z.N.(S.) 1315 (See this volume, pages 56-60.) By M. H. Breese (Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture, Trinidad, W.1.) I have received a Separate of the paper published by Mr. Harold E. Box in Nos. 1 and 2 of Volume 17 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. I have further had the opportunity of discussing the subject matter with the author and I strongly support his application to con- serve the well-established name of Diatraea saccharalis (F.), and the requests made in paragraph 19 of his paper. By R. H. Zwaluwenberg (Santa Rosa, California, U.S.A.) Mr. Harold E. Box’s plea to add to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, that of saccharalis Fabricius, 1794 (genus Diatraea) for the moth borer of sugar-cane, merits favourable consideration. This name has been in general use for over fifty years, for an insect of great economic importance, and is the subject of a voluminous bibliography. To approve the name sacchorivora Peterkin, 1790, anomen so obscure as to be all but unknown, would create unfortunate confusion concerning the prime insect enemy of sugar-cane in the Americas. By F. Fernandez, P. Guagliumi, W. Szumlowski, N. J. Angeles, C. J. Rosales, R. Lichy (Maracay, Venezuela) We have received from our friend Harold E. Box a reprint of the application published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 56-60 ; and we wish to record that we were not in favour of altering the well-known name, Diatraea saccharalis (Fabricius) for the sugar-cane borer. ee ee —— ee ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 241 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE FAMILIAR USAGE OF THE GENERIC NAME TANYTARSUS VAN DER WULP, 1874 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 1245 By Paul Freeman (British Museum (Natural History) London) The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to validate the familiar usage of the well-known generic name Tanytarsus van der Wulp, 1874, by suppressing the type-fixation of Coquillett (1910) in favour of that of Edwards (1929). The details of this case are given below. 2. The genus Tanytarsus was described by van der Wulp in 1874 (Tijdschr. Ent. 17 : 134) with twelve included species, only two of which, Chironomus punctipes Wiedemann, 1817 (Zoologisches Magazin 1(1) : 65) and Chironomus signatus van der Wulp, 1858 (Tijdschr. Ent. 2(3) : 169), are relevant to this discussion. Van der Wulp did not designate a type-species for the genus. 3. In 1909, Kieffer (Bull. Soc. Hist. nat. Metz 26 : 49) restricted the genus Tanytarsus to those species without pulvilli, which include signatus van der Wulp but not punctipes Wiedemann. It is in this sense that Tanytarsus has always been employed until 1945. Kieffer did not designate a type-species for the restricted genus. 4. A type-species was first designated for Tanytarsus van der Wulp by Coquillett in 1910 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 37 : 612). Unfortunately he chose punctipes Wiedemann as the type-species, which possesses pulvilli and does not fall into the group restricted as Tanytarsus by Kieffer in 1909. I have been able to examine the type-series of punctipes Wied. through the kindness of ’ Dr. M. Beier and can confirm the presence of pulvilli and the correctness of the determination of this species given by Edwards, 1929 (T'rans. ent. Soc. London 77 : 375) and by Townes, 1945 (Amer. midl. Nat. 34:71, 76). This species is now placed in the genus Phaenopsectra. 5. Coquillett’s type-fixation was not noticed until Edwards wrote an account of the British species of the family cHtRoNoMIDAE in 1929 (Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 77 : 279-430). Edwards decided, erroneously, that Coquillett’s type- fixation was invalid because it did not conform with the views of the first reviser (Kieffer, 1909). He accordingly designated signatus van der Wulp, which is a readily recognised species without pulvilli, as the type-species of Tanytarsus van der Wulp. 6. Between 1909 and 1929 a considerable volume of literature was published using J'anytarsus according to Kieffer’s restriction, and since that date much more has been published. Not only is Tanytarsus, used in this way, a large genus with world-wide distribution and many common species, but a number of the species are important to limnologists. Nowadays, Tanytarsus and its allied genera are placed in a separate tribe, the TANYTARSINI Goetghebuer, 1938 (in Lindner Die Fliegen, Fam. 13c : 73). 7. In 1945, Townes (Amer. midl. Nat. 34 : 11) pointed out that Coquillett’s Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 17, pts. 6-8. April 1960. 242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature type-fixation had been overlooked and he switched the name Tanytarsus sensu stricto to the group in which punctipes Wiedemann is now placed, previously known as Phaenopsectra Kieffer, 1921. Phaenopsectra Kieffer, 1921 (Ann. Soc. sci. Brux. 40 : 274) was widely regarded as originally including only one species—Chironomus leucolabis Kieffer, 1915 (Broteria (Ser. Zool.) 13 : 75) until Townes in 1945 (op. cit. : 71) pointed out that there was another originally included species, namely Chironomus connectens Kieffer, 1908 (Zischr. Wiss. Insektenbiol. 4 : 83). 8. Edwards, 1929 (op. cit. : 375) was the first to mention a type-species for Phaenopsectra in saying that ‘‘ lewcolabis seems to have been the type of Kieffer’s genera Phaenopsectra and Lenzia’’. This, however, cannot be regarded as a definite type-designation. Goetghebuer, 1939 (op. cit.: 80) designated leucolabis as the type-species and at the same time synonymised it with Chironomus flavipes Meigen, 1818 (Syst. Beschr. Zweifl. Ins. 1 : 50). Phaenop- sectra Kieffer does not belong to the group previously designated TANYTARSINI but to the tribe curmRonominiI. Hence Townes has transferred the name Tanytarsus from one tribe to another and has renamed both the familiar genus TJ'anytarsus and the tribe TANYTARSINI with the next available name, that is Calopsectra Kieffer, 1901 (Bull. Soc. Hist. nat. Metz 26:50) and CALOPSECTRINI Townes, 1945. 9. Not only is Tanytarsus van der Wulp, as restricted by Kieffer, one of the oldest names in the family CHIRONOMIDAE, it is also one of the better known and more widely used names and it seems undesirable not only to rename the group but at the same time to switch the name to a genus in another tribe. Tanytarsus has been used in the familiar sense by Kieffer in all his numerous papers on the family, also by Edwards and Goetghebuer. The well-known works on the early stages by Thienemann, Lenz, Brundin and their collaborators invariably used T'anytarsus in this sense. 10. For the reasons set forth in the present application, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked : (1) to use its plenary powers (a) to set aside all type-designations for the genus Tanytarsus van der Wulp, 1874, made prior to the Ruling now asked for and (b) having done so to designate Chironomus signatus van der Wulp, 1858 to be the type-species of that genus ; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Tanytarsus van der Wulp, 1874 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Chironomus signatus van der Wulp, 1858 ; (b) Phaenopsectra Kieffer, 1921 (gender : feminine), type-species, by subsequent selection by Goetghebuer, 1939, Chironomus leucolabis Kieffer, 1915 ; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of ppceiie Names in Zoology :— (a) signatus van der Wulp, 1858, as published in the linemen Chironomus signatus (type-species of Tanytarsus van der Wulp, 1874) ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 243 (b) flavipes Meigen, 1818, as published in the binomen Chironomus flavipes ; (c) punctipes Wiedemann, 1817, as published in the binomen Chiro- nomus punctipes ; (4) to place the family-group name TANYTARSINI Goetghebuer, 1938 (type- genus, T'anytarsus van der Wulp, 1874) on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology. 244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSAL TO PLACE THE GENERIC NAME NEOEUTHYRIS BRETNALL, 1921 (PHYLUM POLYZOA) ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY. Z.N.(S.) 1314 By Anna B. Hastings (British Museum (Natural History), London) The nominal genus Lichenella Gray, 1858 (Proc. zool. Soc. London 26 : 322 ; 1859, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (3) 3 : 153), with type-species, by monotypy, Lichenella brentii Gray (ibid.) was based on a specimen of an algal colony bearing an encrusting polyzoan. Gray was uncertain whether the specimen represented a polyzoan colony of flustrine form, or a frond of the alga Mastophora lamourouxii (Decne) Harvey with its surface wrinkled where the longitudinal series of zooecia of an attached polyzoan had adhered to it. Examination of the holotype leaves no doubt that the latter supposition is correct. 2. My colleague Mr. R. Ross reports that “ the algal portion of the specimen is clearly a member of the genus Metamastophora Setchell ... It seems to resemble Metamastophora plana (Sonder) Setchell better than the other possible Australian species Metamastophora flabellata (Sonder) Setchell ”. The encrusting polyzoan agrees with Neoeuthyris woosteri (MacGillivray, 1891) (described as Euthyris woosteri, Proc. roy. Soc. Victoria N.S. 3:77). The holotype of this species (divided between the National Museum, Melbourne, Victoria, and the Australian Museum, Sydney, N.S.W.) also encrusts an alga, but Miss Elizabeth Pope (Australian Museum) tells me that it is “ impossible to hazard a name” for it. It shows ridges similar to those in Lichenella brentit. One of four specimens of Metamastophora plana in Harvey’s Australian algae in the British Museum (Natural History) bears extensive growths of Neoeuthyris woostert. 3. Although Gray applied the name Lichenella brentit to the whole specimen, his description applies almost entirely to what proves to be the algal portion of his specimen. Nevertheless his work was concerned with “...new forms of Polyzoa ” and it is clear that he strongly suspected the mixed nature of his specimen. It would therefore be possible for any zoologist, by selecting the polyzoan component of Gray’s specimen as the lectotype, to make Lichenella brentii Gray, 1858, the valid name of the genus and species to which that polyzoan belongs. The effect of this would be that the generic name Lichenella Gray, 1858, would displace the generic name Neoeuthyris Bretnall, 1921, and that the specific name brentii Gray, 1858 (Lichenella) would displace the specific name woosteri MacGillivray, 1891 (Euthyris), thus producing an unnecessary disturbance in the stability of nomenclature in this group. From the point of view of zoological nomenclature, therefore, it would be preferable to select the algal component as the lectotype of Lichenella brentii, thus transferring the binomen to the plant kingdom while leaving it its rights in zoological nomenclature only under the Law of Homonymy. Mr. Ross kindly informs me that this step would have no disturbing effects on botanical nomenclature, as explained in the following paragraph. Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 17, pts. 6-8. April 1960. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 245 4. Article 66 of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, Paris, 1954 (Lanjouw ed., 1956) states : “A name must be rejected if it is based on a type consisting of two or more entirely discordant elements, unless it is possible to select one of these elements as a satisfactory type.” Mr. Ross has examined Gray’s specimen and reports: “I am quite clear that, as far as botanical nomenclature is concerned, the name Lichenella brentii comes under this article. The characters in Gray’s description are drawn from the algal and the polyzoan parts of the specimen and to a botanist’s way of thinking neither can be regarded as a satisfactory type ’’. 5. I therefore now select the algal element of Gray’s holotype as the lecto- type of Lichenella brentii Gray, 1858. The whole Specimen is registered No. 1938.8.10.1 in the Zoological Department of the British Museum (Natural History), London: the portion chosen as lectotype is now in the Botanical Department. 6. Having thus disposed of the name Lichenella brentii from the standpoint of zoological nomenclature without producing any harmful effects in botanical nomenclature, it only remains to secure the resulting valid generic and specific appropriate Official Lists. The nominal genus Neoeuthyris Bretnall, 1921 (Rec. austral. Mus. Sydney 13 : 157) is the oldest available name for this genus. The type-species, by monotypy, is Euthyris woosteri MacGillivray, 1891 (see paragraph 2 above), and this specific name is the oldest available name for that species. No family-group name has ever been formed from the generic name Neoeuthyris, the genus being referred to the family EUTHYRISELL- IDAE, so that no family-group name problems arise. 7. I therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to place the generic name Lichenella Gray, 1858, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoological Nomenclature a8 a@ name rejected for all purposes other than those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the specific name brentii Gray, 1858, as published in the binomen Lichenella brentii, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoological Nomenclature as a name rejected for all purposes other than those of the Law of Homonymy ; (3) to place the generic name Neoeuthyris Bretnall, 1921 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Huthyris woosteri MacGillivray, 1891, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the specific name woosteri MacGillivray, 1891, as published in the binomen Euthyris woosteri (type-species of Neoeuthyris Bretnall, 1921) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE A NEOTYPE FOR DYTISCUS CINEREUS LINNAEUS, 1758, THE TYPE- SPECIES OF GRAPHODERUS DEJEAN, 1833 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 1389 By J. Balfour-Browne (British Museum (Natural History) London) The nominal species Dytiscus cinereus was established by Linnaeus in 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1:412). On the same page, below, Linnaeus described Dytiscus sulcatus. 2. I am not aware of any later examination and report on the Linnean specimens of these two species (in the collection of the Linnean Society of London) than that of Schaum, 1847 (Ent. Ztg. Stettin 8 : 279). He says of cinereus : “three specimens stand under this name, that bearing the label being a [Graphoderus] zonatus, standing beside a [Graphoderus] bilineatus and a female [Acilius] sulcatus ; there is no specimen of cinereus sensu Aubé, Erichson’”’. Through the kindness of Mr. W. H. T. Tams, Curator of the Linnean collection, I have been able to examine these specimens and can confirm that three specimens stand under the name cinereus, one, bearing the name label, being a female [Graphoderus] zonatus (Hoppé, 1795) (Ins. Elyt. : 33), the second a female [Graphoderus] bilineatus (de Geer, 1774) (Mém. Ins. 4 : 400) and the third an [Acilius] sulcatus (Linnaeus), but a male, not a female as stated by Schaum. Under the name sulcatus are three females of the species so named at the present day. 3. The pin and mounting of the male sulcatus standing under the name cinereus are certainly Linnean. It appears indubitable that Schaum made an error, either in writing his notes or in reading them, when he stated in 1847 that this specimen was a female. 4. Linneaus (1758) referred to Roesel, 1749 (Ins. Belust. 2 : Wasser-Ins. pl. 3), citing fig. 6 of that plate in the synonymy of cinereus, and fig. 7 in the synonymy of sulcatus. Roesel’s plate, as is now recognized, and as his text (: 17-24) shows, depicts the life-history of the species currently known as Acilius sulcatus, so that Linnaeus, in effect, named the male and the female of this insect as separate nominal species. 5. This fact was early recognized by authors following Linnaeus. In 1761 (Fn. Svec. (ed. 2) : 215) Linnaeus himself quoted the 1758 diagnosis, but added a description which can only apply to a species of Graphoderus Dejean, 1833. In 1767, however (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 666) he added after sulcatus “ ? the female of D. cinereus”. Geoffroy, 1762 (Hist. abr. Ins. 1 : 189) doubtfully synonymized the two species. De Geer, 1774 (Mém. Hist. Ins. 4 : 397) expressly united them, reporting that he had found them in copula ; he renamed the combined species Dytiscus fasciatus. The same view was held by O. F. Miiller in 1776 (Zool. Dan. Prodr. : 70) who referred to Roesel’s account of the life-history and stated that Linnaeus and Geoffroy were both in doubt as to whether the two species were distinct. Rossi, 1795 (Fn. Etrusca ed. 2) 1 : 232) Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 17, pts. 6-8. April 1960. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 247 asserted that “‘ D. cinereus of Linnaeus and others is quite certainly the male of D. sulcatus’. He also stated that the D. cinereus of Fabricius and Olivier is the D. bilineatus of De Geer, which (: 414) he renamed Dytiscus taeniatus. Marsham, 1802 (Col. Brit.: 413) regarded the two nominal species as the sexes of a single species, and took cinereus as the valid name. As the first author not only to recognise the taxonomic identity of the two, but also definitely to choose one of the names in preference to the other, he was the valid first reviser in this case. It may be noted in passing that his action followed the principle of page and line priority. 6. The contrary view to that held by the authors mentioned in the pre- ceding paragraph was first expressed by Fabricius, who in most of his works (1775, Syst. Ent. : 231; 1781, Spec. Ins. 1 : 293; 1787, Mant. Ins. 1 : 190; 1792, Ent. syst.1 : 190; 1801, Syst. Zleuth.) did no more than repeat Linnaeus’s diagnosis of 1758, but in 1787 stated of sulcatus “‘ Mas elytris glabris omnino distinctus a D. cinereo”’. The only specimen in the Banks collection, however (the collection which houses the relevant Fabrician types) is of quite a different species, Colymbetes striatus (Linnaeus). The decisive interpretation of cinereus as a species distinct from sulcatus appears to be that of Panzer, 1795 (Fn. Germ. 31 : pl. 11), whose figure is unmistakably of a species of Graphoderus. He attributed the name to Fabricius, but quoted the 1761 and 1767 references to Linnaeus. The former reference may be significant, for as explained in para- graph 5 above, Linnaeus in 1761 clearly described a form of the genus Grapho- derus. Panzer’s figure may, I think, be accepted as representing cinereus auctorum as currently recognized. 7. Westwood, 1838 (Class. Ins., Synopsis : 8) designated Dytiscus cinereus, ascribed to Fabricius, as the type-species of Graphoderus Dejean, 1833 (Cat. Col. (ed. 2) : 54). This genus was established without any definition or description, but with nine originally included species, of which all but three had been previously established. The generic name is not, therefore, as it is said to be by Sherborn (Index Anim.) a nomen nudum. Dytiscus cinereus “‘ Fabricius ” was one of these species, and Westwood’s designation is therefore valid. The species in question is clearly identifiable, for Westwood’s Synopsis deals only with British insects, and Graphoderus cinereus auctorum is the only species of the genus known in Britain. The fact that this is not the same as the species that he actually cited by name, which, together with the nominal species cited by Dejean, must be taken to be Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758, shows that Graphoderus is a genus based on a misidentified type-species. It has been claimed (Guignot, 1946, Rev. franc. Ent. 18 : 117) that Stephens, 1835 (JUl. Brit. Ent., Mand. 5 Appendix : 395) first designated the type-species of the genus, but his words“ . . . formed the genus Graphoderus to embrace D. cinereus Linné, and its allies...’ do not constitute a valid type-designation. It has also been claimed (F. Balfour-Browne, 1935, Ent. mon. Mag. 71 : 249) that Hope, 1838 (Col. Man. 2 :131) designated Dytiscus cinereus as type- species, but information in the British Museum (Natural History) copy of this work suggests that the correct date of publication is 1839. 8. The interpretation of cinereus by Aubé, 1836 (Icon. Col. 5 : 85, pl. 11, fig. 1) and by Erichson, 1837 (Kaf. Mark-Brandenb. 1 : 143), mentioned by 248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Schaum, is that of Panzer, and the same as that currently accepted. 9. It is thus clear that the question of the type-species of Graphoderus Dejean, 1833, must be referred to the Commission for a decision under the plenary powers. Before setting out the alternative courses of action open to the Commission, however, two points affecting the identity of Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758, should be mentioned. First, the diagnosis of 1758 is insufficient, taken alone, to determine to which of the three Linnean specimens the name cinereus should be applied. Secondly, the fact that Schaum (1847) wrongly reported the male sulcatus standing under the label cinereus in the Linnean collection as a female points to the significance of Linnaeus’s reference to Roesel’s plate ; fig. 6 clearly represents the same species as that to which the male sulcatus standing under cinereus belongs, and fig. 7 the species to which belong the three specimens standing under sulcatus, i.e., the male and female of one species. No holotype was designated for either species by Linnaeus, and no lectotype has ever been selected for either. 10. If the Commission designates the nominal species cited by Dejean and Westwood as the type-species of Graphoderus, namely, Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758, this will be the species of which the male is shown in Roesel’s fig. 6 and the female in his fig. 7. The valid name for this species, through Marsham’s action in 1802 as first reviser, is cinereus, but the name universally applied to it is sulcatus Linnaeus, 1758. This species is the type-species, by monotypy, of Acilius Leach, 1815 (see the next application), which obviously has priority over Graphoderus Dejean, 1833. The effect of this action, therefore, would be to change the name of the type-species of Acilius from sulcatus (which has been used for that species for 140 years) to cinereus, by transferring the latter specific name from the genus in which it is always employed, and of which it has for 120 years denoted the type-species, to another genus ; to render the widely-used generic name Graphoderus a junior synonym of Acilius ; and to leave the genus now known as Graphoderus, as well as the type-species of that genus, without a valid name. 11. If the Commission designates as type-species of Graphoderus the species actually intended by Westwood, there still remains the problem of providing that species with a valid name, since, as has just been demonstrated, the name cinereus Linnaeus, 1758, by which that species is universally known, is under the rules the valid name for the type-species of Acilius. This object could be attained by suppressing the specific name cinereus, as published in the binomen Dytiscus cinereus or Graphoderus cinereus, by all authors prior to Westwood, 1838, so as to validate the name as from that author’s use of it. This would, however, be a very cumbersome procedure, for apart from involving the suppression of at least the seventeen uses of the name prior to Westwood’s and mentioned in the present paper, it would involve also the suppression of any synonyms applied to the same species between 1758 and 1838. To give objective definition to the name cinereus by selecting one of the Linnean syntypes would have disturbing results whichever specimen was chosen, for the name cinereus would then replace either sulcatus Linnaeus, 1758 (with the disastrous effects already described), or bilineatus De Geer, or zonatus Hoppé. Both these latter names are currently held to denote species of Graphoderus Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 249 distinct from cinereus. 12. The elimination of the procedures just discussed leaves only one simple and direct method whereby stability of nomenclature can be attained in the present case, namely, by designating a neotype for Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758. Since such a neotype cannot by any means be said to satisfy the condi- tions laid down in the rules, the plenary powers of the Commission would have to be used, (a) to sanction the use of the neotype-method in this case, and (b) to ratify the designation of the specimen proposed. I propose that the neotype of Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758, be a male specimen in the Power collection of British Coleoptera in the British Museum (Natural History), labelled “ Power 96-69”. No locality data are given, but the specimen came in all probability from the former Whittlesea Mere, Huntingdonshire. 13. I accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature : (1) to use its plenary powers : (a) to direct that the identity of the nominal species Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758, is to be determined by the neotype-method ; (b) to direct that the neotype of the above nominal species is the specimen so designated by Balfour-Browne in the present paper ; (2) to place the generic name Graphoderus Dejean, 1833 (gender : masculine), type-species, by selection by Westwood, 1838, Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758 , on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) cinereus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Dytiscus cinereus, and as defined under the plenary powers in (1) above (type-species of Graphoderus Dejean, 1833) ; (b) bilineatus De Geer, 1774, as published in the binomen Dytiscus bilineatus ; (c) zonatus Hoppé, 1795, as published in the binomen Dytiscus zonatus ; (4) to place the generic name Graphoderas Thomson, 1860 (Skand. Col. 2: 38), an erroneous subsequent spelling of Graphoderus Dejean, 1833, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (5) to place the following specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology : (a) fasciatus De Geer, 1774, as published in the binomen Dytiscus fasciatus (a junior objective synonym of Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758) ; (b) taeniatus Rossi, 1795, as published in the binomen Dytiscus taeniatus (a junior objective synonym of Dytiscus bilineatus De Geer, 1774). 250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VARY THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 522 SO AS TO PRESERVE THE GENERIC NAME ACILIUS LEACH, 1817 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 1391 By J. Balfour-Browne (British Museum (Natural History) London) By the ruling given in Opinion 522 (1958, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 209-248), the generic name Acilius Rafinesque, 1815 (Class Crustacea), was suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, thus invalidating Acilius Leach, 1817, a name in uninterrupted use during 140 years for a genus of Dytiscid beetles. 2. Acilius Leach, 1817 (Zool. Misc. 3 : 69) was established in a key to the genera of the Dytiscidae, and later in the same paper was provided with a single species, cited as ‘‘ Dyticus 1 sulcatus auctorum ”, which is therefore the type-species, by monotypy. The question of the spelling of the generic name, and its bearing on the family-group name based on it, is considered below. The question of the identity of the species ‘ Dyticus sulcatus auctorum ”’ is readily answered. The nominal genus concerned is Dytiscus Linnaeus, 1758, and only one species bearing the name sulcatus has ever been described in, or referred to, this genus, namely Dytiscus sulcatus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 412). 3. In the index to vol. 3 of the Zool. Misc. (: 143) Leach lists the generic name with a reference to page 69, but names the sole included species cinereus, with a reference to page 72. In the absence of any other data, it is impossible to say exactly what is meant by this entry, although it is probable that Leach, in common with some other early authors, regarded Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758, and Dytiscus sulcatus Linnaeus, 1758, as representing respectively the male and female of one species. This subject is discussed more fully in the imme- diately preceding application. If this is so, then it is clear that Leach regarded cinereus and sulcatus as synonymous names, and the monotypic establishment of the genus is not affected, sulcatus remaining the nominal type-species. If this is not so, then it must be assumed that Leach was proposing cinereus as a new name in replacement of “ sulcatus auctorum ”’, in which case his name falls as a junior objective synonym of sulcatus Linnaeus, 1758, and that species remains the type-species, by monotypy, of Acilius. The latter view is adopted here. 4, It is necessary now to demonstrate the identity at the level of the generic names of Dytiscus sulcatus Linnaeus, 1758, and Dyticus sulcatus Leach, 1817. The broadly-conceived Linnean genus Dytiscus was first restricted to species which are now accepted as belonging to the family pyTisctDaE by Geoffroy, 1762 (Hist. abr. Ins. Paris 1 : 185), but his work has been rejected for nomen- clatorial purposes in Opinion 228, since he did not consistently apply the principles of binominal nomenclature. He used the spelling Dyticus (citing Dytiscus Linnaeus as a synonym), presumably on the assumption that the name Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 17, pts. 6-8. April 1960. a - Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 251 was derived from the Greek adjective dutixos, meaning “able to dive ’— a very suitable source for a name for these aquatic beetles. Subsequent authors accepted the limits set by Geoffroy for the genus but used the Linnean spelling Dytiscus, namely : Scopoli, 1763 (Hint. carn. : 96); O. F. Miiller, 1764 (Fn. Ins. Fridrichsdal. : xi); De Geer, 1774 (Mém. Hist. Ins. 4 : 381) ; Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 230), 1777 (Gen. Ins. : 68), 1781 (Spec. Ins. 1 : 290), 1792 (Ent. Syst. 1 : 187) ; Olivier, 1795 (Entomologie 50 : 17) ; Panzer, 1795 (Ent. Germ. 1:73); and Paykull, 1798 (Fn. suwec. 1: 190). On the other hand, Miiller, 1776 (Zool. Dan. Prodr.:69) and Illiger, 1798 (Verz. Kaf. Preussens : 248) adopted Geoffroy’s spelling Dyticus as well as his taxonomic concept. Latreille, 1810 (Consid. gén. : 167) referred to Dyticus, but designated the type-species as “ Dytiscus marginalis Fabricius’ (i.e. Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1:411). It is clear that these authors were deliberately emending Dytiscus on linguistic grounds, but since the incorrect latinization of which they regarded Linnaeus as guilty gives no cause for emending a name under the rules, it is clear that Dytiscus Linnaeus, 1758, is a correct original spelling, and that Dyticus, first used as an available name by Miiller, 1776, is an unjustified emendation, and a junior objective synonym, of the name in its original form. 5. In considering family-group names based on Dyftiscus, it is necessary to deal first with the vernacular term “les Ditisques ’’ of De Geer, 1774 (Mém. Hist. Ins. 4 : 354, 381). This seems to have been used only as a plural adjective or noun for the members of the genus Dytiscus and need not be considered further as a family-group name. HYDROCANTHARI Gyllenhal, 1808 (Ins. suec. 1 : 464) is not based on a generic name and is therefore not available as a name in the family-group. It was used by Latreille, 1810 (Consid. gén.) in the sense of a family name, and is currently employed by French authors, in the vernacular, for the aquatic series of families of the Coleoptera Adephaga. The first available name based on Dytiscus is DyTicipEA Leach, 1817 (op. cit.), which is subject to automatic correction both in the portion based on the name of the type-genus, and in its termination. Curtis, 1826 (Brit. Ent. : pl. 99) used DYTICIDAE. The spelling DYTISCIDAE appeared twice in 1854, once in Wollaston, Ins. Mader., and once in Fairmaire & Laboulbéne, Faune ent. France 1 : 177. The former work was received at the Library of the Entomological Society of London between 7 August and 4 September 1854 ; the latter is listed in the Bibliographie de France for the week 16-22 July 1854 (although the preface is dated 26 July). The evidence is therefore that the latter work appeared earlier. 6. In view of the facts set out above, I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : (1) to use its plenary powers to vary the Ruling given in Opinion 522 to the extent necessary to suppress the generic name Acilius Rafinesque, 1815, for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Acilius Leach, 1817 (gender : masculine), type-species, by mono- typy, Dytiscus sulcatus Linnaeus, 1758 (validated through the 252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature use of the plenary powers in (1) above) ; (b) Dytiscus Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: masculine), type-species, by selection by Latreille, 1810, Dytiscus marginalis Linnaeus, 1758 ; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) sulcatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Dytiscus sulcatus (type-species of Acilius Leach, 1817) ; (b) marginalis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Dytiscus marginalis (type-species of Dytiscus Linnaeus, 1758) ; (4) to place the generic name Dyticus O. F. Miiller, 1776, a junior objective synonym of Dytiscus Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (5) to place the specific name cinereus Leach, 1817, as published in the binomen Acilius cinereus, (a junior objective synonym of Dytiscus sulcatus Linnaeus, 1758), on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ; (6) to place the family-name pDyTIScIDAE (correction by Fairmaire & Laboulbéne, 1854 of pyrrcrpEA) Leach, 1817, (type-genus : Dytiscus Linnaeus, 1758) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ; (7) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology : (a) ‘Les Ditisques”’ De Geer, 1774 (type-genus Dytiscus Linnaeus, 1758), invalid because applied only to the members of a genus ; (b) HYDROCANTHARI Gyllenhal, 1808, invalid because not based on a generic name ; (c) pytTicipEA Leach, 1817 (type-genus Dytiscus Linnaeus, 1758), an incorrect original spelling of DYTISCIDAE ; (d) pyTiIcriDAE Curtis, 1826 (type-genus Dytiscus Linnaeus, 1758), an incorrect spelling for DYTISCIDAE. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 253 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE SPECIFIC NAME DARDANUS BROWN, 1776, AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMEN PAPILIO DARDANUS (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 1403 By W. Parkinson Curtis (Bournemouth, England) P. Cramer, Uitl. Kapellen 1 : 25, pl. 17, figs. E, F described and figured a castniid moth under the name Papilio dardanus. The locality is given as “Surinam”. The date of publication of this part of Vol. 1 of Cramer’s work was determined as [31 December] 1775 in Opinion 516 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 1-44). 2. In 1776 P. Brown (New IIlustr. Zool. : 52) proposed Papilio dardanus for the African Papilio s.s. well known by that specific name. 3. Fabricius (1793, Ent. Syst. 3:10) used the name Papilio dardanus for the male and Papilio tros for the female of a Brazilian species of Papilio 8.8. known only from the province of Rio de Janeiro. 4. Papilio dardanus Cramer, [31 December], 1775 is not now used as a valid name, but is regarded as a synonym of Papilio evalthe Fabricius, Syst. ent. : 480. The date of publication of this work was determined in Opinion 516 as [17 April] 1775. The species is not a butterfly (as are the other two species to which the name Papilio dardanus has been given), but a moth. P. evalthe is the type- species, by original designation, of Xanthocastnia Houlbert, 1918, in Oberthur, Etudes Lép. comp. 15 : 257. 5. Papilio dardanus Brown, 1776, is one of the most often quoted names in all Lepidoptera. It is the best known example of Batesian mimicry and there is a very extensive literature relating to its racial variations and genetics. In the period 1908-1913 there are, in the publications of the Royal Entomological Society of London alone, 16 different papers and notes by six different authors, and this could be multiplied many times by a thorough compilation of refer- ences. The name is of value to workers in general zoology far beyond the limits of taxonomy in the Lepidoptera, yet it is technically not an available name because of the existence of a senior primary homonym, even though that homonym has never been in general use and is not currently regarded as a valid name. 6. The genus Xanthocastnia is referred to the family CASTNIIDAE and no family-group name problems arise in the present case. 7. For the reasons set out above, I therefore ask the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name dardanus Cramer, [31 December] 1775, as published in the binomen Papilio dardanus, for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and the Law of Homo- nymy ; (2) to place the following specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology : Bull. zool. Nomencel. Vol. 17, pts. 6-8. April 1960. 254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (i) dardanus Cramer, [31 December] 1775, as published in the binomen Papilio dardanus suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above ; (ii) dardanus Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Papilio dardanus (invalid as a junior primary homonym of Papilio dardanus Brown, 1776) ; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (i) dardanus Brown, 1776, as published in the binomen Papilio dardanus (validated through the suppression under the plenary powers in (1) above of Papilio dardanus Cramer, [31 December] 1775) ; (ii) evalthe Fabricius, [17 April] 1775, as published in the binomen Papilio evalthe (type-species of Xanthocastnia Houlbert, 1918) ; (iii) tros Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Papilio tros ; (4) to place the generic name Xanthocastnia Houlbert, 1918 (gender : feminine) type-species, by original designation Papilio evalthe Fabricius, 1775, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 255 PROPOSALS CONCERNING HOMONYMOUS FAMILY-GROUP NAMES BASED ON PHAENOMERIS HOPE, 1833 AND PHAENOMERUS SCHONHERR, 1836 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 1405 By R. D. Pope (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) and R. T. Thompson (British Museum (Natural History), London) This application is concerned with a case in which homonymous family- group names result from the similarity, but not identity, of the names of their type-genera. Both the families concerned belong to a single order (Coleoptera), but are placed in different superfamilies. Details of the names involved are given below. 2. In the superfamily SCARABAEOIDEA the nominal genus Phaenomeris Hope, 1833, Proc. zool. Soc. London for 1833 : 62, was established for the first time in the report of a meeting. From the way in which the report is set out it might be concluded that one new species (Phaenomeris magnifica Hope) is described in that genus and that six further new species, five of them cited in connection with existing generic names, are also referred to it. When Hope’s paper was published in full, however, (1835, Trans. zool. Soc. London 1 : 97) it became clear that he had proposed his new genus for magnifica alone. That species is therefore the type-species of Phaenomeris by monotypy. The generic name is the basis of the family-name PHAENOMERIDAE Ohaus, 1913, Deutsch. ent. Z. : 225 (Beiheft) (PHAENOMERINAE Ohaus, 1918, Col. Cat. (66) : 7 ; PHAENOMERIDAE Brues & Melander, 1932, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard 73 : 452). 3. In the superfamily CURCULIONOIDEA the nominal genus Phaenomerus Schonherr, 1836, Gen. Sp. Curcul. 3 : 632 has Phaenomerus sundewalli Boheman in Schonherr (loc. cit.) as type-species by original designation. The generic name is the basis of the family-group name PHAENOMERINA Faust, 1898, Deutsch. ent. Z.: 76 (PHAENOMERI Csiki, 1936, Col. Cat. (149): 6; PHAENO- MERINA Hustache, 1936, Sborn. ent. odd. Nér. Mus. Praze 14 : 39; PHAENO- MERINAE Marshall, 1954, Rev. Zool. Bot. Afr. 49 : 169). 4. The generic and specific names mentioned are the oldest available names for the taxa in question and are in current use. 5. The question of the formation of family-group names from the generic names Phaenomeris and Phaenomerus was referred to Professor L. W. Grensted, Consulting Classical Adviser to the Commission, who reported : ‘‘ Phaenomerus certainly has stem Phaenomer- and gives [at subfamily level] PHAENOMERINAE. Phaenomeris, ending in the Greek meris, meridos, has as its stem Phaenomerid- and gives PHAENOMERIDINAE. There can be no question that these are the correct forms. Meris, meridos is a very common Greek noun and it gives a form which keeps the two subfamily names reasonably far apart’. Professor Grensted also reported that the gender of Phaenomerus is masculine and that of Phaenomeris feminine. Bull. Zool. Nomencl. Vol. 17, 6-8. April 1960. 256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 6. It is stated in Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 34, para. 50 (1)(a) that if the name of the type-genus of a family-group taxon consists of or ends in a word of Greek or Latin origin, the family-group name is to be formed by replacing the genitive singular termination of that word by the termination appropriate to the category in the family-group ; and (para. 50 (1)(b)) that a family-group name formed in contravention of the above is to be auto- matically corrected. The simple application of this rule to the present case removes the homonymy between the family-group names in question. 7. We therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature :— (1) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Phaenomeris Hope, 1833 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Phaenomeris magnifica Hope, 1833 ; (b) Phaenomerus Schénherr, 1836 (gender : masculine), type-species, by original designation, Phaenomerus sundewalli Boheman in Schonherr, 1836 ; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) magnifica Hope, 1833, as published in the binomen Phaenomeris magnifica (type-species of Phaenomeris Hope, 1833) ; (b) sundewalli Boheman in Schénherr, 1836, as published in the binomen Phaenomerus sundewalli (type-species of Phaenomerus Schénherr, 1836) ; (3) to place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology : (a) PHAENOMERIDIDAE Ohaus, 1913 (correction of PHAENOMERIDAE) (type-genus : Phaenomeris Hope, 1833) ; (b) PHAENOMERINA Faust, 1898 (available for a family-group taxon below subfamily level) (type-genus: Phaenomerus Schonherr, 1836) ; (4) to place the following family-group names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology : (a) PHAENOMERI Csiki, 1936 ; (b) PHAENOMERINA Hustache, 1936 (type-genus in each case Phaeno- merus Schonherr, 1836 ; (c) PHAENOMERIDAE Ohaus, 1913 (type-genus : Phaenomeris Hope, 1833), an incorrect original spelling of PHAENOMERIDIDAE. 19 APR 1960 PURCHASED ee CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) New Applications Report on the generic name Delphax Fabricius, 1798 (Class Insecta, Order Hemi- ptera) with proposals for its validation under the plenary powers (R. V. Melville) Proposed further use of the plenary powers in the case of the generic name Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 (Class Gastropoda) (R. V. Melville) Sev Ly e Request for a Ruling on the date of the generic name Hansenia Melichar Ee Insecta, Order Hemiptera) (R. G. Fennah) Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name Idotea J. C. Fabricius, 1798 (Class Crustacea, Order Isopoda) and matters connected therewith pia E. Heegaard and L. B. Holthuis) ee e Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species for the nominal genus Macropsis Lewis, 1834, in accordance with accustomed use cae ba ate Order Hemiptera) (W. Wagner) - oe Proposal to place the generic names Korynetes Herbst, 1792, and Necrobia Olivier, 1795, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology wanuady Insecta, Order Coleoptera) (H. Boschma and K. W. Dammerman) Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the generic name ep Duméril, 1806 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) (W. Wagner) Proposed addition of the generic name Jasus Parker, 1883, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) (L. B. Holthuis) Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the specific name dentipes Guérin, 1832, as published in the binomen iad (ie ed Leags scab Order Decapoda) (L. B. Holthuis) Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name Parapenaeus S. I. Smith, 1885, and to interpret the nominal Sco Peneus membranaceus Risso, 1816 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) (L. B. Holthuis) .. Ae ~ Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the specific name longicorne Latreille, 1804, as published in the binomen on Heke A oe Order Orthoptera) (D. K. McE. Kevan) Request for a Ruling on whether the generic name Diemictylus Rafinesque, 1820, or the generic name Notophthalmus Rafinesque, 1820, is to be used for the Eastern North American Newt (Class Amphibia) (H. M. Smith) .. Proposal to use the plenary powers to stabilize the names of the North European species belonging to the Tipula oleracea group within the genus Tipula Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) (A. M. Hemmingsen and H. Lemche) Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the oe name en eeaee OLE Miiller, 1776 (Class Echinoidea) (R. V. Melville)... Proposals concerning homonymous family-group names based on the generic name Drepana Schrank, 1802 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), and Drepanis Temminck, 1820 (Class Aves) ; Request for the use of the plenary powers to suppress the eae: name Drepanis wee 1760 ee Amadon and J. Franclemont) Proposed addition of the generic name Archaeopteryx von Meyer, 1861, and the specific name lithographica von Mayer, 1861, as published in the binomen erehateas sotde lithographica to the Official Lists (W. E. Swinton) .. Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the eg name Beyrichia M‘Coy, 1846 (Class sabaiings Order ee. bad C. Sylvester-Bradley and 8. A. Levinson) : : Page 163 170 175 178 197 199 203 205 209 214 220 224 227 SNe oe : S 7 he ‘ he Np se aye? é *, ay ‘ ts i oF pe a ie tage inside back wrapper) Yr “s 7 eG ee Re : See ae ORE i % Poge ye eae Roa e a type-species for the genus eg eS - “1854 (Class Trilo fa i harmony wh yee: Nin = eh enningsmoen) ee tee oe 231 Nee Seis Deny hoteage of Kidhas araneua rm, 1885 (Class Trilobita) a eee eos eee wrk oee eee obs oe ae ; "Pi atin of tin evi an specific names in the fami ceca * a Sec ae ie Be Sa me re tee fee wee oe per Po eee wee 235 Proposed use of the plenary s to validate the generic name Tanytarsus van de: r Wulp, 1874 (Claas Ss a Die} te, “i . Freeman ae 2 ti em mes ae ee meas , wee i as - eee oe 241 pesGiticle 1921 (Phylum okies ajonthe a (A.B. teres) ore : paca wee 244 * 0 designate a n : ram ie ‘eiean, 1 ine 9 (lass oe = a ¥ nee o U pi dalege S in Opinion 522 0 er gk eee hh a ee “actin “Letch, 817 pe Se Be oe aes 250 aioe ' to validate the specio name dramas Brown, tye Set Ft Bary as ry: ress ogra dardanus Ge Insecta, Order Ke ies 5 » : faleetnaicns aoe oe - ane 253 Se cima ees es abe wees 1s specific name dhintinisa Brown, J soa’ 2. Re tai: Ga pmnisliod. ok e binomen Papilio dardanus (Class Insecta, Order anc % it ; . ie ; Lepidoptera) (W. Parkinson Curtis) : eee wee one ore wee one 253 as ee 5 Hope, 188, and Phaenomers Schonere, 886 (Chass Inset, Or Order Coleoptera ; = £5. < 2 ist iD: huis and R. 4 eh nanan eee tee see 255 mae ; sees Dr. J. Weir's: on the intorpetation oie. ene bo, tes ee i ary mee ave op ae ‘1847, a. “ eae: 189; vee st 169 - Comment on the ‘powers suppres the geri mame i agen " Orthesebichiat a Chubb)". 169 eae Comnmant addition to the Official List of the enerio ame >i aaa Ra pe ‘Productuses .. . No species were named and no specimens were figured by King. Two years later King (1846, July : 28) was the first author to refer species to the genus, when he listed spinifera nov., morrisiana nov., subaculeata Murchison, horrescens de Verneuil, productoides Murchison, ? spinulosa J. Sowerby, gerardi nov., etc.”. The first two species were not described until 1848. S. gerardi, a Himalayan fossil ‘“‘ from between Ladakh and Bisahar ” but of which the precise locality, and the horizon within the Permian are unknown, is the only species still referred to Strophalosia which had been first described in 1846—but at a later date (August: 93). P. horrescens, P. sub- aculeatus (type-species of Productella) and P. productoides are not congeneric with the species which are at present assigned to Strophalosia but these are the only species which, under the Rules, are eligible for selection as type-species of the genus. No specimens were figured by King in 1846. 3. Because King had withdrawn his “ Catalogue of the Organic Remains of the Permian Rocks” from publication by the Tyneside Naturalist Field Club, the latter body commissioned R. Howse to prepare a similar catalogue for them. Howse’s “ Catalogue ” was published on the 17th August 1848 and included descriptions of King’s MS. species spiniferus and morrisianus, from the Magnesian Limestone near Sunderland, but assigned to the genus Productus. Two days later King (19th August 1848) published his ‘‘ Catalogue” with descriptions of these species but assigned to his genus Strophalosia. Howse’s use of these specific names was the reverse of that of King, so that Productus spiniferus Howse = Strophalosia morrisiania King, and Productus morrisianus Howse = Strophalosia spinifera King. Later authors have overlooked the fact that Howse’s names have priority over King’s. 4. King (1850:93) in his ‘“‘ Monograph of the Permian Fossils” fully described Strophalosia and figured his species for the first time. He selected Orthis excavata Geinitz, 1842, as the type-species of Strophalosia. This was said to be the same as Strophalosia spinifera King. King suggested (ibid. : 99) that S. excavata (Geinitz) might be identical with Strophalosia goldfussi (Minster, 1839). In this publication and in 1846 (: 28) King consistently spelt his specific name morrisiania as morrisiana (: 97, 99). The spelling morrisiania Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 17, pts. 9-11. September 1960. . | ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 317 has never been used and it seems likely that this was a printer’s error in 1848. The Commission is therefore asked to validate the emendation to morrisiana of the specific name morrisiania, under the plenary powers. 5. Orthis excavata described by Geinitz in 1842 (: 578, pl. 10. figs. 12, 13) from the Permian Zechstein of Altenburg, Pésneck, Germany, was not, however, one of King’s listed species in 1846, and in spite of the fact that it has been accepted as type-species by many subsequent authors, such as Davidson 1853, Dall 1877, Schuchert & Levene 1929, Dunbar & Condra 1932, Prendergast 1943, Dunbar 1955, is not eligible for selection as type. 6. The interpretation of Geinitz’ species Orthis excavata is by no means clear of confusion. Some authors, including Maxwell (1954 : 539), considered it to be identical with Spondylus goldfussi (Miinster, 1839 : 2, pl. 4, figs. 3a, b) from the Zechstein of Ropsen, Gera, Germany, and have therefore selected Strophalosia goldfusst as type-species of Strophalosia. This was probably King’s fault in interpreting these species incorrectly in his 1850 monograph, since the specimens figured by him as Strophalosia goldfussi do not correspond with Miinster’s species but are to be identified as Strophalosia excavata (Geinitz). On the other hand King’s Strophalosia excavata represents a species described earlier by de Koninck (1847 : 262, pl. 15, figs. 5a-e) as Productus lewisianus. 7. King again discussed the species of Strophalosia in 1856 (: 341) and listed them as S. excavata (Geinitz), S. goldfussi (Minster), S. cancrini (de Verneuil), S. horrescens (de Verneuil), S. morrisiana, var. (?) humbletonensis King, var. (?) whitleyensis King, S. parva King, and S. (?) lamellosa (Geinitz). Howse (1857 : 47) also discussed the species of Strophalosia, and stated definitely that S. goldfussi (Minster) is the typical form and is the same as S. excavata (Geinitz). Davidson (1857 : 19, pl. 2) described and figured the British species of Stropha- losia but did little to disentangle these species. 8. Still earlier, confusion had been caused by Murchison and de Verneuil (1845 : 223) who listed Productus morrisianus and P. spiniferus as synonyms of Strophalosia morrisiana King MS. and 8S. spinifera King MS.—the species had not at that time been described. This use of the specific names morrisiana and spinifera preceded their first publication by King by one year. De Verneuil in the second volume of the same publication (1845 : 281), in speaking of Productus horrescens, stated ‘“‘ Il y a dans le magnesian limestone de Humbleton un petit Productus hérissé de tubes longs et serrés, trés voisin de notre espéce et qui sera bientot décrit par M. King, directeur du Muséum de Newcastle, sous le nom de Leptaenalosia morrisiana”’. The species morrisiana had not been described at that time (1845) and the genus Leptaenalosia has here a very inadequate description. The generic name Leptaenalosia was quoted by King (1850 : 93) as a synonym of Strophalosia, and in a footnote he stated ‘‘ The name Leptaenalosia a mere provisional MS. name noticed in the Ist volume of the Geology of Russia, was shortly abandoned for the one now adopted ”’. It has, in fact, never been used as a valid name since its first publication and is a nomen dubium. 9. Meanwhile, Geinitz (1847 : 84) described and figured (1848: 14, pl. 5) the genus Orthothrix with three species Orthis excavata Geinitz, O. lamellosa 318 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Geinitz and O. goldfussi Minster. No type-species was selected for the genus until 1877 when Dall (: 53) selected Orthis excavata, thus making Orthothria seemingly a synonym of Strophalosia. King (1850) included this genus in the synonymy of Strophalosia. 10. Examination of the type-specimens of the species S. excavata and S. goldfussi, both of which have been selected as type-species of Strophalosia, would greatly assist in the straightening out of this question, but so far as can be ascertained these are lost. We are, therefore, obliged to rely on the relevant literature and any specimens available in the Museum collections. 11. Careful study of the species S. goldfussi (Miinster, 1839) and S. excavata (Geinitz, 1842) shows them to be distinct in ornament and to have certain differences in external form. S. goldfussi often has a large cicatrix of attach- ment truncating the umbo of the pedicle valve, and the interarea of the pedicle valve is lower than in S. excavata. The surface of both valves has numerous long vermiform spines recurving towards the umbo or medianly, and often intertwined. In addition there are rare fine straight spines usually near the umbo of the pedicle valve and more conspicuous in young shells. The vermi- form spines are described and figured by Miimster (pl. 4, figs. 3a, b). Similar spines are developed on the pedicle valve of S. lamellosa (Geinitz). 12. Strophalosia excavata (Geinitz) has a minute cicatrix of attachment. The interarea of the pedicle valve is rather elevated and twice the height of that of the brachial valve. The shells are normally pentagonal in outline, tapering posteriorly. Both valves are covered with very numerous fine spine bases. The spines, when preserved are hair-like and nearly straight, and extend anteriorly or laterally. Confusion between S. goldfussi and S. excavata would only occur if no spines were preserved, but the spine-bases of the vermi- form spines are of larger diameter than the spines of S. excavata. Geinitz himself (1861 : 93, pl. 17, figs. 5-12), however, confused his own species with S. lewisiana (de Koninck), specimens of which are figured as S. excavata. 13. S. excavata (Geinitz) is not to be confused with King’s species S. morrisiana (=spinifera Howse), which is finely capillate on both valves, with elongate spine ridges and clasping spines in rows on the ears in the pedicle valve only. This is clearly different from the ornament of S. excavata. Stro- phalosia spinifera King, 1848 and 1850 (= S. morrisiana (Howse, 1848)) was said by King (1850: 98) to be the same as S. excavaia (Geinitz, 1842), and S. lewisiana (de Koninck, 1847). King (1848 : 9) described S. spinifera as having very long curved spines with radiating arrangement and a small very slightly elevated interarea in the pedicle valve and no interarea in the brachial valve. This is distinct from S. excavata (Geinitz) but is identical with Productus lewisianus de Koninck, 1847, from the Permian Magnesian Limestone of Humbleton, Durham. S. spinifera is, therefore, a junior subjective synonym of S. lewisiana (de Koninck). SS. lewistana (de Koninck) has priority over S. spinifera King and 8. morrisiana (Howse), but it is not identical with S. excavata (Geinitz). 14. The interpretation of the genus Strophalosia will depend on the selection of the type-species, and the following species have to be considered :— (a) Strophalosia gerardi King, 1846 (: 93), a Permian species of the en Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 319 Himalayas, figured by King (1850 : 96, pl. 19, figs. 6, 7). The holotype is preserved in the University of Galway and a plaster cast is in the British Museum (Natural History) col..BB.10007. It has two series of spines in the brachial valve, and an interarea in each valve. Related forms occur in the Permian of India and Australia. Although not available for selection as type of Strophalosia because it was a nomen nudum when originally included under the generic name in 1846, the species was described by King only a month later. I therefore request that Strophalosia gerardi be designated type-species of Strophalosia under the plenary powers. (b) Strophalosia excavata (Geinitz, 1842) has one series of fine, almost straight, hair-like spines in each valve. This Species was not included in King’s 1846 list of species, and was confused by King (1850) with S. goldfussi (Minster). It was selected as type-species of Strophalosia by King (1850) and by other subsequent authors. It is the type-species of Orthothrix Geinitz, 1847, by subsequent designation by Dall (1877). (c) Strophalosia spinifera King, 1848 = morrisiana (Howse, 1848) = S. lewisiana (de Koninck, 1847). This was one of King’s originally listed species but was not described until 1848. J. lewisiana (de Koninck) and S. spinifera King have not been designated as type-species of Strophalosia by any author. (d) Productus subaculeatus Murchison (1840 : 255) and P. productoides de Verneuil are not congeneri¢c with species now assigned to Strophalosia. P. subaculeatus is the type-species, by designation by Oehlert, 1887 (: 1279), of the genus Productella Hall, 1867 (: 153, 250). (e) Productus horrescens de Verneuil is generally assigned to the genus Aulosteges von Helmersen, 1847 sens. lat. and is not a strophalosiid. (f) Strophalosia morrisiana King was not described until 1848 and = spinifera (Howse). This species has not previously been designated type-species of Strophalosia. (g) Productus spinulosus J. Sowerby, 1814 (: 155) was only doubtfully referred to Strophalosia, and is the type-species, by original designation, of Krotovia Fredericks, 1928 (: 779, 790). (h) Strophalosia goldfussi (Miinster) was confused by King with S. excavata (Geinitz), and the specimens figured by him (1850) as Miinster’s species represent S. excavata, while his §. excavata should be identified as S. lewisiana. S. goldfussi has been quoted by several authors as the type-species of Strophalosia, but it was not one of King’s originally listed species. 15. Maxwell (1954 : 539) discussed the question of the type-species of Strophalosia and rejected the selection of S. gerardi and proposed S. goldfussi (Miinster), which he erroneously stated to be synonymous with 8. excavata (Geinitz). He rejected the name Orthothrix and proposed the suppression of the specific name excavata (Geinitz). 16. The genus Productella Hall, 1867, is currently considered to be the type- genus of the family propucrELimag, first published in the form PRopucTEL- LINAE as the name for a sub-family by Schuchert & LeVene, 1929 (: 17). This is the only genus discussed in the present application which is the type of a family-group taxon. 320 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17. The proposal which is now submitted is that the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature should :— (1) use its plenary powers :— (a) to suppress the following names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy :— (i) the generic name Leptaenalosia de Verneuil, 1845 ; (ii) the specific name spiniferus Howse, 1848, as published in the binomen Productus spiniferus ; (iii) the specific name morrisianus Howse, 1848, as published in the binomen Productus morrisianus ; (b) to set aside all previous designation of type-species for the genus Strophalosia King, 1844 and, having done so, to designate Strophalosia gerardi King, 1846 to be the type-species of that enus ; (c) to ould the emendation to morrisiana of the specific name morrisiania King, 1848, as published in the binomen Strophalosia morrisiania ; (2) place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Strophalosia King, 1844 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Stro- phalosia gerardi King, 1846 ; (b) Productella Hall, 1867 (gender : feminine), type-species, by subse- quent designation by Oehlert, 1887, Productus subaculeatus Murchison, 1840 ; (c) Krotovia Fredericks, 1928 (gender: feminine), type-species by original designation, Productus spinulosus J. Sowerby, 1814 ; (d) Orthothriz, Geinitz, 1847 (gender: feminine), type-species by subsequent designation by Dall, 1877, Orthis excavata Geinitz, 1842 ; (3) place the generic name Leptaenalosia de Verneuil, 1845, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a)(i) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (4) place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) gerardi King, 1846, as published in the binomen Strophalosia gerardi (type-species of Strophalosia King, 1844) ; (b) swbaculeatus Murchison, 1840, as published in the binomen Productus subaculeatus (type-species of Productella Hall, 1867) ; (c) spinulosus J. Sowerby, 1814, as published in the binomen Pro- ductus spinulosus (type-species of Krotovia Fredericks, 1928) ; (d) excavata Geinitz, 1842, as published in the binomen Orthis excavata (type- -species of Orthothrix Geinitz, 1847) ; (e) morrisiana (emend. of morrisiania) King, 1848, as ohne in the binomen Strophalosia morrisiana ; (f) lewistanus de Koninck, 1847, as published in the binomen Productus lewisianus ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 321 (g) goldfussi Mister, 1839, as published in the binomen Spondylus goldfussi ; (5) place the following specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) spiniferus Murchison & de Verneuil, 1845, as published in the binomen Productus spiniferus (a nomen nudum) ; (b) morrisianus Murchison & de Verneuil, 1845, as published in the binomen Productus morrisianus (a nomen nudum) ; (c) spiniferus Howse, 1848, as published in the binomen Productus spiniferus (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a)(ii) above) ; (d) morrisianus Howse, 1848, as published in the binomen Productus morrisianus (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a)(iii) above) ; (e) morrisiania King, 1848, as published in the binomen Strophalosia morrisiania (Ruled under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above to be an invalid original spelling for MOrTisiana) ; (6) place the family-group name PRODUCTELLIDAE Schuchert & LeVene, 1929 (type-genus: Productella Hall, 1867) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. REFERENCES Dall, W. H., 1877, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 8 Davidson, T., 1853, British Fossil Brachiopoda 1. Introd. Palaeont. Soc. , 1857, Bull. Soc. linn. Norm. 2 Dunbar, C. O., 1955, Medd. Gronl. 110(3) & Condra, G. E., 1932, Nebraska geol. Surv. (2) 5 Fredericks, G. 1828, Bull. Com. géol. Leningrad 46(7) (1919) Geinitz, H. B., 1842, N. Jahrb. Min. geol. Abh. for 1842 ——,, 1847, Bull. Soc. imp. nat. Moscou 20 (2) ——,, 1848, Die Versteinerungen des deutschen Zechsteingebirges , 1861, Dyas oder die Zechsteinformation und das Rothliegende 1 Hall, J., 1867, 20th Rept. N.Y. State Cabinet, Appendix I Howse, R., 1848, Trans. Tyneside Nat. Field Club 1(3) , 1857, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 19 King, W., 1844, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 14 ——,, 1846, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 18 ——,, 1848, Catalogue of Organic Remains of the Permian Rocks of N orthumber- land and Durham ——,, 1850, Mon. Permian Fossils England, Palaeont. Soc. , 1856, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 17 Konincek, L. de, 1847, Mém. Soc. roy. Liege 4 Maxwell, W. G. H., 1954, Strophalosia in the Permian of Queensland, J. Paleont. 28(5) Minster, G., 1839, Beitr. zur Petrefacten-Kunde 1 Murchison, R. I., 1840, Bull. Soc. géol. France 11 322 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature & Verneuil, E. de, 1845, Géologie de la Russie d’ Europe 1 Oehlert, D. P., 1887, Appendice Brachiopodes in P. Fischer, Manuel de Conchylio- logie ... fase. 11. Paris Prendergast, K. L., 1943, J. roy. Soc. W. Australia 28 Schuchert, C., & LeVene, C. M., 1929, Fossilium Catalogus 1(42), Brach. Sowerby, J., 1814, Min. Conch. 1 Verneuil, E. de, 1845, in Murchison, de Verneuil, Keyserling, Géologie de la Russie d’Europe 2(3), Paléont. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE GENERIC NAMES JSCHNOPODA STEPHENS, 1835 (Z.N.(8.) 244) AND BOLITO- CHARA MANNERHEIM, 1831. (Z.N.(S.) 243) (See this volume, pages 69-75) By A. A. Allen (London, England) I very strongly support the proposals put forward by the Rev. C. E. Tottenham. In my opinion it is highly desirable that the three Staphylinid genera in question, Bolitochara Mannerheim, 1831, Ischnopoda Stephens, 1835, and Tachyusa Erichson, 1837, should be stabilized according to current usage, as Mr. Tottenham advocates. By H. Last (Banstead, Surrey) I strongly support the designation of type-species for Ischnopoda and Tachyusa as recommended by Mr. C. E. Tottenham. I strongly support the proposals relating to the genus Bolitochara and fully agree with the reasons given, especially would I like to stress the retention of the genus Zyras Stephens. It is of world-wide distribution and much work is now in progress on the genus and there have been recent publications under this name. It has furthermore, Myrmecophilous and Termitophilous associa- tions, and is therefore cited in literature not confined entirely to Coleoptera. The name change would therefore lead to confusion over a much wider field of research. By C. H. Seevers (Chicago Natural History Museum, Illinois, U.S.A.) I am in complete agreement with the recommendations of Mr. C. E. Tottenham, and strongly support his reasons for the necessity of adopting them. Adoption of the recommendations will prevent the transfer of the name Bolitochara to the genus Zyras Stephens, a change that would result in nothing but confusion. Tottenham’s comments on the desirability of avoiding changes in the nomenclature of the large genus Atheta are especially appropriate. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 323 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO REVISE OPINION 107 SO AS TO STABILIZE THE SPECIFIC NAME MINUTUS J. BUCKMAN, 1845 (HCHINUS) (CLASS ECHINOIDEA). Z.N.(S.)1288 By R. V. Melville (Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The binomen Echinus minutus has had a somewhat chequered nomenclatorial history, and it is the purpose of this report to stabilize the specific name in the only sense in which it has ever entered into general usage. The historical facts of the case are set out below. 2. Opinion 107 (1929, Smiths. Misc. Coll. 73(6) : 9-14) decided that “* pusillus 1776 should not be suppressed by minutus 1774”. The question, which had been put to the Commission by the late Dr. Mortensen, was whether the species long and universally known as Echinocyamus pusillus (O. F. Miiller, 1776) should be termed Echinocyamus minutus (Pallas, 1774), and the case depended upon whether “ Echinus minutus Pallas, 1774” was a zoological name or not. Mortensen, supported by Bather, held that Pallas had never in fact published such a name, but that he had merely used the words ‘‘ Echinos minutos ”’ in the Latin accusative plural as part of a sentence (in a work entirely written in Latin) describing two figures of “minute echini”’. The full dis- cussion can be read in the original Opinion and in the facsimile reprint of Opinions 1-133 (1958, Ops. Decls. Int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 1B). 3. Pallas’s text (1774, Spic. Zool. (10) : 34) may certainly be read either way in the light of existing Rules, as previous contestants in the case have admitted, although it seems certain to me that he had no intention of creating a name in his phrase ‘‘ Hchinos minutos adjeci de quibus hic verbulo”’ (I have thrown in some small echini and here is a little word about them), although his description and figures would suffice to validate a name, had he proposed one. Gmelin, however, (1790, in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat.ed.13, 1 : 3194) listed Hchinus minutus beyond any doubt as a specific name, with a reference to Pallas. Opinion 107, however, while validating pusillus O. F. Miller, 1776 (Spatagus), did not clarify the status of the alleged ‘““Hchinus minutus’ Pallas, 1774, or of the undoubted Hchinus minutus Gmelin, 1790, and it is now proposed to rectify that omission. 4. It is clear that the Commission deliberately refrained from giving a clear ruling on the status of Pallas’s alleged name in the ‘‘ Summary ” of Opinion 107, and that the stabilization of Spatagus pusillus O. F. Miller, 1776, was based partly on a sort of principle of conservation, and partly on “‘ the somewhat uncertain status of minutus’. Had the Commission decided to accept Pallas’s alleged name as an available name, then it would have had to use the plenary powers to stabilize Miiller’s name. In view of the strong opinion of Mortensen, supported by Bather, that Pallas’s name had no existence, an opinion which, both as a student of echinoids and as a member of the Commission’s staff I strongly support, it is strange that the definite step of declaring Pallas’s name to be unavailable was not then taken, and I now suggest that the Commission Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 17, pts. 9-11. September 1960. 324 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature should rule once and for all that the alleged name Echinus minutus Pallas, 1774, is a cheironym. 5. It may be noted at this point that when the Commission at a later stage, and as the result of a separate application from Dr. Mortensen, considered Spatagus pusillus O. F. Miiller, 1776, (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 337 ; 1954, Opinion 207, Ops. Decls. Int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 339-352), no consideration was given to Echinus minutus. 6. I turn now to the consideration of Echinus minutus Gmelin, 1790 (see para. 3 above). This name is certainly an available name, but since it is, as pointed out by Mortensen, and agreed by all workers on echinoids, a junior subjective synonym of Spatagus pusillus O. F. Miiller, 1776, further discussion might seem to be fruitless. It is important, nevertheless, to appreciate that the name is invalid, because that fact removes any objection to the suppression of Gmelin’s name so as to validate a junior homonym. 7. The junior homonym in question is the name of a fossil echinoid which has recently been found to occur more commonly than was supposed in the Lower Lias of England, and to have some value as a stratigraphical and palaeo- ecological index. This species was first named Cidaris minuta by J. Buckman (1845, in Muchison’s Geology of Cheltenham, 2nd ed. : 81) in a list of fossils, without any accompanying data except geological horizon and _ locality. Cidaris minuta J. Buckman, 1845, is therefore a nomen nudum. On p. 95 of the same work, however, the same species is named Echinus minutus with a back reference ‘‘Cidaris—see list, p. 81’ and is fully described and figured. No earlier available name is known for this species, which has been known by the specific name minutus ever since its first establishment. It is so cited by Oppel, 1856, Die Juraformation: 110; T. Wright, 1856, Brit. Ool. Ech. (Palaeont. Soc.) 1 : 230 ; J. Lambert, 1900, Bull. Soc. Sci. Nat. Yonne 1899 : 34 ; Lambert & Thiéry, 1910, Hssai Nomenc. Rais. Ech. : 177; and Mortensen, 1940, Monogr. Ech. 3(1) :176. The most important reference, from the nomenclatorial angle, is Bather, 1909, Res. wiss. Erforsch. Balatonsees 1(1) Palaeont. Anhang : 101, where specimen No. E.8808 in the British Museum (Natural History) London was selected as lectotype. 8. The genus Hodiadema Duncan, 1889, to which this species has been referred for more than fifty years, was described twice by Duncan in the same year. The first occasion was in a paper by E. Wilson and W. D. Crick (Aug. 1889, Geol. Mag. (3) 6 : 339), in which the palaeontological part is stated to be by Wilson. The generic description of Hodiadema is, however, expressly attributed to Duncan, and is nearly word for word the same as that author’s second description in J. linn. Soc., Zool., 23 : 81, published on 31 December 1889. When first described (Aug. 1889), only one species was referred to the genus, namely Hodiadema granulatum Wilson, op. cit. : 339, which is therefore the type-species by monotypy. It is proposed that this generic name, and the name of its type-species, be placed on the appropriate Official Lists, not only because the opportunity is convenient, but because Lambert, op. cit., 1900, having failed to obtain any material of the type-species (which is extremely rare), designated Echinus minutus J. Buckman 1845, as type- species. Although this invalid designation was corrected by Lambert & Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 325 Thiéry in 1910 (op. cit.), it would be as well to forestall the risk of its being followed, by workers to whom the latter work is not available, by the action now proposed. 9. I therefore propose that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should, in revising the ruling given in Opinion 107: (1) use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name minutus Gmelin, 1790, as published in the binomen Echinus minutus, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy ; (2) place the following specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology : (a) minutus Gmelin, 1790, as published in the binomen Echinus minutus, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above ; (b) minutus Pallas, 1774, as alleged to have been published in the binomen Echinus minutus, a cheironym ; (c) minuta J. Buckman, 1845, as published in the binomen Cidaris minuta, a nomen nudum ; (3) place the generic name Hodiadema Duncan, 1889 (gender : neuter), type- species, Hodiadema granulatum Wilson, 1889, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (4) place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) minutus J. Buckman, 1845, as published in the binomen Echinus minutus, validated by the action taken under the plenary powers in (1) above ; (b) granulatum Wilson, 1889, as published in the binomen Hodiadema granulatum (type-species of Hodiadema Duncan, 1889). 326 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature MALLOPHAGAN NAMES OF DE GEER, 1778 ; PROPOSED ADDITION TO OFFICIAL LISTS. Z.N.(S.) 1400 By G. H. E. Hopkins and Theresa Clay British Museum (Natural History), Tring and London Since we find ourselves compelled to ask for recognition of a neotype for almost every nominal species of Mallophaga mentioned in the course of this and other appeals we are making to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, we think it desirable to explain the special circumstances which make this unavoidable. With almost no exceptions, the types of all nominal species of Mallophaga described before the end of the eighteenth century are lost, if they were ever preserved ; many of the names published by Linnaeus in 1758, for instance, were based on drawings published by Redi in 1668, while none of the species described by De Geer in 1778 is represented by specimens in his collection at Stockholm. Further the almost total destruction during the second world war of the Halle Collection, containing the types of very many species described by Nitzsch and his successors, has extended this loss to cover the types of the vast majority of all species described prior to 1880 with the exception of those contained in the relatively small Denny Collection in the British Museum. In a high proportion of instances the nominal species covered by these pre-1880 descriptions are composite, and in no instance is it possible to recognize beyond doubt what species is meant in the absence of a type. It is, therefore, essential to designate neotypes if the names are to be applied with precision. All the neotypes mentioned in this application are in the British Museum (Natural History). 2. De Geer (1778, Mém. Hist. Ins. 7 : 69-81, pl. 4, figs. 5-16) published a description of one genus and descriptions and figures of seven species of Mallophaga. The generic name (Ricinus) has been in use by students of Mallophaga since 1906 and in almost universal use since 1916 ; of the specific names, two are regarded as junior synonyms but the remaining five are all in current use and two of them refer to species of veterinary importance. The question has now been raised, however, whether De Geer’s Mém. Hist. Ins. is an available work, since it has been claimed (see, e.g., Hottes, 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 166-173) that this book is not binominal. We do not wish to discuss this claim here, but we feel that the names given by De Geer to Mallophaga must be dealt with apart from the question of the availability of his work because of a special difficulty about the section of volume 7 in which all the Mallophagan names are contained. In all other portions of the volume the names and descriptions are in such form as (: 50) ‘“‘ Termes (destructor) albidum, capite luteo, antennis filiformis, alterius mazillis longitudine anten- narum ”, where the second word, differentiated by being printed in Roman type and enclosed in brackets, is obviously the specific name. In the section containing the Mallophaga (: 69-81) the second word is not enclosed in brackets nor printed in Roman type, but in each of the seven instances it is in a form which suggests that De Geer intended it for a specific name ; each is based on one or both of the components of the binominal name of the host species, and Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 17, pts. 9-11. September 1960. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 327 is not a descriptive term in the ablative case. Students of the Mallophaga, who have never hitherto doubted the availability of Mém. Hist. Ins. have long assumed that the second word in De Geer’s description of each species is the specific name and that the failure to differentiate it is of the nature of a misprint probably due to the fact that volume 7 was published after De Geer’s death. The names are discussed individually below, but for the sake of clarity we have restored the brackets and differentiating type which we believe to have been omitted accidentally. 3. The type-species of Ricinus De Geer, 1778 (: 69), is, by subsequent designation (Neumann, 1906, Bull. Soc. zool. Fr. 20 : 56) Ricinus fringillae De Geer, 1778. Hermann (1804, Mémoire aptérologique, Strasbourg, : 12) proposed the generic name Nirmus as a nomen novum for Ricinus, explicitly because of the employment of the latter name in botany ; he did not mention any species, but as the name was a nomen novum for Ricinus the included species are those mentioned by De Geer, and Neumann’s selection of Ricinus fringillae De Geer as type-species of Ricinus would automatically make it the type-species of Nirmus Hermann even if Neumann had not explicitly stated this (1906 : 56). 4, Nitzsch (1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3) described (: 296) the genus Liotheum to cover “ Pediculus, Linn., Fabric.—Ricinus, Degeer, Latreille—Nirmus Hermann, de Olfers ” (in each instance clearly only in parte) and erected (: 302) the subgenus Physostomum for three nominal species of which one is a junior objective synonym of Ricinus fringillae De Geer ; this nominal species (Lio- theum (Physostomum) nitidissimum Nitzsch, 1818) is the type-species of Physostomum by subsequent designation (Harrison, 1916, Parasitology 9 : 24). The name Physostomum was used for the genus for many years, but Neumann restored Ricinus in 1906 (Bull. Soc. zool. Fr. 20 : 56) and it is now in universal use ; it is employed in the only two comprehensive lists of the Mallophaga which have been published in the last half-century (Harrison, 1916, Parasitology 9 : 1-156 and Hopkins & Clay, 1952, Check List of the Genera and Species of Mallophaga). It is also employed in an important partial revision of the genus (Balat, 1952, K poznaniu druhov rodu Ricinus De Geer, 1778 (Mallophaga), Biologicky Sbornik 7 : 155-170). 5. Nitzsch also (1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 291) used the name Nirmus for another of his subgenera (belonging to the other suborder of Mallophaga), but though he doubtless intended this to be a restriction of Nirmus Hermann he did not include in it any of the species included by De Geer (and therefore, since it is a nomen novum, by Hermann) and Nirmus Nitzsch, 1818 (type- species, by subsequent designation, by Johnston & Harrison, 1911, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 36 : 326 “‘ Degeeriella discocephalus N.”’) is a junior homonym of Nirmus Hermann, 1804. Neumann (1906, Bull. Soc. zool. Fr. 20 : 60) renamed it Degeeriella. 6. The syntypes of Degeeriella discocephalus (Burmeister, 1838) were in the Halle Collection. Clay (1958, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Ent. T : 168, figs. 35, 51, 119, pl. 9, fig. 1) redescribed the species and designated a neotype which is labelled ‘‘ NrotypE Nirmus discocephalus Burmeister, slide no. 617, Samorin, Czechoslovakia, 9.xii.1952”’. 328 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7. The generic name Liothewm Nitzsch, 1818 is not dealt with in this application because it is more relevant to the application with regard to the name Menopon Nitzsch, 1818 which we are submitting simultaneously. 8. Ricinus (Fringillae) pallide-fuscus, corpore oblongo margine nigro, capite magno: corniculis duobus obtusis flexilibus (De Geer, 1778, Mém. Hist. Ins. 7:71, pl. 4, figs. 5-8) was renamed Liothewm nitidissimum by Nitzsch in 1818 (Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 302); as this latter name is a nomen novum, having no ‘‘ indication ’’ other than the reference to De Geer, the neotype designated for Ricinus fringillae De Geer by Clay & Hopkins (1954, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Ent. 3 : 237, figs. 15-17, pl. 10, fig. 6) is also the neotype of Liothewm nitidissimum Nitzsch. It is labelled Ricinus fringillae De Geer, Neotype, 563, Emberiza citrinella yellow-hammer, Oberfrohna, Saxony, Germany, 13.v.26. 9. Ricinus (Emberizae) pallide-fuscus, abdomine albescente : maculis lateral- ibus fuscis capite magno triangulari (De Geer, 1778, Mem. Hist. Ins. 7 : 74, pl. 4, fig. 9) is from the same species of host (Hmberiza citrinella) as Philopterus c. citrinellae (Schrank, 1776) (Beytrdge zur Naturgeschichte, Leipzig : 116, pl. 5, fig. 7, as a Pediculus) and we consider it to be a subjective synonym of the latter. A neotype of Schrank’s species was designated, described and figured by Clay & Hopkins (1954, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Ent. 3 : 229, figs. 8, 9, pl. 10, fig. 4) and is labelled “‘ Philopterus c. citrinellae (Schrank), Emberiza citrinella Saxony, slide no. 565.” 10. Ricinus (Cornicis), albidus, fasciis dorsalibus transversis fuscis, antennis brevissimis ad apicem capitis is unquestionably a Myrsidea and, in the form Ricinus cornicis De Geer, 1778 (: 76, pl. 4 fig. 11) is (if De Geer’s Mém. Hist. Ins. is an available work) the valid name for the species to which it refers. Harrison (1916, Parasitology 9 : 13) did not make use of the name, wrongly considering it to be a junior primary homonym of Pediculus cornicis Fabricius, 1775, but Hopkins & Clay (1952, Check List of the Genera and Species of Mallo- phaga : 228) brought Myrsidea cornicis (De Geer, 1778) into use to replace M. subaequalis (Haan, 1829) and M. mesoleuca (Nitzsch, 1818), the former a subjective and the latter an objective synonym of M. cornicis (De Geer). A change of name was inevitable in this instance because the fact that M. mesoleuca (Nitzsch, 1818) is not a nomen nudum but a nomen novum for R. cornicis De Geer had been overlooked and the name M. mesoleuca had been thought to date from 1838 and to be junior to M. subaequalis. The neotype designated by Clay & Hopkins (1954, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist), Ent. 3 : 238, fig. 18) for Myrsidea cornicis (De Geer, 1778) is necessarily also the neotype of Myrsidea mesoleuca (Nitzsch, 1818). It is labelled ‘“Nrorypr, Myrsidea cornicis (De Geer), Corvus corone cornix Linn., Sweden, slide no. 16012a.”’ 11. Ricinus (Lari), griseo-albidus, oculis maculisque capitis nigris, pedibus crassioribus (De Geer, 1778, Mém. Hist. Ins. 7 : 77, pl. 4, fig. 12) is undoubtedly a nymph of some member of the genus T'rinoton Nitzsch, 1818, but is stated by De Geer to have been obtained “ sur les Mouettes ” (Larus spp.) on which members of this genus do not occur in nature. It is not determinable to any species without the aid of a neotype, and Clay and Hopkins (1954, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Ent. 3 : 239) sought to place it safely in synonymy by designating for it a neotype which agrees with their neotype of the senior Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 329 name T'rinoton querquedulae (Linn., 1758) (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 :1758). The original type-material of the latter nominal species is also lost, but a neotype was designated by Clay & Hopkins (1950, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Ent. 1 : 244, figs. 27, 28) ; it is labelled “ NEOTYPE, T'rinoton querquedulae (Linn.), Anas c. crecca Linn., Suffolk, England, Sept. 1935, slide no. 4007. Meinertzhagen label.”” The genus T'rinoton Nitzsch, 1818 (Mag. Ent., Germar 3 : 300) is dealt with in an application submitted simultaneously with this. 12. Ricinus (Mergi serrati) albidus, capite flavescente, corpore elongato (De Geer, 1778, Mém. Hist. Ins. 7 : 78, pl. 4, fig. 13) was renamed Pediculus mergr by J. C. Fabricius in 1781 (Spec. Ins. 2 : 480) and Philopterus (Lipeurus) temporalis by Nitzsch in 1818 (Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 292) ; both these names are nomina nova for Ricinus mergiserrati De Geer. Harrison (1916, Parasitology 9 : 138) brought De Geer’s name for the species back into use and this name was used by Hopkins & Clay in their Check List of the Genera and Species of Mallo- phaga (1952: 33). The neotype designated by Clay & Hopkins (1954, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Ent. 3 : 241, figs. 24, 25, pl. 11, fig. 2) for Anaticola mergiserrati (De Geer, 1778) is necessarily also the neotype for Peticulus merri Fabricius and Philopterus temporalis Nitzsch. This neotype is labelled ‘“NeotyPx, Anaticola mergiserrati (De Geer), Mergus serrator Linn., North Vist, Scotland, xi.1949, slide no. 19298.” Meinertzhagen label. 13. The genus Philopterus is dealt with in another application submitted simultaneously with this and Pediculus does not belong to the Mallophaga. The genus to which Ricinus mergiserrati De Geer is now referred is Anaticola Clay, 1936, of which the type-species, by original designation, is Pediculus crassicornis Scopoli, 1763 (Ent. Carniolica : 383). 14. Scopoli’s collections were destroyed in about the year 1776 (see Horn & Kahle, 1936, Ent. Beihefte 3 : 252), but a neotype for Anaticola crassicornis (Scopoli, 1763) has been designated and described by Clay & Hopkins (1951, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Ent. 2 : 19, figs. 23-24). 15. Ricinus (Gallinae) albidus, abdomine ovato, capite semi-orbiculato: posticis setis quatuor longioribus (De Geer, 1778, Mém. Hist. Ins.7 : 79, pl. 4, fig. 15) was brought into use (as “‘ @. gallinae Deg. (syn. G. hologaster N.)”) by Johnston & Harrison (1911, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 36 : 326) and they simultaneously selected it as type-species of Goniocotes Burmeister, 1838, for which no type- species had previously been selected. Harrison (1916, Parasitology 9 : 14) rejected Goniocotes gallinae (De Geer), thinking it to be a primary homonym of Pediculus gallinae Linnaeus, 1758, and called the species Goniocotes hologaster (Nitzsch) ; the latter name (for which Harrison gave an incorrect date and reference) is a nomen novum for R. gallinae De Geer. Hopkins & Clay (1952, Check List of Genera and Species of Mallophaga : 147) restored De Geer’s name and Clay & Hopkins (1954, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist), Ent. 3 : 242, figs. 29, 30) designated a neotype for the species, which is labelled ‘‘ Nrotypr, Gonio- cotes gallinae (De Geer), no. 567, J. Waterston coll., Gallus domesticus Collafirth, N. Mavine, Shetland, Scotland, J. Waterston”, The species is of veterinary importance and it would be most unfortunate if it were to undergo any more nomenclatorial vicissitudes. 330 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 16. Ricinus (Canis), capite angulato flavescente fusco punctato, abdomine ovato albido marginibus serrato, thorace brevissimo (Mém. Hist. Ins. 7 : 81, pl. 4, fig. 16). This species was renamed T'richodectes latus (a nomen novum) by Nitzsch in 1818 (Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 296) and was selected as type- species of T'richodectes by Johnston & Harrison (1911, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 36 : 326). Clay & Hopkins (1954, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Ent. 3 : 244) designated a neotype for this nominal species and the specimen is labelled “ NEotTyPE, T'richodectes canis (De Geer) no. 581, Canis familiaris, Sao Paulo, Brazil, F.L.W.305”; this specimen is also automatically the neotype of Trichodectes latus Nitzsch, 1818. Clay & Hopkins (J.c. : 245) also designated a similar specimen as a neotype for Pediculus canis O. Fabricius, 1780 (Fauna Groenlandiae : 215), with a view to establishing this name firmly as a synonym, as well as a secondary homonym, of T'richodectes canis (De Geer), but in view of the policy (not at that time formulated) that neotypes should not be made for disused nominal species, recognition of the neotype of T'richodectes canis (O. Fabricius) is not sought. The species, which is of veterinary importance, is now universally known as T'richodectes canis (De Geer). 17. Turning to the family-group aspect, the earliest family-group name based on one of the genera dealt with in this appeal is NrrmipEs [Leach, 1815] (type-genus : Nirmus Hermann, 1804), but this has been unanimously rejected by students of the Mallophaga in favour of its junior objective synonym RICINIDAE Neumann, 1890 ; LIOTHEIDAE Burmeister, 1838, is discussed in an application which we are making simultaneously with this and in which we ask for its suppression. GONrIOcoTINI Eichler, 1937, and DEGEERIELLINI Eichler, 1937, are considered by many specialists on the Mallophaga to be inseparable as family-group taxa from PHILOPTERIDAE Burmeister, 1838 (dealt with in an application which we are submitting simultaneously). TRICHODECTIDAE Kellogg, 1896, is universally accepted. 18. We therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature to take the following action :— (1) to rule that, without prejudging the question whether De Geer’s Mém. Hist. Ins. is or is not an available work, the generic name Ricinus and the specific names fringillae, cornicis, mergiserrati, gallinae and canis, all published by him in volume 7 of that work, are to be regarded as available names, in the sense of the Rules of Availability, as from their publication by De Geer in 1778. (2) to use the plenary powers to suppress the family-group name NIRMIDES (Leach, 1815], in Brewster, Edinburgh Encyclopaedia (ed. 1) 9 : 78 (type-genus Nirmus Hermann, 1804) (a senior objective synonym, long disused, of RicrNIDAE Neumann, 1890) for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following generic names : ; (a) Ricinus De Geer, 1778, Mém. Hist. Ins. 7 : 69 (gender : masculine) (type-species, by selection by Neumann, 1906 (Bull. Soc. zool. Fr. 20 : 56): Ricinus fringillae De Geer, 1778, Mém. Hist. Ins. swear Bo Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 331 (b) Degeeriella Neumann, 1906, Bull. Soc. zool. Fr. 20 : 60 (gender : feminine) (type-species by selection by Johnston & Harrison, 1911 (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 36 : 326) : Nirmus discocephalus Burmeister, 1838, Handb. Ent. 2(2) : 430) ; (c) Anaticola Clay, 1936, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1936 : 617 (gender : masculine) (type-species by original designation: Pediculus crassicornis Scopoli, 1763, Entomologia Carniolica : 383) ; (d) Myrsidea Waterston, 1915, Ent. mon. Mag. 51:12 (gender: feminine) (type-species by original designation : Myrsidea victrix Waterston, 1915, Ent. mon. Mag. 51 : 13) ; (e) Goniocotes Burmeister, 1838, Handb. Ent. 2(2) : 431 (gender: masculine) (type-species by subsequent selection (Johnston & Harrison, 1911, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 36 : 326): Ricinus gallinae De Geer, 1778, Mém. Hist. Ins. 7 : 79) ; (f) Trichodectes Nitzsch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 294 (gender : masculine (type-species by subsequent selection (Johnston & Harrison, 1911, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 36 : 326): Ricinus canis De Geer, 1778) ; (4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names : (a) fringillae De Geer, 1778, Mém. Hist. Ins. 7 : 71, as published in the combination Ricinus fringillae and as defined by the neotype designated by Clay & Hopkins, 1954, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Ent.3 : 237 (specificname of type-species of Ricinus De Geer, 1778; (b) cornicis De Geer, 1778, Mém. Hist. Ins. 7 : 76, as published in the combination Ricinus cornicis and as defined by the neotype designated by Clay & Hopkins, 1954, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Ent. 3 : 239 ; (c) mergiserrati De Geer, 1778, Mém. Hist. Ins. 7 : 78, as published in the combination Ricinus mergiserrati and as defined by the neotype designated by Clay & Hopkins, 1954, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Ent. 3 : 241; (d) gallinae De Geer, 1778, Mém. Hist. Ins. 7 : 79, as published in the combination Ricinus gallinae and as defined by the neotype designated by Clay & Hopkins, 1954, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Ent. 3 : 242 (specific name of type-species of Goniocotes Burmeister, 1838) ; (e) canis De Geer, 1778, Mém. Hist. Ins. 7 : 81, as published in the combination Ricinus canis and as defined by the neotype designated by Clay & Hopkins, 1954, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Ent. 3 : 244 (specific name of type-species of T'richodectes Nitzsch, 1818) ; (f) discocephalus Burmeister, 1838, Handb. Ent. 2(2) : 430, as published in the combination Nirmus discocephalus and as defined by the neotype designated by Clay, 1958, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Ent. 7:168 (specific name of type-species of Degeeriella Neumann, 1906) ; 332 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (g) crassicornis Scopoli, 1763, Entomologia carniolica : 383, as published in the combination Pediculus crassicornis and as defined by the neotype designated by Clay & Hopkins, 1951, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Ent. 2 : 19 (specific name of type-species of Anaticola Clay, 1936) ; (h) citrinellae Schrank, 1776, Beytrdge zur Naturgeschichte, Leipzig : 116, pl. 5, fig. 7, as published in the combination Pediculus citrinellae and as defined by the neotype designated by Clay & Hopkins, 1954, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Ent. 3 3 229 ; (i) querquedulae Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1:612, as published in the combination Pediculus querquedulae, and as defined by the neotype designated by Clay & Hopkins, 1950, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Ent. 1 : 244 ; (5) to place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology : (a) RIcINIDAE Neumann, 1890, Bull. Soc. Hist. nat. Toulouse 24 : 55 (type-genus : Ricinus De Geer, 1778) ; (b) TRICHODECTIDAE Kellogg, 1896, Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. (2) 6 : 63 (type-genus : T'richodectes Nitzsch, 1818) ; (c) contocorini Eichler, 1937, S.B. Ges. naturf. Fr. Berl. 1937 : 108 (type-genus : Goniocotes Burmeister, 1838) (for use by those zoologists who consider that Goniocotes Burmeister, 1838 and Philopterus Nitzsch, 1818 belong to different taxa of the family- group) ; (d) DEGEERIELLINI Eichler, 1937, in Niethammer, Handb. dtsch. Vogelkunde 1 : 360 (type-genus: Degeeriella Neumann, 1906) (for use by those zoologists who consider that Degeeriella Neumann, 1906 and Philopterus Nitzsch, 1818, belong to different taxa of the family-group) ; (6) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Nirmus Hermann, 1804, Mémoire aptérologique:12 (a junior objective synonym of Ricinus De Geer, 1778) ; (b) Nirmus Nitzsch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 291 (a junior homonym of Nirmus Hermann, 1804) ; (c) Physostomum Nitzsch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 302 (a junior objective synonym of Ricinus De Geer, 1778) ; (7) to place the following specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology : (a) nitidissimum, Liotheum, Nitasch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 302 (a junior objective synonym of fringillae, Ricinus, De Geer, 1778) ; ‘ (b) mesoleucum, Liotheum, Nitzsch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 300 (a junior objective synonym of cornicis, Ricinus, De Geer, 1778) ; (c) mergi, Pediculus, J. C. Fabricius, 1781, Spec. Ins. 2 : 480 (a junior objective synonym of mergiserrati, Ricinus, De Geer, 1778) ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 333 (d) temporalis, Philopterus, Nitzsch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 292 (a junior objective synonym of mergiserrati, Ricinus, De Geer, 1778) ; (e) hologaster, Philopterus, Nitzsch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 294 (a junior objective synonym of gallinae, Ricinus, De Geer, 1778) ; (f) latus, Trichodectes, Nitzsch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 296 (a junior objective synonym of canis, Ricinus, De Geer, 1778) ; (8) to place the following name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology : NIRMIDES [Leach, 1815], in Brewster, Edinburgh Encyclopaedia (ed. 1) 9 : 78 (suppressed under the plenary powers in (2) above). 334 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature MENOPON NITZSCH, 1818 (INSECTA, MALLOPHAGA) AND RELATED NAMES ; APPLICATION FOR ADDITION TO OFFICIAL LISTS. Z.N.(S.) 1399 By G. H. E. Hopkins and Theresa Clay British Museum (Natural History), Tring and London An application which we are making to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature simultaneously with this one entails a proposal that the family-name TRINOTONIDAE Kichler, 1941 (Arch. Naturgesch. (N.F.) 10 : 382) should be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, but it is undesirable that this should be done without consideration of the much senior names MENOPONIDAE Mjéberg, 1910 (Ark. Zool. 6(13) : 26) and LIOTHEIDAE Burmeister, 1838 (Handb. Ent. 2(2) : 486), particularly because many authors consider that these three names all refer to the same family. 2. The type-genus of MENOPONIDAE is Menopon Nitzsch, 1818 (Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 299, as a subgenus of Liotheum Nitzsch, 1818, l.c. : 296), and the type-species of Menopon is, by subsequent designation (Johnston & Harrison, 1911, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 36 : 327) “ M. gallinae L. (syns. : M. trigono- cephalum Olfers, M. pallidum N.)”. Of the names quoted by Johnston & Harrison, Pediculus gallinae Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 613) was not mentioned by Nitzsch under that authorship or reference, but his Lnotheum (Menopon) pallidum (I.c. : 299) has no description and no indication other than references to ‘‘ Pulex Capi Red. exp. XVII” and “ Ped. gallinae Panz. Faun. Ins. Germ. 51. f. 21”. The former reference is a slip, since the plate in the Latin edition of Redi’s work (1671, Experimenta circa Generationem Insectorum) which depicts an insect called Pulex capi is XVI, but there is nothing to suggest that the insect shown is different from Pediculus gallinae as depicted by Panzer (1793, Fauna insectorum Germanicae initia Heft 51:21). Panzer, however, attributed the name gallinae to Fabricius (1775, Systema Entomologiae : 809) and the latter author not only referred it to Linnaeus but his description is quoted from Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. X) 1: 613). Liotheum (Menopon) pallidum Nitzsch, 1818, therefore includes the species indicated by the un- available (because pre-1758) name Pulex capi Redi and by Pediculus gallinae Linnaeus, 1758. We hereby restrict Liothewm pallidum Nitzsch, 1818 to his second reference, thus making the name an objective synonym of Menopon gallinae (Linnaeus, 1758). The citation by Johnston & Harrison of this latter as the type-species of Menopon is then valid under Declaration 21. 3. The type-material of Menopon gallinae (Linnaeus) is lost and the species is not recognizable with certainty from the description. Clay & Hopkins (1950, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Ent. 1 : 262) designated, described and figured as neotype of this nominal species a specimen of the species to which | the name is usually applied. This specimen is in the British Museum (Natural History) and is labelled “ NEoTyPE 3 Menopon gallinae (Linn.), Brit. Mus. 1951.171, Meinertzhagen, Gallus domesticus, Ross-shire, Scotland, Jan. 1935, ——— eee Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 17, pts. 9-11. September 1960. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 335 2490’. Clay & Hopkins also endeavoured (I.c.) to put the synonymy on a firm basis by designating a similar specimen as neotype of Menopon pallidum (Nitzsch), but the restriction, made above, has resulted in the two names becoming objective synonyms, so the neotype of one nominal species is auto- matically also neotype of the other. 4, The type-genus of the family-group taxon LIOTHEIDAE Burmeister, 1838, is Liotheum Nitzsch, 1818 (Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 296). No nominal species were included directly under this name by Nitzsch, but he divided the genus into subgenera (all now regarded as genera) and listed under these latter headings a number of specific names of which most are nomina nuda whereas others have indications in the form of references to earlier descriptions and are available, though very few are valid. This has caused immense trouble and confusion, because nearly all subsequent authors took one of two erroneous views—either that all the specific names published by Nitzsch in his 1818 paper were valid or that all of them were nomina nuda—and this has resulted in a number of invalid type-selections for his genera. In particular, Neumann (1906, Bull. Soc. zool. Fr. 20 : 58) purported to select “‘ Liotheum (Colpocephalum) zebra Nitzsch”’ as type-species of Liothewm, but his action was nugatory because zebra was a nomen nudum in 1818 (the species to which it was presumably intended to refer was first described by Burmeister in 1838, Handb. Ent. 2(2) : 438) while other specific names referred to Liotheum by Nitzsch in 1818 were available. Although a few attempts have been made to use the name Liotheum as a senior synonym of Colpocephalum Nitzsch, 1818 (of which Colpocephalum zebra Burmeister, 1838 is the type-species) Liotheum has never been used in any important publication and is now disused ; it would not be possible to select any available nominal species as its type without displacing either Menopon or some other equally well-known name which is in current use. By Opinion 342, Colpocephalum Nitzsch, 1818, was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as No. 850, and Colpocephalum zebra Burmeister, 1838 on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as No. 460. Grave confusion would result, without any compensating advantage, from the revival of the disused names Liotheum Nitzsch, 1818 and LIOTHEIDAE Burmeister, 1838, but no inconvenience would result from their suppression. 5. Two erroneous subsequent spellings of Menopon require to be dealt with, of which one (Menopum Neumann, 1906, Bull. Soc. zool. Fr. 20 : 59) is entirely uncomplicated, while the other is troublesome. Harrison (1916, Parasitology 9 : 22) has an entry ‘“‘ Maenopon Packard, 6th Ann. Rept. U.S. Geol. Survey, 1872, p. 731, =Menopon Nitzsch”’. Examination of the work referred to (which was published in 1873) shows, however, that neither on p. 731 nor anywhere else in the paper does Packard spell the name Menopon other than correctly, while we have been unable to find the alleged misspelling in any of the numerous works published by Packard and others at about that period which we have consulted, and it is not included either in Neave’s Nomenclator Zoologicus or in Sherborn’s Index Animalium. 6. We therefore request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Liotheum 336 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Nitzsch, 1818 (Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 296) for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following generic name : Menopon Nitzsch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 299 (gender : neuter) (type-species, by subsequent designation by Johnston & Harrison (1911, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W.36 : 327) Pediculus gallinae Linnaeus, 1758) ; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following specific name : gallinae Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 613, as published in the binomen Pediculus gallinae and as defined by the neotype described and figured by Clay & Hopkins, 1950 (Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Ent. 1 : 262, fig. 56) (specific name of type-species of Menopon Nitzsch, 1818 ; (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following name : MENOPONIDAE Mjoberg, 1910, Ark. Zool. 6(13) : 26 (type-genus Menopon Nitzsch, 1818) (for use by those zoologists who consider that Menopon Nitzsch, 1818, T'rinoton Nitzsch, 1818, and Hureum Nitsch, 1818 all belong to the same family) ; (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following generic names : (a) Liotheum Nitzsch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 296 (suppressed under the plenary powers for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy) ; (b) Menopum Neumann, 1906, Bull. Soc. zool. Fr. 20 : 59 (an erron- eous subsequent spelling for Menopon Nitzsch, 1818) ; (c) Maenopon Packard, 1873, Rep. U.S. geol. Surv. 6 : 731 (an alleged, but non-existent name, Packard having used the spelling Menopon in the work referred to) ; (d) Maenopon Harrison, 1916, Parasitology 9 : 22 (an erroneous subsequent spelling for Menopon Nitzsch, 1818); (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the following name : LIOTHEIDAE Burmeister, 1838, Handb. Ent. 2(2) : 436 (invalid because the name of its type-genus : Liotheum Nitzsch, 1818, is suppressed under the Plenary Powers in (1) above ; (7) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the following name : pallidum Nitzsch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 299, as published in the binomen Liotheum pallidum (a junior objective synonym of Pediculus gallinae Linnaeus, 1758). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 337 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE A NEOTYPE FOR PEDICULUS DENTATUS SCOPOLI, 1763 (INSECTA, MALLOPHAGA). Z.N.(S.) 1394 By G. H. E. Hopkins and Theresa Clay (British Museum (Natural History), Tring and London) Scopoli (1763, Entomologia Carniolica : 383) described under the name Pediculus dentatus a species of Mallophaga occurring on Anas. Several genera of Mallophaga occur on Anas, of which Anatoecus Cummings, 1916 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1916 : 653) and T'rinoton Nitzsch, 1818 (Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 300) are relevant to the present proposal. Scopoli’s collections were destroyed in about 1776 (see Horn & Kahle, 1936, Ent. Beihefte 3 : 252) and none of his descriptions is adequate for the identification of the species in the absence of a type. 2. The type-species of Anatoecus Cummings, 1916, is (by original designation) “Anatoecus icterodes Nitzsch ”’ (i.e., Philopterus (Docophorus) icterodes Nitzsch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 290) and the genus belongs to the suborder Ischnocera. Nitzsch gave no description of icterodes, but there is an indication in the form of a reference to “ Degeer VII. t.4.f£.14” (ie., De Geer, 1778, Mém. Hist. Ins. 7: pl. 4, fig. 14, which depicts a female Anatoecus which De Geer did not name). The holotype of icterodes is, therefore, the specimen from which De Geer’s figure was drawn ; not only is this specimen lost, but it would be almost useless even if it were preserved, since the figure represents a female and the species of Anatoecus found on ducks are not separable in this sex. Cummings (1916, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1916 : 658) separated duck- infesting species of Anatoecus into two groups, distinguished by the presence in the male genitalia of one (and absence in the other) of a structure which he called the effractor, and applied the name icterodes Nitzsch to the one in which the effractor is absent. Clay & Hopkins (1960, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Ent. 9 : 39) designated, described and figured a male neotype for Philo- pterus (Docophorus) icterodes Nitzsch, 1818, which would fix the name in the sense in which Cummings used it. This neotype is in the British Museum (Natural History) and is labelled ““Anatoecus icterodes (Nitzsch, 1818), NEOTYPE, Mergus serrator, 8. Uist, —.ix.1953, Meinertzhagen no. 20221a, B.M. 1953, 658 ”’. 3. The type-species of Trinoton Nitzsch, 1818 (Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 300, as a subgenus of Liotheum) is, by monotypy, Liotheum (T'rinoton) conspurcatum Nitzsch, 1818 (J. c. : 300), a nomen novum for Pediculus anseris Sulzer, 1776, nec Linnaeus, 1758, and a subjective synonym of T'rinoton anserinum (Fabricius, 1805, Syst. Antliatorum : 345). In contrast to Anatoecus, which belongs to the Ischnocera, Trinoton belongs to the suborder Amblycera. The type- material of Liotheum conspurcatum Nitzsch is lost, but that of Pediculus anserinus Fabricius is preserved in Copenhagen. 4. The type-species of Philopterus Nitzsch, 1818 (Mag. Ent., (Germar) 3 : 288) is, by subsequent designation (Neumann, 1906, Bull. Soc. zool. Fr. 20 : 58), Pediculus ocellatus Scopoli, 1763, which Neumann erroneously attributed to Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 17, pts. 9-11. September 1960. 338 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Nitzsch, and the type-species of Docophorus Nitzsch, 1818 (J.c. : 289) is, by subsequent designation (Clay, 1938, Hntomologist 71 : 207) also Pediculus ocellatus Scopoli, so the two generic names are objective synonyms. As noted above, Scopoli’s collections are lost and his descriptions are inadequate ; moreover, in this instance, his host-records indicate that his type-material almost certainly included at least two species. For these reasons Clay & Hopkins (1951, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Ent. 2:8) designated, described and figured a neotype for Pediculus ocellatus Scopoli, 1763 (Entomologia Carniolica : 382) which would fix the name in harmony with current usage. This neotype is in the British Museum (Natural History) and is labelled : “ NEOTYPE, Philopterus ocellatus Scopoli, Corvus corone sardonius, Yugoslavia, no. 484”. 5. The name dentatus Scopoli was placed by Denny (1842, Monographia Anoplurorum Britanniae : 102) as a synonym of Docophorus (now Anatoecus) icterodes Nitzsch, though he qualified this synonymy by the addition of a question-mark which was removed by Giebel in 1874 (Insecta epizoa: 115). Until 1916 it was usual to apply the name icterodes to any species resembling that of which Giebel (1874, Insecta epizoa : pl. 10, fig. 8) had published Nitzsch’s drawing, and to place dentatus Scopoli as a synonym in spite of the fact that it is much the older name. In 1916, however, Harrison (Parasitology 9 : 13, 93) reversed this arrangement, placing icterodes as a synonym of dentatus, which he listed as the valid name for all duck-infesting nominal species of what is now the genus Anatoecus, all of which he considered to be synonymous. Almost simultaneously Cummings (1916, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1916 : 658) erected the genus Anatoecus and showed that it contains two groups of species characterized by the presence or absence of the effractor, as mentioned above. After 1916 the name dentatus was in general use for a duck-infesting species of Anatoecus, but it was usually impossible to tell whether any given author was applying it to the species with an effractor or the one without ; probably most authors had both. Thus the name has been applied to one or more species of Anatoecus for about 100 years (until 1916 only as a synonym) though the specific name icterodes Nitzsch was also sometimes used. Clay & Hopkins (1951, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Ent. 2:17), finding that both Anas platyrhynchos Linn. (the host from which Pediculus dentatus Scopoli was probably obtained) and Mergus serrator Linn. (the host of Philopterus icterodes Nitzsch) are infested by an Anatoecus of each group and that Cummings had used the latter name for the species without an effractor, decided that the best solution of the muddle was to fix the name dentatus Scopoli on the species in which this structure is present. They therefore designated and figured a neotype which fixed the name in this sense and which has been accepted by all subsequent authors until now. The neotype is in the British Museum (Natural History) and is labelled “ NEOTYPE, Anatoecus dentatus (Scopoli), Brit. Mus. 1951, 171, Meinertz- hagen, Anas. p. platyrhynchos, N.E. Poland, Aug. 1945, 4176” 6. Dr. S. von Kéler has now suggested to us, however (in litt. ) that certain points in Scopoli’s description are inconsistent with the reference of Pediculus dentatus to Anatoecus and indicate that Scopoli’s insect belonged to the genus Trinoton Nitzsch, 1818. On re-examining Scopoli’s description we are forced Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 339 to agree that Dr. von Kéler is right and that Scopoli’s dentatus probably belonged to the genus Z'rinoton, to which no subsequent author has referred the insect. 7. Both the insect to which the specific name dentatus was apparently applied by Scopoli and the composite to which all subsequent authors have applied the name are of some veterinary importance, since they parasitize domestic ducks. The confusion which would arise if the name were to be transferred, after over a century, from a member of one of the two suborders of Mallophaga to a species belonging to the other suborder is so obvious that we considered asking the Commission to suppress Scopoli’s name, but there are serious objections to this course. Not only has the name Anatoecus dentatus (Scopoli) now been accepted for some years as the valid name for the duck- infesting species of Anatoecus in which the male possesses an effractor, but it would be almost impossible to ascertain what the valid name of the species is if dentatus cannot be used for it. Of the five next senior nominal species of duck-infesting Anatoecus, the type of the first (Anatoecus icterodes (Nitzsch, 1818)) should be in De Geer’s collection at Stockholm but is not there, and the name is in use for the species without an effractor, while the types of the other four were in the Halle collection of Mallophaga, which was almost totally destroyed during the second World War, and are not in the small portion of the collection which survived. In none of the instances is it possible to decide from the description to which species of Anatoecus a given name refers. 8. Anatoecus Cummings is referred to the family PHILOPTERIDAE Burmeister, 1838, of which DocopHORIDAE Mjéberg, 1910isan objective synonym. T'rinoton Nitzsch is the type-genus of rRINOTONIDAE Eichler, 1941, which many specialists consider inseparable from MENOPONIDAE Mjoberg, 1910; the latter name, together with LIOTHEIDAE Burmeister, 1838, is dealt with in an application made simultaneously with this one. Pediculus Linnaeus, 1758, does not belong to the Mallophaga. 9. In order to avoid the confusion which would result from alteration of the accepted application of the specific name dentatus, we ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its plenary powers to direct that, notwithstanding the fact that certain points in the original description of Pediculus dentatus Scopoli, 1763 are not consistent with the neotype designated by Clay & Hopkins (1951, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist), Ent. 2 : 17, figs. 21-22, pl. 1, fig. 5), the species so named by Scopoli is to be interpreted by reference to that neotype ; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following generic names : (a) Anatoecus Cummings, 1916, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1916 : 653 (gender: masculine) (type-species, by original designation : Philopterus icterodes Nitzsch, 1818) ; (b) Trinoton Nitzsch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 300 (gender : neuter) (type-species, by monotypy, Liotheum (Trinoton) conspurcatum Nitzsch, 1818 (Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 300) ; (c) Philopterus Nitzsch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 288 (gender : 340 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature masculine) (type-species, by subsequent selection by Neumann, 1906, (Bull. Soc. zool. Fr. 20 : 58) : Pediculus ocellatus Scopoli, 1763) ; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following specific names : (a) dentatus Scopoli, 1763, Entomologia Carniolica : 383 (as published in the binomen Pediculus dentatus), as defined under the plenary powers in (1) above by the neotype designated by Clay & Hopkins, 1951 (Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Ent. 2:17, figs. 21-22, pl. 1, fig. 5) ; (b) zcterodes Nitzsch, 1818, Ent. Mag. (Germar) 3 : 290 (as published in the binomen Philopterus icterodes), as defined by the neotype designated by Clay & Hopkins, 1960 (Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Ent. 9 : 37, figs. 59-61, pl. 2, fig. 3) (specific name of type-species of Anatoecus Cummings, 1916); (c) anserinus J. C. Fabricius, 1805, Syst. Antliatorum : 345 (as published in the binomen Pediculus anserinus) (the oldest available name for the type-species of T'rinoton Nitzsch, 1818) ; (d) ocellatus Scopoli, 1763, Entomologia Carniolica : 382 (as published in the binomen Pediculus ocellatus), as defined by the neotype designated by Clay & Hopkins, 1951, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist), Ent. 2:8, figs. 8, 9, 11, pl. 1, fig. 2) (type- Gere of Philopterus Nike 1818) ; (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names : (a) Trinotum Burmeister, 1838, Handb. Ent. 2(2) : 440 (erroneous subsequent spelling for Trinoton Nitzsch, 1818) ; (b) Trinotion Perry, 1876, Proc. lit. phil. Soc. Liverpool 30 : lxxxi (erroneous subsequent spelling for 7'’rinoton Nitzsch, 1818) ; (c) Docophorus Nitzsch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 289 (a junior objective synonym of Philopterus Nitzsch, 1818) ; (5) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following names : (a) PHILOPTERIDAE Burmeister, 1838, Handb. Ent. 2(2) : 422 (type- genus Philopterus Nitzsch, 1818) ; (b) TRINOTONIDAE Eichler, 1941, Arch. Naturgesch. (N.F.) 10 : 382 (type-genus: T'rinoton Nitzsch, 1818) (for use by those zoologists who consider that Menopon Nitzsch, 1818 and T'rinoton Nitzsch, 1818, belong to different family-group taxa) ; (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the following name : (a) DOCOPHORIDAE Mjéberg, 1910, Ark. Zool. 6(13) : 108 (type- genus : Docophorus Nitzsch, 1818 (a junior objective synonym of PHILOPTERIDAE Burmeister, 1838). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 341 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE THE NOMINAL SPECIES BUCCINUM AUSTRALE GMELIN, 1791, AS TYPE-SPECIES OF THE NOMINAL GENUS PHASIANELLA LAMARCK, 1804 (CLASS GASTROPODA). Z.N.(S.) 1433 By L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London) The well-known gastropod genus Phasianella was founded by J. B. de Lamarck in 1804 (Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris, 4 : 295), in one of a series of memoirs describing the Eocene shells of the neighbourhood of Paris. Lamarck began the observations which followed his formal Latin diagnosis of the genus as follows :—“ J’ai donné a ce genre le nom de phasianelle, d’aprés celui d’une coquille qui m’a fourni l’occasion de l’établir, et qui est connue sous le nom de faisan (phasianus).” After a few remarks on this Recent marine shell and a promise to describe it in the same periodical when illustrations were finished, but without assigning any specific name to it, Lamarck proceeded to describe and figure two Eocene species, Phasianella turbinoides and P. semi- striata. 2. The following remarks on the type-species of Phasianella have been made in a recent work by W. P. Woodring (1957, U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 306A : 65) :—‘‘ Despite Lamarck’s clear intention and although there is no doubt about the identification of the shell he mentioned and partly described, he cited no references that could be used in fixing its Latin name. Therefore the view that faisan (=Buccinum australe Gmelin) is the type by original designation (Woodring, 1928) ishardly admissible. The deficiency in Lamarck’s treatment was rectified within the next year by Roissy (1805 or 1806 [Hist. nat. Moll. 5] : 330) when he wrote “‘ Le type de ce nouveau genre, que l’on doit encore 4 M. de Lamarck, est une jolie coquille appelée faisan...”. He stated that this species is from New Holland and on the next page described it as Phasianella variegata, citing Buccinum tritonis Chemnitz in synonymy. This is an unequivocal type-designation and it is irrelevant that Lamarck used only a vernacular name for the type-species. The type of Phasianella therefore is P. variegata Roissy (= Buccinum australe Gmelin). Roissy’s action fortun- ately saves the traditional usage of Phasianella.”’ 3. Mr. Robert Robertson, who in a recent review of Western Atlantic PHASIANELLIDAE (1958, Johnsonia, Cambridge, Mass. 3 : 255) has accepted Woodring’s views, has further maintained (in litt.) that justification for accepting a species named only in the vernacular as an originally included nominal species available for subsequent designation as type-species is found in a decision (based on Opinion 35) made at the Paris Congress in 1948, that ‘‘ where, prior to lst January, 1931, a genus was established without a designated or indicated type-species, any of the species originally included in the genus is eligible for subsequent selection by the same or another author as the type- species of the genus, irrespective of whether or not that species was cited under Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 17, pts. 9-11. September 1960. 342 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature a binominal name at the time of the original publication of the generic name ” (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 156). 4. Two comments may be made on the views presented in the foregoing paragraphs. First, the ruling given in Opinion 35 related to “ binary but not binominal ”’ authors and made no mention of vernacular names. It can scarcely be claimed that “‘faisan”’ satisfies even the requirements for a “ binary ” name. Secondly, vernacular names have, under the Rules, no existence in zoological nomenclature, so that no such name can be held to designate a nominal species in a valid way. The status of Phasianella under a strict interpretation of the Rules is clear : the only species eligible for designa- tion as type-species are those cited with available names in the original establishment of the genus, namely, the Eocene fossil species Phasianella turbinoides Lamarck, 1804 and P. semistriata Lamarck, 1804. It may be added that, with very few exceptions, possibly one only, all authors subse- quent to Roissy, from J. G. Children (1823) to W. Wenz (1938), have cited Buccinum australe Gmelin or a synonym as type-species of Phasianella. The one known exception is G. F. Harris, who in 1897 (Catalogue Tert. Moll. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Austr. Tert. Moll. : 275) cited Phasianella turbinoides as type. This is the first valid type-designation known for the genus ; the species is not now, however, referred to Phasianella, but is the type-species, by original designation, of Phasianochilus Cossmann, 1918, Essais Paléoconch. comp. (11) 164. Phasianella semistriata Lamarck, 1804, is also currently referred to this genus (generally treated as of subgeneric rank). 5. The nominal species Phasianella variegata Roissy, 1805, was thus not eligible for designation by Roissy himself as type-species of Phasianella (para- graph 2 above), since it cannot be regarded as one of the species originally included in the genus by Lamarck in 1804. This species was based on Roissy’s description and on the following citation in synonymy :—Chemnitz, 1786, Conchyl.-Cab.(1) 9(2) : 38-40, pl. 120, figs. 1033-1034. It has always been regarded as a synonym of Buccinum australe Gmelin, based on the same figures of Chemnitz and on a figure of Favannes, 1784, Cat. syst. rais. magn. Cab. [Comte de la Tour d’ Auvergne] : 11, pl. 1, fig. 46, and Gmelin’s name is the valid name for the species. I therefore select the original of Chemnitz’s figures as the lectotype both of Buccinwm australe Gmelin, 1791, and of Phasianella variegata Roissy, 1805, thereby rendering the latter a junior objective synonym of Buccinum australe Gmelin, 1791, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) : 3490, and I ask the Commission to use its plenary powers to designate Buccinum australe Gmelin as the type-species of Phasianella Lamarck, 1804. 6. The nominal genus Phasianella is the type-genus of the family-group unit first named by Swainson (1840, Treatise Malac. : 354) as PHASIANELLINAE, and that name (currently used to denote the family PHASIANELLIDAE) should be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 7. I therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature :— (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of a type-species for the nominal genus Phasianella Lamarck, 1804, prior to the Ruling now asked for and, having done so, to designate the nominal species ee eer eee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 343 Buccinum australe Gmelin, 1791, as the type-species of that nominal genus ; (2) to place the generic name Phasianella Lamarck, 1804 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Buccinum australe Gmelin, 1791, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name australe Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Buccinum australe (type-species, by designation under the Plenary Powers in (1) above, of Phasianella Lamarck, 1804), on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the family-group name PHASIANELLINAE Swainson, 1840 (type- genus Phasianella Lamarck, 1804), on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES FOR THE GENUS TAN YTARSUS VAN DER WULP, 1874. Z.N.(S.) 1245. By W. M. Beck (Florida State Board of Health, Jacksonville, Florida, U.S.A.) Reference is made to a recent separate of a proposal by Dr. Paul Freeman relative to the use of the plenary power of the International Commission to validate the familiar usage of the generic name Tanytarsus van der Wulp, 1874. I wish to report that I am in complete favor of Dr. Freeman’s proposal. In my opinion, any such decision by the International Commission could only serve to straighten out the horrible taxonomic confusion which now exists in the family Chironomidae. By K. Strenzke (Max-Planck-Institut fiir Meeresbiologie, Wilhelmshaven, Germany) Ich Schliesse mich dem von Herrn Dr. P. Freeman unter Punkt 10 (1-4) formulierten Antrag mit der unter Punkt—dieses Antrags angefiihrten Begriindung voll inhaltlich an. 344 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE NAME AEDIPODA PELLARINI LE GUILLOU, 1841 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER ORTHOPTERA, AS A NOMEN DUBIUM. Z.N.(S.) 1436 By K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Canberra, Australia) Le Guillou (1841, Rev. Zool. 4: 295) has described a grasshopper, said to have been collected in Northern Australia, under the name Aedipoda pellarini. The description comprises three lines and there are no figures. Nothing is known of any type material, at the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris or elsewhere ; such material has apparently long ceased to exist. 2. Kirby (1910, Cat. Orthopt. 3(2) : 342) cites this species as Oedipoda (?) pellarint Le Guill., as does Sjéstedt (1921, K. svensk. Vetensk. Akad. Handl. 62(3) : 55; 1935, ibid. (3)15 : 46) in his two monographs on the Australian Acridoidea. Sjéstedt adds “ mihi ignota ”’ to both citations. To my knowledge, no author since Le Guillou has claimed to be able to recognise pellarini or to place it ina modern genus. The description does not even permit its subfamily to be determined (Key, 1959, Hos, in the press). 3. In the circumstances, this name has only a nuisance value in the literature and should be suppressed as a nomen dubiwm. At the same time it should be noted that the generic name Aedipoda used by Le Guillou is nothing but an erroneous subsequent spelling of Oedipoda Latreille, 1829, which was itself placed on the Official List in Opinion 149. I therefore propose that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should : (1) use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name pellarini Le Guillou, 1841, as published in the binomen Aedipoda pellarins ; (2) place the above specific name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ; (3) place the generic name Aedipoda Le Guillou, 1841 (an erroneous subse- quent spelling of Oedipoda Latreille, 1829) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. SUPPORT FOR THE ABOVE APPLICATION The above application by Dr. Key is supported by Dr. D. R. Ragge (British Museum (Natural History) London) and by Dr. V. M. Dirsh (Anti-Locust Research Centre, London). SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE TO DR. KEY’S APPLICATION CONCERNING AEDIPODA PELLARINI LE GUILLOU, 1841 By R. V. Melville (Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) : In examining the implications of Dr. Key’s proposal to place the generic name Aedipoda Le Guillou, 1841, on the Official Index as an erroneous subsequent Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 17, pts. 9-11. September 1960. —_-- — _ : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 345 spelling of Oedipoda Latreille, 1829, it was found that certain subsidiary matters relating to the latter name had not been dealt with when it was placed on the Official List by the ruling given in Opinion 149 (1943). The Commission is now invited to dispose of these matters, which are explained below. 2. According to Neave, 1940, Nomencl. Zool. 3(M-P) : 392, Oedipoda Latreille, 1829, was “ pro Oedipus Berthold, 1827” (in Latreille, Nat. Fam. Thierr.: 441). It does not appear from the original establishment of Oedipoda that it was published as a replacement name for Oedipus Berthold, which is based on a brief description, without any originally included species. Dr. David Ragge (British Museum (Natural History) London) tells me that he knows of no use of Oedipus Berthold in Orthoptera, nor of any work in which species are referred to it. Nevertheless, Oedipus Berthold, 1827, is certainly an available name and a nomen dubiwm, and as such should not be allowed to continue to offer a potential threat to stability of nomenclature. 3. There are four junior homonyms of Oedipus Berthold, 1827, as follows : Oedipus Tschudi, 1838, Class. Batr. (Mém. Soc. Sci. Neuchatel 2 : 28, 93) (Amphibia) ; Oedipus Lesson, 1840, Spec. Mamm.:197 (Mammalia) ; Oedipus Dana, 1852 (Crustacea) (placed on the Official Index in Opinion 470) ; and Oedipus Menge, 1876, Schr. Ges. Danzig N.F. 4(1) : 482 (Arachnida). None of these names is in current use, either because replacement names have been expressly proposed for them, or because the species concerned are referred to other taxonomic genera. 4. The significant points are, therefore, that Oedipus Berthold, 1827, should be suppressed under the plenary powers as a nomen dubiwm, and that this should be done in such a way as not to revive any of the three junior homonyms not so far considered by the Commission. In other words, Oedipus Berthold, 1827, should be suppressed in such a way as to retain its rights under the Law of Homonymy. I therefore propose that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should : (1) use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Oedipus Berthold, 1827, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Oedipus Berthold, 1827, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above ; (b) the following junior homonyms of Oedipus Berthold, 1827 : (i) Oedipus Tschudi, 1838 ; (ii) Oedipus Lesson, 1840 ; (iii) Oedipus Menge, 1876. 346 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE A TYPE-SPECIES FOR REGINA BAIRD & GIRARD, 1853 (REPTILIA). Z.N.(S.) 1443 By Hobart M. Smith and James E. Huheey (Department of Zoology and Museum of Natural History, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) The object of this application is to suppress under the plenary powers the specific name leberis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Coluber leberis, a name recently discovered to be a senior subjective synonym of another specific name which is commonly in use. The use of the plenary powers is also requested in order to designate a type-species for the genus Regina Baird & Girard which was originally based on a misidentification of Coluber leberis. 2. On zoological grounds it is apparent that the nominal species Coluber leberis Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 216) is a senior synonym of Coluber occipitomaculatus Storer, 1839 (Rept. Mass. : 230), accepted since 1853 as Storeria occipitomaculata (Storer). The original description of the species leberis gives the following information : male, 110 ventrals, 50 caudals, dark-striped, habitat in “ Canada ” fide Kalm. This description can fit only Storeria occipitomaculata auctorum, even if the geographic area is expanded to include eastern United States. Klauber (Copeia, 1948 : 11-12) has already noted the possibility of taxonomic equivalence of Coluber leberis Linnaeus, and Coluber occipitomaculata Storer, but was not prepared to express positive opinion. For our own part, we hold no doubts in the matter. 3. Baird & Girard, 1853 (Cat. n. Amer. Rept. : 45) set up the new genus Regina. In the Introduction to this work they state (: viii) “... the first mentioned species is to be considered as the type of the genus”’. The type- species of Regina is ‘‘ Regina leberis B. & G.” and the synonymy given shows that the specific name is from Coluber leberis Linnaeus, 1758. However, the description of the genus and the species, as well as the inclusion of Coluber septemvittatus Say, 1825 (J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 4 : 240) (=Natrix septem- vittata) in the specific synonymy clearly show that Baird & Girard misidentified the type-species in applying to it the name Coluber leberis Linnaeus. Almost without exception, however, it has been taken for granted that the type-species of Regina is the species now known as Natrix septemvittata. 4, Four species universally referred for the past forty years or more to the large genus Natrix have recently been segregated generically (Smith & Huheey, 1960, Trans. Kans. Acad. Sci. 62, in press). This group of species has often been referred to informally as the ‘“ Regina ” group, since it includes Coluber septemvittatus, commonly accepted as the type-species of the nominal. genus Regina, inturn the earliest generic name having as type any of the four species of the group. Bull. zool. Nomenel., Vol. 17, pts. 9-11. September 1960. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 347 5. Two other names have been based upon species of the “ Regina” group : (1) Cora Jan, 1863, (Elenco Sist. Ofidi : 74, type by monotypy, Regina kirtlandii Kennicott, 1856), invalid because a junior homonym of Cora Selys, 1853 (Bull. Acad. roy. Sci. Belg., Suppl. : 71 ; Odonata) and of Cora Bonaparte, 1854 (Ann. Sci. nat. Paris, (4) 1(3) : 138 ; Aves) ; and (2) Clonophis Cope, 1889 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. [1888]11 : 391, type by monotypy, Regina kirtlandii Kennicott, 1856). Neither Cora nor Clonophis has been utilized to a note- worthy degree, either formally or informally, whereas the name Regina was frequently used in a formal sense prior to 1900, and occasionally in an informal sense since 1900. 6. In accordance with the spirit of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, as stated in the Preamble to the Rules, we recommend sup- pression of the name Coluber leberis Linnaeus, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, in order that the name Storeria occipitomaculata may remain applicable to the species to which that name has been applied for over a hundred years. The generic name Storeria was published by Baird & Girard, 1853 (op. cit. : 135), type-species, by original designation, Tropidonotus dekayi Holbrook, 1842 (NV. Amer. Herpet. 4 : 53). 7. In accordance with the procedure outlined by the Code, we also recom- mend designation of Coluber septemvittatus Say as the type-species of Regina, in order that the name Regina may remain applicable as interpreted for over a hundred years. 8. No family-group names have ever been based upon Regina or Storeria. Both genera are currently placed in the family coLuBripar and commonly in the subfamily narricryan. 9. We therefore request that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should :— (1) use its plenary powers : (a) to suppress the specific name leberis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Coluber leberis, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (b) to suppress all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Regina Baird & Girard, 1853, made prior to the Ruling now requested, and, having done so, to designate Coluber septem- vittatus Say, 1825, to be the type-species of that genus ; (2) place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Regina Baird & Girard, 1853 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Coluber septemvitiatus Say, 1825 ; (b) Storeria Baird & Girard, 1853 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation, Tropidonotus dekayi Holbrook, 1842 ; (3) place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) septemvittatus Say, 1825, as published in the binomen Coluber septemvittatus (type-species of Regina Baird & Girard, 1853) ; 348 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (b) dekayi Holbrook, 1842, as published in the binomen T'ropidonotus dekayi (type-species of Sioreria Baird & Girard, 1853) ; (c) occipitomaculatus Storer, 1839, as published in the binomen Coluber occipitomaculatus ; (4) place the specific name leberis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Coluber leberis (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ; (5) place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Cora Bonaparte, 1854 (a junior homonym of Cora Selys, 1853) ; (b) Cora Jan, 1863 (a junior homonym of Cora Selys, 1853). it, a i i Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 349 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE RHYNCHONELLA REFRACTIFRONS BITTNER, 1890, AS THE TYPE-SPECIES OF THE NOMINAL GENUS NORELLA BITTNER, 1890 (PHYLUM BRACHIOPODA, CLASS ARTICULATA). Z.N.(S.) 1445 By D. V. Ager (Imperial College of Science and Technology, London) The generic name Norella Bittner, 1890 (Abh. k.-k. geol. Reichsanst. 14 : 315) has been in general use in only one taxonomic sense ever since its first publication. In this usage it denotes a group of Triassic rhynchonelloid brachiopods of unusual form, with the dorsal (brachial) valve deeply sulcate. In nearly all other brachiopods of this group, the dorsal valve is convexly folded to a greater or less degree, and it is the ventral (pedicle) valve that bears a median sinus. In ontogenetic studies of Jurassic rhynchonelloids, S. S. Buckman (1918, Palaeont. Indica (N.S.) 3(2) : 1-299) claimed that the dorsal valve is sulcate in the early growth-stages of many of these forms, before the normal median dorsal fold is developed, and coined the terms “ norella stage” and “ norelli- form ’’ to denote this condition. More recently (1959, J. Paleont. 33 : 330) I have established a subfamily NORELLINAE to contain Norella and five related genera. Under the Rules, however, it appears that the nominal type-species of the genus is a species with a dorsal median fold, similar to the Lower Jurassic genus Homoeorhynchia 8. S. Buckman, 1918, and it is the object of this applica- tion to prevent the confusing transfer of the generic name from one group of species to another that would be caused by the strict application of the Rules. 2. Bittner included several species in his new genus Norella, but he did not designate or indicate any one of them as the type-species. The first species mentioned was “‘ Rhynchonella sellaris Lhe. sp.” (op. cit. : 315), but he did not describe or figure this species, which seems to have been cited first merely because it is geologically the oldest. His chief emphasis throughout was on his own species Rhynchonella refractifrons (: 34). However, Hall & Clarke (1894, N.Y. State geol. Surv., 13th Ann. Rep. (1893) : 833) designated ‘“‘ Norella sellaris Laube” as type-species, while still following Bittner’s emphasis and using one of his figures of Norella refractifrons to illustrate the genus. 3. It is clearly necessary before proceeding further to determine what is the nominal species cited by Bittner as Rhynchonella sellaris Laube. In 1866, Laube (Denkschr. k. Akad. Wiss. Wien 25(2) : 18, pl. 12, fig. 8) had described and figured a species of Norella with the name Spirigera sellaris Klipstein : that is, he clearly identified his material with Terebratula sellaris Klipstein, 1845 (Beitr. geol. topogr. Kenntn. éstl. Alpen 1 : 214). In so doing, Laube was guilty of a gross misidentification, for the true Terebratula sellaris Klipstein is a rhynchonelloid of normal type, with a strong median dorsal fold like that of the Lower Jurassic genus Homoeorhynchia. Bittner showed that he was aware of this error, for he cited (op. cit. : 85) ‘‘ ? Rhynchonella sellaris Laube spec. (syn. Spirigera sellaris Klipst. spec. bei Laube . . . non Terebratula sellaris Klipst.!)”’. Had Bittner himself designated the species Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 17, pts. 9-11. September 1960. 350 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature in question as the type-species of his new genus Norella, then, under the Rules as revised by the London (1958) Congress, that species would be cited as * Norella sellaris Bittner ’’, but the Rules do not cover cases of the present type where a species cited by the original author of a generic name under a deliberately misapplied specific name is subsequently designated as the type-species of the genus. Under the Rules as they now stand, therefore, the nominal species designated by Hall & Clarke as the type-species of Norella is Terebratula sellaris Klipstein, 1845. 4. §. S. Buckman (1918: 15) objected to Hall & Clarke’s designation on purely taxonomic grounds, as follows: “‘ It is not the first species described, but is only the first species which happened to be casually mentioned ; and it was placed first because it is geologically oldest, not because it is most typical... It may be doubted if their selection of a type which was not one of the actual series described and utilised for observation by Bittner is really valid under the circumstances ... Bittner did not in so many words actually mention his genoholotype ; but he gave sufficient indication that R. refractifrons should be so considered.” It is clear from the context that Buckman was speaking in terms of the species actually figured by Laube, and that he considered even this, which is now accepted as a Norella, to be unsatisfactory for the purpose. The true Terebratula sellaris Klipstein, however, is even more unsuitable, for not only would its acceptance as type- species involve a confusing transfer of the generic name from the group of species to which it has always been applied to another group, but it is itself little known, variously interpreted, and insufficiently described. It is therefore uncertain what the precise new meaning of Norella would be if the Rules were to be strictly applied. I propose to give a new name to the species that was actually before Laube, but this nominal species will not be eligible for designa- tion as the type-species of Norella, and even if it were so, I am strongly of the opinion that R. refractifrons is greatly to be preferred. 5. I therefore request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : (1) to use its plenary powers : (a) to suppress all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Norella Bittner, 1890, made prior to the ruling now asked for, and (b) having done so, to designate the nominal species Rhynchonella refractifrons Bittner, 1890, as the type-species of that nominal genus ; (2) to place the generic name Norella Bittner, 1890 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Rhynchonella refractifrons Bittner, 1890, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name refractifrons Bittner, 1890, as published in the binomen Rhynchonella refractifrons (type-species of Norella Bittner, 1890) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the family-group name NORELLINAE Ager, 1959 (type-genus Norella Bittner, 1890) on the Official List of Family-group Names in Zoology. ee ee eee ee em el le Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 351 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE SPECIFIC NAME TRIGONALIS R. ETHERIDGE JUN., 1876, AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMEN MYALINA? TRIGONALIS (CLASS PELECYPODA). Z.N.(S.) 1446 By R. B. Wilson (Geological Survey Office, Edinburgh, Scotland) In 1876, R. Etheridge jun. (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (4) 18 : 103, pl. 4, fig. 8) deseribed and figured a new species of fossil pelecypod from the Calciferous Sandstone Series (Lower Carboniferous) of Cockburnspath, Scotland. He named his species Myalina ? trigonalis, and in his discussion said that he was uncertain to which of three genera the species ought to be referred. His figure shows a small and incomplete internal mould, and in the absence of the type-specimen the species cannot be reliably identified. 2. Two years later (1878, Quart. J. geol. Soc. London 34 : 12, pl. 1, figs. 12-14) Etheridge described and figured Anthracoptera ? obesa, also from the Calciferous Sandstone Series. The generic name Anthracoptera Salter, 1863, is a junior subjective synonym of Naiadites Dawson, 1860, and the binomen Naiadites obesus (R. Etheridge, jun.) has been in constant use since 1895 for the species described by Etheridge in 1878. This species occurs in abundance at several horizons in the Calciferous Sandstone Series of Scotland, and from this fact the name is recorded in general works dealing with the geology of the area and is familiar to students and others besides professional palacontologists. It has been repeatedly figured and described since its first publication, e.g. by W. Hind (1895, Monograph of Carbonicola, Anthracomya and WNaiadites (Palaeont. Soc.) : 144-7, pl. 19, figs. 8-11, 15, 16); D. Leitch (1942, Trans. Geol. Soc. Glasgow 20 : 208-15, pl. 3, figs. -o, g and text-fig. 5) ; A. E. Trueman and J. Weir (1956, Monograph of British Carboniferous non-marine Lamelli- branchia (Palaeont. Soc.) : 261-5, pl. 31, figs. 14-29, 43). On the other hand, Etheridge’s earlier specific name trigonalis is not even mentioned by any of these authors, and it has never been used after the first mention. 3. There are two reasons why Myalina? trigonalis R. Etheridge jun., 1876, has not been used. The first is that the illustration is poor and does not correspond to any other named fossil species. The second is that the type- specimen was unknown, so that there was no accessible standard of reference whereby the meaning of the name could be ascertained. Recently, however, two syntypes (apparently constituting the whole of the original type-series) _have been discovered in the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh. Dr. J. Weir (University of Glasgow, Scotland) agrees with me that these specimens, insofar as they are determinable, are two young or dwarfed specimens of Naiadites obesus in a poor state of preservation. It is therefore now for the first time clear that the species widely known for over 60 years as Naiadites obesus, and so named in a number of specialist works as well as in publications of general interest, ought under the Rules to be called Naiadites trigonalis. This change in a well-established name would not only be objectionable for Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 17, pts. 9-11. September 1960. 352 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature its own sake, but would also be liable to produce confusion between Naiadites trigonalis from the Scottish Lower Carboniferous and Naiadites triangularis (J. de C. Sowerby) from the Upper Carboniferous Coal Measures of England and Scotland. 4. There is one further point of interest in this species. Naiadites is essentially a non-marine genus of the generally marine family MyALINIDAE, which is abundantly represented in British Lower Carboniferous marine strata. Naiadites obesus, which displays the diagnostic external and internal characters of the genus, is the oldest known member of the genus. It is thus plausibly held to demonstrate one possible source for the evolution of the economically important Upper Carboniferous non-marine pelecypods from their marine relatives and predecessors in the Lower Carboniferous. 5. For the reasons set out above, I now ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name trigonalis R. Etheridge, jun., 1876, as published in the binomen Myalina ? trigonalis, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the above specific name, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name obesa R. Etheridge, jun., 1878, as published in the binomen Anthracoptera ? obesa, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. PURCHASED ACH MUG : a us ag ne © we ny wy > << CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) Obituary Karl Jordan Decisions of the Commission Opinion 581 (Dama Frisch, 1775) Opinion 582 (Plewrotomaria Defrance, 1826) ... Opinion 583 (Creniphilus Horn, 1890)... rs Opinion 584 (Leucophasia duponcheli Staudinger, 1871) New Applications Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate a type-species for the nominal genus Fenestella Lonsdale, 1839 (Bryozoa) in harmony with accustomed usage. (M. K. Elias and G. E. Condra) ap re, Ey iy yee ahs is Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate a type-species for the nominal genus Blankaartia Oudemans, 1811 (Nematoda) (W. E. China) he axe Bes sd ia or Ath Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Macronema Stephens, 1829, so as to preserve the generic name Macronema Pictet, 1836 (Insecta, Trichoptera) (D. E. Kimmins) Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate Crocodilus palustris Lesson, 1831 (Reptilia) (Robert Mertens) : HF RS Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate a type-species for the nominal species Strophalosia King, 1844 (Brachiopoda) (Helen M. Muir-Wood) .... ... aa ae 2 ea Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to revise Opinion 107 so as to stabilize the specific name minutus J. Buckman, 1845 (Echinus) (Echinoidea) (R. V. Melville) val ei a) Mallophagan names of De Geer, 1778 ; proposed addition to Official Lists (G. H. E. Hopkins and Theresa Clay) Es a. Menopon Nitzsch, 1818 (Insecta, Mallophaga) and related names ; application for addition to Official Lists (G. H. E. Hopkins and Theresa Clay) oa i ae oe sae eae Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate a neotype for Pediculus dentatus Scopoli, 1763 (Insecta, Mallophaga) (G. H. E. Hopkins and Theresa Clay) ies oh ie af Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate the nominal species Buccinum australe Gmelin, 1791, as type-species of the nominal genus phasianella Lamarck, 1804 (Gastropoda) (L. R. Cox) Page 259 267 276 281 290 301 313 315 316 334 337 341 CONTENTS (continued from inside back wrapper) Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the name Aedipoda pellarint Le Guillou, 1841 Ee: sda ary as a nomen dubium (K. H. L. Key) Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate a type-species for Regina Baird & Girard, 1853 = ene) (Hoes M. Smith and James E. Huheey) .. Proposed use of the pedi Powers to adits fj refracifrons Bittner, 1890, as the type-species of the nominal genus Norella Bittner, 1890 vt spas a We a ct OF) V5 Ager) ; Proposed use of the Plenary B Powers to suppress the staal name trigonalis R. Etheridge Jun., as published in the binomen Myalina ? trigonalis (Pelecypoda) (R. B. Wilson) Comments Comments on the proposed designation of a PP species for the genus eipeduaan ii ra ey 1854 she . Temple; J. C. Harper) sug Fr a St Comment on the proposed use of the ee Powers to stabilize the generic name Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789 (V. N. Shimansky) Comments on the proposals relating to the generic names [sch Stephens, 1835 and Bolitochara baie 1831 ear A. Allen ; H. Last; C. H. Seevers) Comments on the proposed designation of a type- sees for the genus A ike eM: van der om 1874 Bose > (Beck'> 3x, Strenzke) =e “es he © 1960. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by MeTcatre & Cooper LIMITED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E.C.2 Page a a SS el rrl Volume 17. Part 12 25th January, 1961 pp. 353-380, T.P.—XII THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by W. E. CHINA, C.B.E. Assistant Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ~2 FEB 1961 PURCHASED LONDON: Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenelature by the International Trust at its Publications Office, 19, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1 1961 Price One Pound Five Shillings (All rights reserved) {/® - ws | \ \ BURCH. BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 17, Part 12 (pp. 353-380, T.P.— XII) 25th January, 1961 INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE REPORT FOR 1959 As pointed out in the Report for last year great changes have been made in the organisation and staffing of the Trust. It was also indicated that further changes were in contemplation to bring the publications of the Trust more into line with the expressed wishes of the XVth International Congress of Zoology and in the interests of economy. At the same time attention was drawn to the financial difficulties which were bound to be encountered in 1959 and to the urgent need of an increase in the number of subscribers to the publications. The Accounts for 1959 now presented show that the note of warning given last year was justified and 1959 must be recorded as a year of transition, but the Trustees are glad to think that the exceptional difficulties of that period have been successfully surmounted. The large drop in income of £12,000, approximately two-thirds by comparison with the income for 1958, is accounted for by the great reduction in publication this year, the amount of which had been greatly increased in 1958 by the documents required for the colloquium at the International Congress and, in particular, in connection with the revision of the International Code. Expenditure on publications on the other hand is £2,800 less and the total expenditure was reduced by £1,850. The expenditure of the Trust is largely composed of salaries and administrative expenses which are not capable of reduction. The result of the year’s working is an excess of expenditure over income of £2,570 and this, the Trustees feel, it is proper to charge to the accumulated reserves of the Trust in view of the exceptional circumstances of 1959. It is, however, their firm intention to restore the reserves, as rapidly as possible, to a figure of £10,000, which they regard as the lowest figure to hold against future contingencies. It is satisfactory to report a minor but important increase in income of some £300 in interest from the carefully invested funds of the Trust. It is indeed a pleasant duty to report the receipt from an anonymous British donor of £1,200 to be applied, at the discretion of the Trustees, towards meeting expenditure to be incurred in the future. The Trust take this opportunity of recording their great appreciation of this very generous and welcome gift. In addition, a grant of £357 was received through the International Union of Biological Sciences, from UNESCO, to assist in the cost of publication and a special grant of 6,000 Swiss Francs was also made from the same Union to permit meetings of the Editorial Committee of the International Code to be held. The Trust, on behalf of the International Commission, record grateful thanks for this generosity. It will be recalled that the Committee of Management have been seriously studying the possibility of fixing in advance the subscription price of the publications of the Trust and of indicating the number of volumes likely to be published in any given year. They regret their inability to give exact figures at this time but they feel confident that the subscription to the Bulletin during 1960 will not exceed £20. 354 1958 £ Revenue Reserves (per separate accounts)— 1,474 “* Official List’ Suspense Account 12,133 _ Special Donation Liabilities— 1,270 Sundry Creditors ... £13,403 We have obtained all the information and explanations which to the best of our knowledge and belief were We have examined the above Balance Sheet and accompanying Income our information and according to the explanations given us, the said accounts give the information required by the Trust’s affairs at 31st December 1959, and the Income and Expenditure Account gives a true and fair view of the from our examination of those books. Finspury Circus Howse, BLoMFIELD STREET, Lonpov, E.C.2. 2nd June, 1960. 10,659 Income and Expenditure Account—Balance ... INTERNATIONAL TRUST FO} Incorporated under the Companie 2 an 26th . 8,083 0 Balance Shee d. 8 5 10,344 16 J] 1,200 0 @ £12,891 2 8 REPORT OF) LOGICAL NOMENCLATURE et, 1929 (Limited by Guarantee) ist December 1959 1958 £ 568 304 264 — 1,455 87 4,327 7,249 21 13,139 £13,403 ee THE AUDITORS. necessary for the purposes of our audit. Fixed Assets— Office Equipment— Book Value at 1st July 1948 and additions since at cost... 626 18 Less Depreciation and amount written off to date Current Assets— Amounts due for Publications, valued at Sundry Amounts prepaid Income Tax Recoverable £2,078 2,249 4,327 5,900 1,349 Investments at cost— £2,500 24% Savings Bonds 1964/67... £2,500 3% Savings Bonds 1955/65 (Market Value at date £4,438) ( Ditto 1958 £4,387) County Borough of Mortgage Balances at Bank— Deposit Account Current Account Cash in Hand (Note—Stock of Publications not valued) Preston 54% -.- 3,500 355 7 336 18 8 oe 290 0 0 850 0 0 123 16 0 87 12 4 1,061 8 4 £ s. d. 2,078 10 6 . 2,248 16 9 ge Dar vary aes: 3,000 0 Reeth oT: 3 0 0 676 0 3 4,176 0 3 36 6 10 12,601 2 8 FRANCIS J. GRIFFIN | Members of the Committee of Management N. D. RILEY £12,891 2 8 ——— In our opinion proper books of account have been kept, so far as appears and Expenditure Account, which are in agreement with the books of account. In our opinion and to the best of Companies Act, 1948, in the manner so required, and the Balance Sheet gives a true and fair view of the state of the Excess of Expenditure over Income for the year ended on that date. (Signed) W. B. KEEN & CO., Chartered Accountants. Income and Expenditure Account or 1958 INCOME £ £ £ Jasds Sales of Publications— 6,508 Opinions and Declarations aes ad se a ... 2,015 16 5 12,109 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature... Aes awh, 482 lt 115 Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature ... =f 14 2 18,732 _— Donation aH rs ate : == Interest received on Investments (Gross) 132 Interest on Bank Deposit ... os = = “he Grant from U.N.E.S.C.O. per the International Union of 286 Biological Sciences 4 ek ak = eee oA 19,150 4,188 17 Balance, being Excess of Expenditure over Income for the year, _ carried down ... ie sh ses so we — 2,576 11 £19,150 10,551 Balance brought down ite Be Sea sa 8,879 Balance at 3lst December, 1958 brought forward £19,430 £10,659 2 “ Official List for the year end 789 Balance at 31st December 1958, brought forward 3,800 Transfer from Income and Expenditure Account 2,816 Sales of Publications £7,405 £2,286 15 § Norr.—A grant of 6,000 Swiss franes (approximately £494) was made by the International Union of Biologics Code. Of the above sum, approximately £411 was paid direct by the I.U.B.S. in respect of transpo: A grant of £100 was also received by the Trust from the I.U.B.S., which was applied towards the 357 year ended 31st December 1959 1958 EXPENDITURE £ £ £ £ s.d. £ s8.d. Fa a! Administration Expenses— 3,126 Salaries and National Insurance ae 3.677 0 2 1,351 Office Expenses Ba ie £2 1,178 7 7 136 Audit Fee ee ee des Sos 52 10 0 4,613 4,907 17 9 Less: Proportion allocated to 100 “ Official List” ... 73 A 25 0 0 600 “Colloquium” ... sub aa - -- 700 =~ ———— 2% 00 3,913 — ————._ 4,882 17 9 25 Depreciation of Office Equipment ... ase a nie Sas ie be | Cost of Publications— 8,836 Opinions and Declarations ace A ae ao ae Ss 8.9 825 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature... Ae an sont, LOL IOIO 4,661 — ——————-__ 1,849 8 7 8,599 6,764 18 11 Balance, being Excess of Income over oe. for the year, 10,551 carried down ... ee ae sa rea oe --- 9,150 £6,764 18 11 —— —_ Balance brought down ee oa oe ode as aes 2,576 1 11 Transfers— 8,800 “ Official List’ Suspense Account ae az en --- “Colloquium” Suspense Account, towards a expenses 4,971 of the International Congress of Zoology... ae ae --- 8,771 10,659 Balance carried forward per Balance Sheet ae noe ae 8,083 0 5 9,430 £10,659 2 4 ee mse Account December 1959 918 Salaries and Office Expenses an Hes oo oak ai --- j 100 Proportion of Administration Expenses ... aes ore = 25 0 0 1,018 — ———— 25 0 0 7 4,458 Cost of Publications ... sa aaa ve we sas ies --- «855 Binding Cases hr au 323 aus ae Se Sas --- «5,931 2 0 0 «1,474 Balance carried forward per Balance Sheet ae a de 2,261 15 8 £7,405 £2,286 15 8 Sciences for expenses incurred in connection with the meeting of the Editorial Committee of the International and the balance of £83 was paid to the Trust, in refund of expenses of members of the Committee. xpenses of the representative attending meetings of the Editorial Sub-Committee. 358 Ager, D. V. Allen, A. A... Allgén, Carl Amadon, Dean Angeles, N. J. Balfour-Browne, J. ... Beck, W. M. ... Bennett, F. D. Berdan, Jean M. Boschma, H. Botoséneanu, L. Box, Harold E. Breese, M. H. Calver, M. A. China, W. E. Chubb, L. J. Clay, Theresa Condra, G. E. Cox, L. R. Curtis, W. Parkinson Dammerman, K. W. Denning, D. C. Dusenbury, A.N., Jr. Eagar, R. M. C. ... 326, 334, 337 . 25, 162, 341 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature INDEX TO AUTHORS Page 349 322 86 220 240 246, 250 343 223 47 189 68 56 240 75 301 169 294 253 189 68 184 64 Elias, M. K. ... Ellis, A. E. Fennah, R. G. Fernandez, F. Flower, Rousseau H. Franclemont, John ... Franklin, Mary T. Freeman, P. ... Frizzell, Don L. George, T. Neville Guagliumi, P. Hardy, D. Elmo Harper, J. C. Hastings, Anna B. Heegaard, Poul E. Hemming, Francis Hemmingsen, A. M.... Henningsmoen, G. Herrington, H. B. Holthuis, L. B. Hopkins, G. H. E. Huheey, James E. Key, K. H. L. . 45, 178, 193, Page 294 43 175 240 54 220 76 241 30 188 240 27 300 244 178 259 209 231 43 197, 199 .. 326, 334, 337 346 235, 344 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Kevan, D. K. McE. Page 203 Kimmins, D. E. 32, 35, 37, 68, 313 Kirkpatrick, T. W. .. Kuchlein, J. H. Last, H. Lemche, Henning Le Quesne, W. J. Levinson, Stuart A. ... Lichy, R. Martin, E. L. Mayr, Ernst . Melville, R. V. 75 230 322 209 192 227 240 223 68 = 49, G2; 170, 214, 323, 344 Mertens, Robert Metcalfe, J. R. Muir-Wood, Helen M. Oostenbrink, M. Ossiannilsson, Frej Paproth, E. Pastiels, A. Pelham-Clinton, E. C. Pemberton, C. E. Pope, R. D. Pruvost, P. 315 223 316 76 39 188 188 198 223 255 188 Rosales, C. J. Ross, H. H. Scaramuzza, L. C. Scott, Harold W. Seevers, C. H. Shimansky, V. N. Simmonds, F. J. Smith, Hobart M. Smout, A. H. Strenzke, K. ... Stubblefield, C. J. Swinton, W. E. Sylvester-Bradley, P. C. Szumlowski, W. Teichert, Curt Temple, J. T. Thompson, R. T. Thorne, G. Tottenham, C. E. Tripp, R..P. .. 359 Page 240 169 230 47 322 312 223 205, 346 71 343 231 224 --47, 227 240 54 300 255 76 --. 69, 72 233 Wagner, Wilhelm _... 185, 191, 192 Weir, J. Wilson, R. B.... Zwaluwenberg, R. H. 61 351 360 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature LIST OF DECISIONS IN THIS VOLUME Opinion Page 569 (Selene Lacépéde, 1803, ete.) ... ... wee ae Ses a 92 570 (Indiana Matthew, 1902)... wee _ ae of avs 95 571 (Three species of Graptolites) wh ss si so ooo ee 572 (Calandra Clairville & Schellenberg, 1798) sive cae Re | 573 (Viviparus Montfort, 1810) ... cas shat sa ee sie 574 (Madrepora gemmascens Esper, [1794])_ ... ee ans ese deme 575 (Six Family-Group Names in Ammonoidea) sia ena os, Oe 576 (Dactylioceras Hyatt, 1867) von ite de ee 577 (Caligo Hubner, [1819] and Charazes Ochsenheimer, 1816) ... 140 578 (Mysis Latreille, [1802-1803]) ae aa: sat £3 we 3S 579 (Ancilla Lamarck, 1799)... om As dee te a. 346 580 (Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1828-1850, Histoire Naturelle des Poissons) ... : 148 581 (Dama Frisch, 1775) hi ues Sy de ~ as ae 582 (Pleurotomaria Defrance, 1826)... Sd we oa ie Be 583 (Creniphilus Horn, 1890) ... zat is bok fons ce 584 (Leucophasia duponcheli Staudinger, 1871)... my £0 ne ee Direction 104 (Clerck, [1758], Aranei svecici) = 23 ae Ga ste 89 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 361 INDEX TO KEY NAMES Page abbreviatus, Curculio, Fabricius, 1787 + of Ace Le cee EL, ATS abbreviatus, Curculio, Linnaeus, 1758 ick Be is Ae ae ieee ye Acilius Leach, 1817 Ss ; ane wa “ re on Ere 251 ACROPHYLLINI Redtenbacher, 1908 a a wee a ee = 240 Acrophylla Gray, 1833 ... = one a = er re ae 238 Acrotona Thompson, 1859 Pe ; cists PAS aor noe + 74 adactyla, Hippa, Fabricius, J. C., 1787. mee Jed Sea me at 183 Aedipoda Le Guillou, 1841 se So a “< ae a Lbs 344 aeneus, Hydrophilus, De Geer, 1774 ... <2 ah wwe .-. 281, 283, 288 albifrons, Jaera, [Leach], [1814] =e ae 50% a “ga say 183 albomarginatum, Acrydium, De Geer, 1773 ... ak ar cies ae 204 Allgenia Strand, 1934 ... ag ae ay xh a ata Lee 88 Alloneura Rondani, 1856 dee ane a: a ? ats stated 28 alni, Cercopis, Fallén, [1806] ... A}. se ae ees Je 3: 42 AMALTHEIDAE Hyatt, 1867 ie. oes ac. Ses dei sie ~ nm a ert 226 Gryphosaurus Lambrecht, 1933 nS ae ea: ee ig ae 226 Hansenia Melichar, Kirkaldy, 1902 ... Se oe ae AS, See 177 haworthi, Aleochara, Stephens, 1832 ... ae ee wad 42 ie 70 Hippa, Fabricius, J. C., 1787 ... < a cee =a $e 182 HIPPIDAE Latreille, 1825 s: Ae. at ae Si Ae: & . 184 HIPPIDES Latreille, 1825 nae see She “ee aay om me 184 Fippolite Bibea, I, AGS ake oe hot FY eR See. 198 Hippolithe Brullé, 1839 oe: ao or aa: ae sae wae 198 Hippolyta Burmeister, 1837... as, < hay ae va £5 198 Hippolyte [Leach], [1814] nee ae sas sie ae ret 5 198 Hippolytes Risso, 1826 ... 3% se, ote ee fe 47) Ae: 198 Hipolytus Guérin, 1832... ae a i a a tie ie 198 HIPPURITIDAE Gray, 1848 ne 235 és: se : aS ans 26 Hippurites Lamarck, 1801 ac P ee oe se #: ee 26 hirsutus, Sphaerolaimus, Bastian, 1865 tH 7 ie st ee 88 HOLCOSTEPHANIDAE Haug, 1910 Abe fe ee ue af .-» 135, 137 Holcostephanus Sayn, G., 1889 ee ee Ps eA eh ... 135, 137 hologaster, Philopterus, Nitzsch, 1818 ... te for ar wt ty 333 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 367 Page HYDROCANTHARI Gyllenhal, 1808 739 Bei a: a re a 252 Hypolyte Newman, 1898 kes aie ap EP. ae ce a 198 Hyppolite Veranyi, 1846 Shs ae be A Ste i ue 198 Hyppolyte Leach, 1815 git te re: AS a aS ab: 198 Hyppolythe Borcea, 1934 os aie a2. he on 72