seeta; otete His2 12339332235 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 18 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 i \bo 1961 (All rights reserved) _ ~ pet. ea ia a a ee Kegel Il TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Secretary's Note ; Death of Dr. Angel Cabrera, Vacancies on the Com- mission, Illness of the President ade Eee sh ee = 1 Application to suppress under the plenary powers eleven specific names of Amphibia and Reptilia and to validate thirteen names with their original author and date. By Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum und Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main) and Heinz Wermuth (Zoologisches Museum, Berlin) ait? ofa iad ae 3 Report on Mr. C. W. Sabrosky’s proposal for the suppression under the plenary powers of the pamphlet entitled “‘ Nouvelle Classification des Mouches & Deux Ailes ” by J. Meigen, 1800. By R. V. Melville (Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature) ... mee sae as 5a Son 436 aie ae 9 Report on the proposed validation of the generic name Encrinus in its accustomed sense. By Margaret Spillane (Zoological Assistant, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ate - 65 Myelophilus Eichhoff, 1878; Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By W. E. China (Assistant one International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature) ... : : ; “ke 69 GEPHYROCERATIDAE Frech, 1897 ; Proposed acceptance of emendation to GEPHUROCERATIDAE. By A. K. Miller, W. M. Furnish (State University of Iowa, Department of Geology, Iowa City, Iowa, U.S.A.) and Brian F. Glenister (University of Western Australia, Department of Geology, Nedlands, Western Australia) is aig is me 73 Anolis nannodes Cope, 1864 ; Request for a ruling on lectotype selection. By Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) and W. I. Follett ( oi ein ee 3 Sciences, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.)... re 75 couchit (Lepidogaster) Kent, 1883; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By Denis Ww. Tucker ( ue =a the British Museum (Natural History), London) ... ar 79 Woehrmannia Boehm, 1895 ; Designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By L. R. Cox (British Musewm (Natural History), London) ... vee a ‘es = ae e ae es 81 Euceraphis Walker, 1870; Designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By D. Hille Ris Lambers (Bladluisonderzoek, T.N.O., Bennekom, Netherlands) and H. L. G. Stroyan (Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Plant aiid eae metas Herts., England) .. ae 83 IV Coluber atratus Gmelin, 1788 ; Application for suppression. By James A. Peters (San Fernando Valley State Ss foo sla U.S.A.) e: Perla Geoffroy, 1762 ; Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By D. E. Kimmins (British Musewm (Natural History), London) ... Proposal to place the generic name Gari Schumacher, 1817, on the Official List unamended, although it is the genitive form of a Latin noun. By L. R. Cox (British Musewm (Natural History), London)... Opinion 585 Dictyoconus Blanckenhorn, 1900, added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology a ms : Opinion 586 Apatania Kolenati, 1847 ; Designation under the plenary powers of a type-species in accordance with accustomed usage Opinion 587 casertanum Poli, 1791, as published in the binomen Cardium casertanum, added to the Official List of specific names. . Opinion 588 Spirontocaris Bates, 1888, added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : oF ete Opinion 589 Beraea Stephens, 1833; Designation under the plenary powers of a type-species in harmony with current usage Opinion 590 Aphrophora Germar, 1821; Designation under the plenary powers of a type-species in harmony with accustomed usage Opinion 591 Depranella Ulrich, 1890; Emended under the mee od powers to Drepanella aye es Si sks : Opinion 592 Rejection of Bertrand, 1763, Dictionnaire universal des Fossiles Propres et des Fossiles Accidentels Opinion 593 Westenoceras Foerste, 1924 ; Emended under the plenary powers to Westonoceras .. : ws ; fe Opinion 594 saccharivora (Phalaena) Peterkin, 1790 ; a ie under the plenary powers a : Page 87 90 99 101 103 104 105 109 112 114 121 123 Opinion 595 Interpretation of the nominal species Unio phillipsii Williamson, 1836 2 ; ~e = 2 ae Opinion 596 Chaetopteryx Stephens, 1829 ; added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology .. én hy te me a Comments on proposals relating to the names of the species of the Tipula oleracea group asi 98 ant = Enhydrus Castelnau, 1834; Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By J. Balfour-Browne (British Museum (Natural History), London) and Per Brinck (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Sweden) aie ier ai AS os wai re a akamushi (Trombidium) Brumpt, 1910 ; Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By C. B. Philip (National M icrobiological Institute, Rocky Mountain Laboratory, Hamilton, Montana, U.S.A.) Doralis Leach, 1827 ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) : a ate ais ea ais lustrica (Paludina) Say, 1821 ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By H. Burrington Baker (Havertown, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) ‘ aie a se sa : Graptolite generic names ; Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate certain emendations. By O. M. B. Bulman (Sedgwick Museum,Uni- versity of Cambridge, England)... ry =e ae She & Nemoura Latreille, 1796 ; Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By D. E. Kimmins (British Museum (Natural History), London) ite ad xt ge AH ne Silo, Curtis, 1833 ; Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By D. E. Kimmins (British Museum (Natural History), London) Pterophorus Schiffer, 1766 ; Proposal to place on the Official List. By P. E. 8. Whalley (British Musewm (Natural History), London) Cicadella Latreille, 1817 ; Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ; Zen ae att ‘as sa 129 137 140 143 146 149 155 157 159 163 VI Conomelus Fieber, 1866 ; Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By W. Wagner (Hamburg, Germany)... Cerastes Laurenti, 1768 ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By the late Karl P. Schmidt, Clifford H. Pope (Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago 5, Illinois, U.S.A.) and Arthur Loveridge (Museum of ee oe at Harvard phe ee Mass., U.S.A.) : Siredon Wagler, 1830 ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By Hobart M. Smith and Joseph A. Tihen (Department * Ses: University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) _... Aphis Linnaeus, 1758, its type-species and the family-group name derived from it. By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ae S tals Anilius Oken, 1816 Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By Jay M. Savage (Department of Biology, University of Southern California, University Park, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.) Proposal to validate the generic name Panopea Ménard de la Groye, 1807, under the plenary powers, together with certain related proposals. By H. E. Vokes (Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) and L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London)... Dasiops Rondani, 1856 ; Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By W. E. China (Assistant iat Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) . Harrisoniella Bedford, 1928; Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By Theresa Clay and G. H. E. Hopkins (British Museum (Natural History), London and Tring) Puntius Hamilton, 1822; Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. By J. J. Hoedeman Se ege Museum, Amsterdam, Netherlands) ic Lestis Lepeletier & Serville, 1828 ; Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By Paul D. Hurd, Jr. (University of California, Berkeley, U.S.A.) and Charles D. Michener Secrest e Kansas, Lawrence, U.S.A.) Page 168 170 177 181 184 189 195 199 201 Trichocera Meigen, 1803; Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. By Christine Dahl, en ne Institute, University, Lund, Sweden) b: ; Tylenchus gulosus Kiihn, 1890 ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By P. A. A. Loof (Landboushogeschool, Wageningen, Netherlands) ; sae - a ae = eS: “A, planiceps Scott & Osborn, 1887 (Hyracodon) ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers as a nomen dubium. By Horace E. Wood (Montclair, New Jersey, U.S.A.) Pnoepyga Hodgson, 1844; Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By Ernst Mayr (Museum of Sete ib at Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) ... Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress eight specific names of Turtles. By Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum und Forschungs Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main) and Heinz Wermuth (Zoologisches Museum, Berlin)... } Sai ane eee * tigrina (Salamandra) Green, 1825; Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By Hobart M. Smith and Joseph A. Tihen (Department of Oey. aid i Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) - oe an ip Proposal to designate a neotype for Corvus benghalensis Linnaeus, 1758, under the plenary powers. By Biswamoy Biswas (Zoological Survey of India, Indian Museum, Calcutta) ... dubia (Amphisbaena) Rathke, 1863 ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By Carl Gans (Department of en, The Uni- versity of Buffalo, Buffalo, N.Y., U.S.A.) ... : ‘ erythronota (Salamandra) Rafinesque, 1818 ; proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By Richard Highton e paid of M ee College Park, Maryland, U.S.A.) reticulata (Amphisbaena) Holmer, 1787 ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By Carl Gane (Department a. sin The University of Buffalo, Buffalo, N.Y., U.S.A.)... a Opinion 597 Prothechus Rondani, 1856, and Alloneura Rondani, 1856 ; suppressed under the plenary powers . ee ce 5 VII Page 206 208 211 214 217 220 221 223 230 Opinion 598 Hansenia Kirkaldy, 1902, added to the Official List Opinion 599 Bolitochara Mannerheim, 1831; Designation of a type- species under the plenary powers a ae ae Opinion 600 Jschnopoda Stephens, 1835, and Tachyusa Erichson, 1837 ; Designations of type-species under the plenary powers Opinion 601 avenae (Heterodera schachtii var.) Wollenweber, 1924 ; Addition to the Official List of Specific Names : p Opinion 602 Delphax Fabricius, 1798; Interpretation under the plenary powers a es M os a Ae Opinion 603 Macropsis Lewis, 1834 ; riage of a *ype- species under the plenary powers : Opinion 604 Korynetes Herbst, (1792), and Necrobia Olivier, 1795; Added to the Official List Ke a be 2 as < Opinion 605 Promecopsis Duméril, 1806 ; Suppressed under the plenary powers bf Re be os a3 ae > Zs Opinion 606 dentipes hee) Guérin, 1832; Validation under the plenary powers : ‘ae ae 4 as Opinion 607 ee von Poe 1861 ; Addition to the Official List . fe ie Z. Opinion 608 Spatagus O. F. Miiller, 1776; Suppression under the plenary powers . at ne Rts ats oP pis Opinion 609 longicorne ( sas ete Latreille, 1804 ; Sr oe under the plenary powers ¢ ; Opinion 610 DREPANIDIDAE and DREPANIDAE; Addition to the Official List Clathurella Carpenter, 1857; Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. ue Joshua L. en a ee California, U.S.A.) oie s é Page 236 238 241 244 246 249 252 254 258 260 262 265 267 270 Proposal to repeal the Ruling given in Opinion 47 and to use the plenary powers to stabilize the generic names Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816, Carcharodon A. Smith, 1838, and Odontaspis J. L. R. Agassiz, 1838, in their accustomed senses. By E. I. White, Denys W. Tucker and N. B. Marshall be bai <2 ish Sis Bes es Lygus Hahn, 1833 ; Proposed designation under the plenary powers of a type-species in harmony with accustomed usage. By José OC. M. Carvalho (Musewm Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil), H. H. Knight (Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa, U.S.A.) and R. L. Usinger (Uni- versity of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.)... aie ie Tritonia Cuvier [1797]; Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) aoe — — Myodocha Latreille, 1807 ; Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By James A. Slater (University of Connecticut), the late Harry G. Barber and Reece I Sailer (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)... Pr 4p Se oi International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Report for 1960 Secretary’s note ; Resignation of Professor Dymond, Election of Dr. Munroe ae ae ee or = &: Comments on the Proposal to place the generic name Gari Schumacher, 1817, on the Official List unamended... Opinion 611 Parapenaeus S. I. Smith, 1885; Validation under the plenary powers and interpretation of Peneus membranaceus Risso, 1816 Opinion 612 Jasus Parker, 1883 ; Added to the Official List .. Dermacentor andersoni Stiles, 1908 ; Proposed validation under the plenary powers. Revision of Opinion 78. By Cornelius B. Philip and Glen M. Kohls (Rocky Mountain Laboratory, Hamilton, Montana, An alternative proposal to the suggested validation of M yelophilus Kichhoff, 1878. By Stephen L. Wood (Zoology and Entomology Department, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, U.S.A.) IX Page 273 281 285 316 319 Lebbeus White, 1847, and Hualus Thallwitz, 1892 ; Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By L. B. Holthuis joo alata van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) : Jousseaumia Sacco, 1894; Proposed emendation under the plenary powers to Jousseaumea. By L. B. Holthuis Ohaaae van pga: Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) .. Notonecta striata Linnaeus, 1758 ; Designation of a neotype. By T. T. Macan (Freshwater Biological Association, Far Sawrey, Ambleside, Westmorland) Blatta transfuga Briinnich, 1763 ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By D. K. McE. Kevan (Macdonald College, Quebec, Canada) and K. Princis (Zoological Institute, Lund, Sweden) Acropora Oken, 1815 ; Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) r £4 sti he ae zi Ceratostoma Herrmannsen, 1846 ; Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names. By Clarence A. Hall, Jr. (Department of Geology, University of California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.) Four Gastropod Family-Group Names ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By the late J. Brookes Knight (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, U.S.A.), Roger J. Batten (University of Wisconsin, U.S.A.) and Ellis L. Yochelson (U.S. Geological Survey) Crabro bicinctus Rossi, 1794; Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By J. van der Vecht (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) ... Pamera Say, 1831 ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers and addition of Rhyparochromus Hahn, 1826, and Megalonotus Fieber, [1860], to the Official List. By James A. Slater (Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Conn., U.S.A.) and W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London) ue A She Pai aH AAS aa ee Blissus Burmeister, 1835 ; Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By James A. Slater (University of Storrs, Connecticut, U.S.A.) and W. E. China ee Museum (Natural History), London) 3 Bie 3 ts nee a ae Page 322 326 328 330 334 336 337 340 342 346 HETEROGASTRINAE Stal, 1872; Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By James A. Slater (University of Storrs, Connecticut, U.S.A.) and W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London) ny me Ae vos a sie vee ins Scolopostethus Fieber, [1860]; Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By James A. Slater (University of Storrs, Connecticut, U.S.A.) and W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London) Za ne $ oe ia a ee a Opinion 613 Hippurites Lamarck, 1801; Conservation under the plenary powers as ae af zy Se i bs Opinion 614 Sphaerocoryphe Angelin, 1854 ; Designation of a type- species under the plenary powers sk Be a4 a Opinion 615 Lichas araneus Lindstrém, 1885, and Lichas aranea Holzapfel, 1895 ; Ruled to be not homonyms Opinion 616 Tanytarsus van der Wulp, 1874 ; Designation of a type- species under the plenary powers he 48 ye 5 Opinion 617 Neoeuthyris Bretnall, 1921 ; Addition to the Official List Opinion 618 Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758 ; Designation of a neo- type under the plenary powers. . Opinion 619 Acilius Leach, 1817 ; Preservation by use of the plenary powers... ie des se ae a ads sis x Pupa Réding, 1798 ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) a Soe a Kad on oa ee a Naucoris Geoffroy, 1762 ; Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By T. Jaczewski (Zoological I nstitute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland)... bes oon Ef aa sas es nt Proposal to suppress the names of certain unidentifiable nominal species in the family TETRIcIDaE and to add two others to the Official List. By D. K. McE. Kevan (Macdonald College, Quebec, Canada) Acrydium undulatum Sowerby, 1806 ; Proposed addition to the Official List. By D. K. McE. Kevan (Macdonald College, Quebec, Canada) XI 349 351 355 357 359 361 363 365 369 372 374 377 380 xi Ceratosolen Mayr, 1885 ; Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By J. T. Wiebes (Rijksmuseum van N Rane Hi ae Deka. Netherlands) ; ss i Index to Authors List of Decisions in this volume Index to Key Names... Names placed on Official Lists and Indexes in Decisions published in Volume 18 : oe ee ast see ae ys Pag Corrigenda Particulars of dates of publication of the several Parts in which the present volume was published ... ye Se dee sity Instructions to Binders vais UD 2,9) FEeDEC 1961 0. PURCHASES Page 383 385 387 388 408 412 413 414 Volume 18. Part 1 5th December, 1960 pp. 1-96, 1 pl. THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE PURCHASED SKa : CoNTENTS Secretary’s Note Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ... Ue a Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases (continued inside back wrapper) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature ° and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office, 19, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1 1960 Price Three Pounds Five Shillings (All rights reserved) Page INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Professor James Chester BrapLEy (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. Ritey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) Assistant Secretary: Dr. W. E. Cutna (c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, 8.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 Amanat (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12 August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. Dymonp (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12 August 1953) Professor J. Chester BraptEey (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. Horrauts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12 August 1953) i Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15 October 1954) Dr. Alden H. Mriter (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 KixHNELT (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) ; og Enrico TortonEsE (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘ G. Doria’, Genova, Italy) (16 December 04) Dr. Per. Brincx (Lunds Universitets, Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958) Dr. Max Pott (Musée Royal dev Afrique Centrale, Tervuren, Belgium) (12 July 1958) Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (23 July 1958) Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (23 July 1958) Dr. Henning Lemouz (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Mr. Norman Denbigh Ritey (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-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Erich Martin Hermya (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 Ucuipa (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March 1959) Professor Dr. Rafael Atvarapo (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) (31 May 1960) Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), London) (31 May 1960) PURCHASED BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 18, Part 1 (pp.1—96) 5th December 1960 Secretary’s Note Dr. Angel Cabrera. News was received early in September that Dr. Cabrera, the distinguished Argentinian mammologist died at La Plata on July 7th, 1960. Dr. Cabrera was elected a Commissioner as long ago as 1930 and throughout his period of service, had unfailingly discharged his duties promptly and with the care and attention required of Commissioners. He was 81 at the time of his death. Vacancies on the Commission. It will be noted that recent losses by death have created several vacancies. The death of the Commission’s Honorary Life President, Dr. Karl Jordan was followed by that of Profess~-Sodenheimer, Professor Béla Hanko and now Dr. Cabrera. Zoologists who attended the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology in London in 1958 will know that, amongst other decisions taken by the Congress affecting the Commission, there was one to the effect that its by-laws should be overhauled. The Com- mittee entrusted with this task has already submitted its draft of a revised constitution, but it has not yet been possible to overhaul the by-laws. In consequence, as a guide for the purpose of the submission of nominations of new commissioners, the procedure laid down in the existing (incomplete) by-laws is quoted below :— “Every application for the election of a member of the Commission to be the representative of the zoologists of a particular country not at that time represented on the Commission or, where the zoologists of a country are so represented, for the election of an additional representative or repre- sentatives, should be submitted to the Commission either by some leading scientific institution or learned society of that country or by a Government Agency of that country or through that country’s diplomatic representative in the country in which the headquarters of the Commission are situated, and no application submitted otherwise than as specified above should be taken into consideration.” Subsequent paragraphs of the by-laws enjoin that the Executive Committee shall scrutinise the nominations and, provided that the candidates put forward satisfy the necessary requirements, as, for example, that they have the necessary technical knowledge, experience, energy and other requisite qualifications, authorise the Executive Committee itself to proceed to an election. Nominations should be addressed to me, at the British Museum (Natural History), London, S.W.7. Illness of the President. I am very glad to report that Professor Chester Bradley has made a remarkable recovery and is again taking an active interest in the affairs of the Commission. I was able to discuss a number of matters with him in Vienna on the occasion of the Eleventh International Congress of Entomology held there in August. He expects to remain at Waldau in Switzerland until the Spring of 1961. N. D. RILEY, Honorary Secretary. 2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature NOTICES (a) Date of Commencement of Voting—lIn 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 Secre- tariat 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 56 generic names published by Meigen, 1800 (Insecta, Diptera) (Z.N.(S.) 191) ; (2) Suppression of the generic name Saduria Adams, 1852 (Crustacea, Tsopoda) (Z.N.(S.) 412) ; (3) Validation of the generic name Encrinus Lamarck, 1801 (Crinoidea) (Z.N.(S.) 434) ; (4) Validation of the generic name Myelophilus Eichhoff, 1878 (Insecta, Coleoptera) (Z.N.(S.) 467) ; (5) Suppression of the specific name couchiit Kent, 1883. (Lepidogaster [sic]) (Pisces) (Z.N.(S.) 1330) ; (6) Designation of a type-species for Woehrmannia Boehm, 1895 (Gastro- poda) (Z.N.(S.) 1346) ; (7) Designation of a type-species for Huceraphis Walker, 1870 (Insecta, Hemiptera) (Z.N.(S.) 1363) ; (8) Suppression of the specific name atratus Gmelin, 1788 (Coluber)(Reptilia) Z.N.(S.) 1371) ; (9) Validation of the generic name Perla Geoffroy, 1762 (Insecta, Plec- optera) (Z.N.(S.) 1451) ; (10) Validation of the generic name Gari Schumacher, 1817, so spelt (Bivalvia) (Z.N.(S.) 1461); (11) Suppression of eleven, and validation of thirteen, specific names in Classes Reptilia and Amphibia (Z.N.(S.) 1449). c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary London, S8.W.7, England. International Commission on 5th August, 1960. Zoological Nomenclature Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3 APPLICATION TO SUPPRESS UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS ELEVEN SPECIFIC NAMES OF AMPHIBIA AND REPTILIA AND TO VALIDATE THIRTEEN NAMES WITH THEIR ORIGINAL AUTHOR AND DATE. Z.N.(S.) 1449. By Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum und Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main) and Heinz Wermuth (Zoologisches Museum, Berlin) The complete synonymy of the Amphibians and Reptiles of Europe has been revised by the applicants for the purposes of a new edition of the “ Liste der Amphibien und Reptilien Europas”. In the course of this work they discovered a small number of long-forgotten specific and subspecific names in these groups, most of which had never been used after their introduction into the literature by the original author. Following the Rules and according to the Law of Priority these names should replace other and well-known names which are in common use throughout the literature. 2. Under the provision of the Rules the following long-forgotten specific and subspecific names must be regarded as senior subjective synonyms of other well-known names : Salamandra funebris Bory, 1828 (Rés. Erpétol. Hist. nat. Rept. : 236). Senior subjective synonym of the name Pleurodeles waltl Michahelles, 1830 (Isis [Oken] 23 : 195, tab. 2). Rana bosci Bory, 1828 (Rés. Erpétol. Hist. nat. Rept. : 266). Senior sub- jective synonym of the name Rana esculenta perezi Seoane, 1885 (The Zoologist (3)9 : 171, fig.). The name perezi is now regarded as the valid name for a subspecies of the species Rana ridibunda Pallas, 1771. Anguis besseri Andrzejowski, 1832 (Nouv. Mém. Soc. Natural. Moscou (2)2 : 338, tab. 22, fig. 7, tab. 24). Senior subjective synonym of the name Otophis eryx var. colchica Nordmann, 1840 (tx Demidoff, Voy. Russ. mérid. Crim. 3 : 341). The name colchica is now regarded as the name of a valid subspecies of the species Anguis fragilis Linnaeus, 1758. Lacerta muralis punctato-striata Eimer, 1881 (Arch. Naturgesch. 47(1) : 340, tab. 13, figs. 4-5) and Lacerta muralis punctato-fasciata Eimer, 1881 (ibid. : 368, tab. 13, fig. 10). Both these names are senior subjective synonyms of the very well-known name Lacerta muralis neapolitana var. fiwumana Werner, 1891 (Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 44 : 753). ° The name fiumana is now regarded as the valid name of a subspecies of the species Lacerta melisellensis Braun, 1877. In connection with the availability of the name fiwmana there are special problems which are discussed in the second part of this application. Podarcis michahellesii Fitzinger, 1864 (in Erber, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 14 : 703). Senior subjective synonym of the name Lacerta viridis var. trilineata Bedriaga, 1886 (Abh. senckenb. naturf. Ges. 14:99). The name trilineata is now regarded as the name for a valid species of the genus Lacerta. Coluber melanepis Rafinesque, 1814 (Précis Décowv. Trav. somiol. : 15). Senior subjective synonym of the name Coluber viridi-flavus var. carbonarius Bonaparte, 1833 (Iconogr. Faun. ital. 2(5) : tab.). 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Coluber nigricollis Dwigubskij, 1832 (Opyt estestv. Istorit 3 : 26). Senior subjective synonym of the name Coronella modesta Martin, 1838 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1838 : 82). The name modesta is now regarded as the valid name of a species of the genus Hirenis Jan, 1863. Coluber quater-radiatus Gmelin, 1799 (Der Naturforscher, Halle 28 : 169, tab. 3, fig. 1) and Coluber elaphis Shaw, 1802 (Gen. Zool. 3 : 450). Both these names are senior subjective synonyms of the well-known name Coluber scalaris Schinz, 1822 (Das Thierreich von Cuvier 2 : 123). The name scalaris is now regarded as the valid name of a species of the genus Elaphe Fitzinger, 1833. Coluber foetidus Giildenstedt, 1801 (in Georgi, Geogr.-phys. naturh. Beschreib. russ. Reich. 3(7) : 1884). Senior subjective synonym of the name Pelias renardi Christoph, 1861 (Bull. Soc. Natural. Moscow 34(2) : 599). The name renardi is now regarded as the valid name for a subspecies of the species Vipera ursinit (Bonaparte, 1835). 3. In the interests of stability and continuity of nomenclature in the common species and subspecies concerned it is suggested that the senior synonyms recently discovered and listed in the preceding paragraph be sup- pressed under the plenary powers. None of these names has been used as the name of a valid taxon for the last 50 years ; Salamandra funebris and Rana bosci have even been forgotten for more than a century. None has been used or mentioned in the previous two editions of the checklist of the Amphibians and Reptiles of Europe published by Mertens & Miiller (1928 ; 1940). 4. The revision of the synonymy of the European species of Amphibians and Reptiles by the applicants showed the availability of 13 names, commonly used throughout the literature as specific and subspecific names, to be defective on technical grounds. All these names were introduced as of infrasubspecific rank, i.e. under the Rules they are not available for the purposes of Zoological Nomenclature. 5. When discussing this problem it is to be emphasised that it was not the intention of the original authors of these names to create them as of infra- subspecific rank in the modern sense, as interpreted by the decisions of the XVth International Congress of Zoology, London, 1958. The names concerned did not refer to individual variants but to distinct populations isolated by geographical limits. In the state of science of that time a careful reviser of the entangled group of “ Wall Lizards” was obliged first to distinguish the complex species Lacerta muralis into several groups, then to designate the geographical units by means of a fourth name. Today we know that the former Lacerta muralis is to be divided into a number of distinct species, thus easily avoiding infrasubspecific names. If we therefore try to understand the matter historically, we must conclude that these names referred exactly to categories which are now regarded as of subspecific rank. 6. Consequently later authors did use the names, each with original author and date, as names of species and subspecies, which means they nomenclatorially elevated them to names of corresponding rank. But as they were published originally as infrasubspecific names in each case the first author who elevated them to the group of specific names is to be regarded under the Code as the nomenclatorial author with his own date. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5 7. The names have often been used in scientific as well as in more popular publications and periodicals. It seems hardly possible in each case to find the author who first used the names as of specific/subspecific rank ; therefore there would in the future be instability of authorship and date of these names. Moreover it is to be expected that many of these authors would prove to be amateur herpetologists. 8. The names concerned, with their original authors and dates, are as follows : Triton vulgaris subsp. typica forma lantzi Wolterstorff, 1914 (Abh. Ber. Mus. Magdeburg 2(4) : 375) ; [=Triturus vulgaris lantzi] Rana arvalis altaica natio issaltschikovi Terentjev, 1927 (Proc. 2. Congr. Zool. Anat. Histol. USSR, 1925 : 71) ; [= Rana arvalis issaltschikovi] Lacerta muralis fusca var. erhardii Bedriaga, 1882 (Bull. Soc. Natural. Moscou 56(3) : 99) ; [=Lacerta erhardir] Lacerta muralis fusca var. naxensis Werner, 1899 (Wiss. Mitt. Bosn. Hercegov. 6 : 835) ; [=Lacerta erhardu naxensis]| Lacerta fiwmana lissana var. digenea Wettstein, 1926 (in Kammerer, Artenwandel auf Ins. : 279, tab. 4, fig. 28-29) ; [=Lacerta melisellensis digenea] Lacerta muralis neapolitana var. fiumana Werner, 1891 (Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien’41 : 753) ; [=Lacerta melisellensis fiumana] Lacerta muralis fusca var. lissana Werner, 1891 (Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 41 : 752) ; [=Lacerta melisellensis lissana] Lacerta muralis fusca var. milensis Bedriaga, 1882 (Bull. Soc. Natural. Moscou 56(3): 98) ; [=Lacerta milensis] Lacerta muralis neapolitana var. insulanica Bedriaga, 1882 (Bull. Soc. Natural. Moscou 56(3) : 101) ; [=Lacerta muralis insulanica] Lacerta muralis var. fusca maculiventris Werner, 1891 (Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 41 : 752) ; [=Lacerta muralis maculiventris] Lacerta muralis coerulescens gallensis Eimer, 1881 (Arch. Naturgesch. 47(1) : 395) ; [Lacerta sicula gallensis] Lacerta muralis coerulescens monaconensis Eimer, 1881 (Arch. Naturgesch. 47(1) : 393, tab. 15, fig. 23) ; [=Lacerta sicula monaconensis] Lacerta muralis neopolitana var. pelagosae Bedriaga, 1886 (Abh. senckenb. naturf. Ges. 14(2) : 228) ; [=Lacerta sicula pelagosae] 9. In view of the facts set out above and in the interests of stability and continuity of nomenclature we ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following specific names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy : (a) funebris Bory, 1828, as published in. the binomen Salamandra funebris ; (b) bosct Bory, 1828, as published in the binomen Rana bosci ; (c) bessert Andrzejowski, 1832, as published in the binomen Anguis besser ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (d) punctato-striata Eimer, 1881, as published in the binomen Lacerta muralis punctato-striata ; (e) punctato-fasciata Eimer, 1881, as published in the binomen Lacerta muralis punctato-fasciata ; (f) michahellesii Fitzinger, 1864, as published in the binomen Podarcis michahellesit ; (g) melanepis Rafinesque, 1814, as published in the binomen Coluber melanepis ; (h) nigricollis Dwigubskij, 1832, as published in the binomen Coluber nigricollis ; (i) quater-radiatus Gmelin, 1799, as published in the binomen Coluber quater-radiatus ; (k) elaphis Shaw, 1802, as published in the binomen Coluber elaphis ; (1) foetidus Giildenstedt, 1801, as published in the binomen Coluber foetidus. (2) to use its plenary powers to validate the following specific names with their original authors and dates : (a) lantzi Wolterstorff, 1914, as published in the combination Triton vulgaris subsp. typica forma lantzi (Class Amphibia) ; (b) issaltschikovi Terentjev, 1927, as published in the combination Rana arvalis altaica natio issaltschikovi (Class Amphibia) ; (c) erhardiwi Bedriaga, 1882, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis fusca var. erhardii (Class Reptilia) ; (d) naxensis Werner, 1889, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis fusca var. naxensis (Class Reptilia) ; (e) digenea Wettstein, 1926, as published in the combination Lacerta fiwmana lissana var. digenea (Class Reptilia) ; (f) fiwmana Werner, 1891, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis neapolitana var. fiumana (Class Reptilia) ; (g) lissana Werner, 1891, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis fusca var. lissana (Class Reptilia) ; (h) milensis Bedriaga, 1882, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis fusca var. milensis (Class Reptilia) ; (i) insulanica Bedriaga, 1882, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis neapolitana var. insulanica (Class Reptilia) ; (k) maculiventris Werner, 1891, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis var. fusca maculiventris (Class Reptilia) ; (1) gallensis Eimer, 1881, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis coerulescens gallensis (Class Reptilia) ; (m) monaconensis Eimer, 1881, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis coerulescens monaconensis (Class Reptilia) ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7 (n) pelagosae Bedriaga, 1886, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis neapolitana var. pelagosae (Class Reptilia). (3) to place the eleven specific names suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the thirteen specific names validated under the plenary powers in (2) above on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAME SOUTHERNIA FILIPJEV, 1927. Z.N.(S.) 940. (See volume 17, pages 86-88.) By William G. Inglis (British Musewm (Natural History), London) The taxonomic study of the free-living Nematoda is still in its infancy and it is very doubtful if it is desirable to place any generic names of such a group on the Official Lists or Indexes. For example Case 1 refers to the genus Southernia which (sensu Allgén, 1929) contains only three (or four) species all of which have been referred to in the literature on very few occasions. The obvious way of treating such a case where there is no clear evidence of there being any “ stability ’’ to worry about is to re-name it. The name has only existed for a little over thirty years, is not widespread in the literature and I oppose any action being taken on this proposal. The placing of the name Rhabdodemania Baylis and Daubney, 1926 on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and of the name Demania Southern, 1914 on the List of Rejected and Invalid Names appears to be unnecessary since their status is clear and as a matter of general principle I would object to the cluttering up of the Official Lists with such names. I therefore oppose any action being taken on them. Case 2. I can see no advantage in placing the generic name Parasphaerolaimus Ditlevsen, 1918 on the Official List of Generic Names since (1) there is no question as to its type-species ; (2) there is no evidence that it is a junior homonym and needs to be protected for purposes of stability ; (3) whether it is recognized as a genus or not is a taxonomic matter and at present Parasphaero- laimus is not accepted as a distinct genus, although I would agree that there are reasons for treating it as distinct, this is a matter of taxonomic judgment and not nomenclature, so that we have the position where the name of a not generally accepted genus is proposed for a place on the Official Lists ; (4) I do not understand the last remark in the case “‘. . . ., and the latter (i.e. Parasphaerolaimus) ought to be preserved as the generic name of the species paradoxus Ditlevsen, 1918.” Clearly if the species paradoxus is considered to be generically distinct the name of its genus must be Parasphaerolaimus. If other species should be included with it in the same genus and one of these should be the type-species of an earlier generic name Parasphaerolaimus would become a junior synonym and I cannot see that this would lead to any instability in nomenclature since the name Parasphaerolaimus has only been used twice as far as I can find out. On the other hand the other generic name, presupposing that such a name existed, might be older and more generally used than Parasphaerolaimus but it would have to fall into synonymy. In effect the placing of the name Parasphaerolaimus on the Official List has nothing to commend it but such an action could produce nomenclatorial instability through the Commission being invited to legislate in the dark. I oppose this proposal. The placing of Sphaerolaimus Bastian, 1865 on the Official List of Generic Names can only have been proposed to cover the eventuality that it might have to be suppressed in favour of Parasphaerolaimus if the latter name were placed on the Official List and if other authors continued to persist in not treating Parasphaero- laimus as a genus distinct from Sphaerolaimus. If both the proposals are accepted the nomen- clatorial position would not be altered since Parasphaerolaimus would simply go into and come out of synonymy with Sphaerolaimus as is already the case. This case should be rejected. I oppose it. Case 3. This is a simple case where the application of the Rules has made the nomenclatorial position perfectly clear. Allgén suggests that the valid names should be placed on the Lists “. . . to prevent further confusion”. There does not appear to be any chance of confusion and I would oppose action being taken on this case. Further it is doubtful if such action in a group as poorly known as the free-living Nematoda has anything to commend it, on the grounds of either convenience or stability. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9 REPORT ON MR. C. W. SABROSKY’S PROPOSAL FOR THE SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE PAMPHLET ENTITLED “ NOUVELLE CLASSIFICATION DES MOUCHES A DEUX AILES ” BY J. W. MEIGEN, 1800. Z.N.(S).191 By R. V. Melville (Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Foreword The subjoined report, as explained in its introductory paragraphs, was designed to show how Mr. C. W. Sabrosky’s proposal for the suppression of Meigen’s Nouvelle Classification des Mouches & deux Ailes could be completed ; that is, it was envisaged as an integral part of that proposal, and in accordance with that view, was submitted to the Commission for a vote on 7 October 1959. At the close of the Voting Period on 7 January 1960, 24 Commissioners had voted in favour, and 2 against the proposals contained in the report. Professor J. Chester Bradley, President of the Commission, whilst voting in favour of these proposals, took the view that they constituted virtually a new application to the Commission ; that no vote on Mr. Sabrosky’s original application (B.Z.N. 6 : 131-141) had been formally taken; and that an Opinion embodying the result of the vote on the report would be premature and irregular. In his view, the report should first have been published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and then presented to the Commission as a proposal alternative to that of Mr. Sabrosky, so that the latter could clearly be seen to have been expressly subjected to a vote. By this course, dipterists who had not already been consulted (see p. 17 below), and workers in the other groups affected, would have been given an opportunity to comment on the issues involved. In order to avoid the possibility of doubt arising now or in the future as to the validity of the vote taken on this most complicated issue, Mr. Melville’s report is now published below and the prescribed public notice of the possible use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers in the manner indicated, is being given. If, after the expiry of six months from the date of this publication, no objection has been received to the proposals embodied in the report, the vote already taken by the Commission will be regarded as rejecting Mr. Sabrosky’s original proposal (total suppression of Meigen’s 1800 names) and accepting the modified version set out by Mr. Melville below, and an Opinion will be published giving effect to that decision. If, on the other hand, objections are received, these will be circulated to the Commission with a Bull, zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 1. December 1960. 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature One-Month Voting Paper in which each member of the Commission will be asked whether, in the light of those objections, he wishes to change his previous vote. If the effect of these supplementary votes is to uphold the previous vote by a two-thirds majority the situation will remain unchanged. If, on the other hand, the previous vote is not upheld, the resultant Opinion will give affirmative effect to Mr. Sabrosky’s original proposal, and the modified proposals will be lost. N. D. RILEY Honorary Secretary, InternationalCommission on Zoological Nomenclature Introduction This report had been nearly completed by Mr. Francis Hemming at the time when he was compelled by ill-health to resign the office of Secretary to the Commission. The purpose of the report is to present to the Commission proposals for the completion of Mr. Sabrosky’s proposal (received in 1951) for the suppression under the Plenary Powers of J. W. Meigen’s pamphlet entitled Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a Deux Ailes (1800). 2. Meigen’s Nouvelle Classification is probably without rival for the amount of confusion and lack of uniformity in zoological nomenclature to which it has given rise during the last fifty years, and Mr. Sabrosky, as a specialist in Diptera (the group mostly concerned), is to be congratulated on his action in bringing the matter to the attention of the Commission. His proposal, however, although apparently simple, cannot be adopted without the most careful con- sideration, for the mere suppression of the work in question would have the most far-reaching effects on the nomenclature of other groups of animals. As will be more fully explained below, the fact that Meigen’s pamphlet was almost completely overlooked for more than a century after its publication led to many junior homonyms coming into existence, while the rediscovery of the work has led to the replacement of some (but by no means all) of those homonyms by other names which have come into general use. It has therefore been necessary to consider individually each one of the new generic names published in the Nouvelle Classification and to decide whether it should be suppressed only so as to validate its counterpart junior synonym in Diptera; whether it should be suppressed so as to validate a junior homonym in Diptera or in some other group; or whether it should be suppressed so as not to validate a homonym which has been replaced. This report-therefore begins with a brief history of the Nouvelle Classification in Section I. Section II summarises the work Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 11 done by Mr. Sabrosky in analysing the relative usage of Meigen’s 1800 names and of later names for the same genera and in ascertaining the wishes of Dipterists on the question of whether the 1800 names should be suppressed. Section III describes the action needed to give effect to Mr. Sabrosky’s proposal and Sections IV, V and VI set out the procedure required to place on Official Lists the names validated by the suppression of the 1800 names. Section VII outlines the treatment to be accorded to Meigen’s pamphlet and Section VIII explains the way in which the bibliographic references are arranged. Section IX indicates future developments in respect of deficiences in the present report and Section X puts before the Commission the specific proposals required to give effect to Mr. Sabrosky’s proposal. Details of the generic, specific and family-group names involved are relegated to a series of Appendices. For convenience of reference, each name is numbered throughout this Report with the number of the Meigen, 1800, generic name with which it is connected. I. The Historical Background 3. Meigen’s Nouvelle Classification is an 8vo pamphlet of forty pages published in Paris. On the title page it is dated both according to the French Revolutionary Calendar and according to the Christian Era as “AN VIII (1800 v.s.)”. The Revolutionary Year VIII ran from 23 September 1799 to 22 September 1800, so that publication must have taken place before the latter date. Meigen’s ‘““Avant-Propos”’ is dated ‘‘ le premier Germinal an 7 ”’ (i.e. 21 March 1799) and Baumhauer’s “‘ Introduction ” is dated ‘le 10 Messidor an 7” (i.e. 28 June 1799). It is therefore reasonable to conclude that this small pamphlet, which need not have taken long to print, was probably pub- lished early in 1800. 4. The title-page reads “ Nouvelle/Classification/des/Mouches A Deux Ailes/(Diptera L.)/d’aprés un plan tout nouveau/par J. G. Meigen/(vignette)/a Paris/chez J. J. Fuchs, Librairie, Rue/des Mathurins, No. 334./De l’ Imprimerie de H. L. Perronneau/Rue du Battoir, No. 8/(rule)/AN VIII (1800 v.s.).” In this work, which was offered as a “ prodrome ”’ to a projected larger work, the Diptera are divided into eighty-eight (88) genera, each provided with a short diagnosis in French and the number of species (all European) which he recognised as belonging to each genus. In no case, however, is any nominal species cited by name. Of these 88 nominal genera, 25 had already been named by previous authors and 63 were new. On further consideration, Meigen seems to have abandoned the “ plan tout nouveau ” of the Nouvelle Classification, for in 1803, in his ‘‘ Versuch einer neuen GattungsEintheilung der europaischen zweifliigligen Insekten ” (Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 2 : 259-281) he put forward a revised scheme in which he made no reference to the Nouvelle Classification of 1800 and in which only two of the new names proposed in 1800 were used. The total number of genera recognised was now 114, each briefly diagnosed, and each (with few exceptions) with one or more nominal species referred to it. _ 5, Following the publication of the Versuch of 1803, the Nouvelle Classifica- tion of 1800 disappeared into obscurity for 105 years. This was no doubt due 12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature to the great influence exercised by Meigen’s later works, especially his Klassifica- tion und Beschreibung der europdischen zweifliigligen Insekten (Diptera) (1804) and his seven-volume Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweifliigligen Insekten (1818-1838), in both of which the system outlined in the Versuch of 1803 was used, while no reference was made to the Nouvelle Classification of 1800. The neglect of this latter work was also no doubt due in part to the rarity of the pamphlet, and the great difficulty of interpreting the new genera established in it through the omission by Meigen of any particulars as to the species referred by him to those genera. In 1908, however, the position was completely changed by the publication by Friedrich Hendel of his “J. G. Meigen: Nouvelle Classification des Mouches 4 Deux Ailes (Diptera L.)” (Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien), in which, by a close comparison of the German diagnoses of 1803 with the French diagnoses of 1800, he was able to synonymise many of the new genera published in the earlier work with genera published in the later work. 6. Hendel’s re-introduction of the Meigen names of 1800 was strongly opposed by most dipterists and shortly afterwards the late Dr. J. M. Aldrich asked the Commission to give a ruling against the availability of those names. At that time—some years before the granting to the Commission of Plenary Powers to suspend the Régles in the interests of stability—Dr. Aldrich’s application could be judged only on the narrow ground of whether or not the Nouvelle Classification had been “ published ”’ in the sense of Article 25 of the Régles. The Commission found that it had been so published and accordingly in Opinion 28 (1910; Smithson. Misc. Publ. 1989 : 66-67) it ruled that the generic names in the Nowvelle Classification of 1800 were to be given precedence over those of the Versuch of 1803 in every case where the names concerned were available names. 7. Opinion 28, taken in conjunction with D. W. Coquillett’s “ The type- species of the North American genera of Diptera” (1910; Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 37 : 499-622), in which many of Meigen’s 1800 names were recognised, led to the acceptance of those names by a number of workers. A much larger number, however, refused to accept these names. An attempt was made to deal with the resultant disastrous confusion and lack of uniformity in the nomenclature of Diptera by the Fifth International Entomological Congress at Paris in 1932, but in a sparsely attended meeting a motion in favour of the acceptance of the 1800 names was carried by a small majority. This resolution was forwarded for consideration by the Commission at its Lisbon session in 1935. By this time, the tide had begun to flow in the direction of favouring stability of nomenclature and the Commission, recognising that this end would not be served by the adoption en bloc of the 1800 names, decided to seek a solution by inviting dipterists to submit proposals in regard to individual cases in which, in their opinion, the acceptance of the 1800 names would lead to greater con- fusion than uniformity. This decision was published as Opinion 152 (1944 ; Ops. Decls. Int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 181-196). The rarity of the Nouvelle Classification was such that very few dipterists had ever seen a copy, the majority having had to rely on Hendel’s paper of 1908. It therefore appeared to the Office of the Commission that the intention expressed in Opinion 152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13 would be promoted if Meigen’s pamphlet were re-issued in facsimile, thus providing many zoologists with their first opportunity of judging the work as a whole. The Council of the Zoological Society of London generously placed the Society’s copy at the Commission’s disposal, and the facsimile was published in September 1945 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 119-160). The Meigen question was again considered by the Commission at its Paris session in 1948, by which time a larger number, though still only a minority, of dipterists had come to accept the 1800 names. The Commission decided (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 557-558) to take all practicable steps to promote applications in the terms of Opinion 152 for or against the suppression of the 1800 names, in the hope that, by the issue of a series of Opinions, all the names concerned would eventually be dealt with: 8. The publication of the foregoing decision led to the submission to the Commission of a number of individual applications regarding particular names, and five of these were published in 1951 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2: 134-160). This in turn aroused afresh the interest of dipterists in the Meigen problem and led to the submission by Mr. Sabrosky in September 1951 of the proposal for the suppression of Meigen’s Nouvelle Classification which is now laid before the Commission for final settlement. II. Mr. Sabrosky’s investigation of the relative usage of the Meigen, 1800 names and of later names for the genera concerned and his census of the wishes of dipterists on the question of the Suppression of the 1800 names (a) Relative usage of the Meigen (1800) names and of later names for the genera concerned 9. In submitting his proposal for the suppression of Meigen’s pamphlet (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 131-141), Mr. Sabrosky took note of the fact that the dipterists were divided into two groups, those in one group accepting, and those in the second refusing to accept the 1800 names, and he therefore con- cluded that a quantitative analysis of the relative size of the two groups, in personnel and in output of publications, would provide a useful factor in judging the merits of his application. The results of his investigations were presented in three tables, and these deserve careful study, not only because of their intrinsic interest, but because they show conclusively, contrary to assertions made by some of the supporters of the 1800 names, that the usage of these names, far from constituting a substantial percentage of total usage, formed in fact only a small minority usage. The first table summarises usage in “major publications ”’, divided into (1) the literature of the Order Diptera, (2) the literature of general Entomology and (3) the literature of general Zoology. The second table summarises recent usage as expressed in the Zoological Record for 1939, 1947 and 1948 and the Bibliogr. Agr. for 1950 and the third table compares usage in the years 1911-1930 with that in the years 1931-1950 so as to show changes in practice in those two periods. The tables are reproduced below : : 14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature TABLE I Summary of usage in major publications (See Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 137) 1800 Mixed Usage of usage usage later names Diptera Catalogues .. es re Mi — 2 7 Manuals, etc. 8 4 35 Faunal Lists 1 3 21 General Entomology Textbooks .. re + a 72 Zoological Record _ —_ 1 Guides and Handbooks 2 18 Others 3 3 45 General Zoology — 34 Totals (263) .. = e% - 18 12 233 Proportion of total usage... # 6.8% 4.6% 88.6% TABLE III (See Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 139) 1911-1930 1931-1950 Number Per cent. Number Per cent. of using later of using later papers names papers names Bull. Ent. Research (England) .. 75 95 34 97 Journ. Econ. Entom.(U.8.A.) .. 73 89 51 90 10. These tables show convincingly that the 1800 names are accepted by only a small minority of authors in only a small minority of published works over the whole field of zoological literature and in all countries, and that the preponderance of the usage of later names for the same genera tended to increase slightly with the passage of time up to 1950. (b) Census of the wishes of dipterists on the question of the suppression of the 1800 names 11. It does not necessarily follow, from the evidence presented in the tables above, that an equally preponderant majority of workers would favour the suppression of the 1800 names by the use of the Plenary Powers, and it was accordingly judged essential to obtain a representative statement of the wishes of dipterists on this point before submitting Mr. Sabrosky’s proposal to the Commission for a decision. For this purpose 400 separates of his paper in the Bulletin were made available to Mr. Sabrosky to be circulated to dipterists with a questionnaire. The number actually circulated was 370 (U.S.A. and Canada 112; Latin America 49; United Kingdom 4] ; Europe 95; Africa 25; Asia 30; Australasia 18). Six months later Mr. Sabrosky sent an analysis of the 188 replies received, representing the following percentages of the copies 15 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9T 9 FL 68 GL 40} | 98 9€ OL 99 OS6I ‘uby “BouquT GS Or GL 6L OL FOL L6 GE 89 GL SF6I FG OT LL 8L 08 SOT G6 GG 9L €8 L¥61 FG 6 €8 III 18 99T 86 6¢ IL LOT 6€61 “‘psovay “1007 osesn esesn souleu souleUu saoded soureu sioded. soueu szoded €O8I OOST eq, Suisn requnyy 107e] SuIsn jo 10}e] Suisn jo Joye] Suisn jo "que0 19g ‘quao Jog JoquinyNY ‘yuedJeg JoquINnNY “yus0 Jeg sequin poyuesoider solIyUNnoy sioqyny s[eqO, DTULOUOXB4-U0 NT oTULOUOXRT, uoryeoyqng jo adéy, (SEI: 9 ‘pouamoyy “yoog ‘yng 90g) abvsn jyuaoes fo hinwungy Il WIaViL 16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of the questionnaire distributed :—U.S.A. and Canada 63%; Latin America 39% ; United Kingdom 59%; Europe 44%; Africa 44%; Asia 33%; Australasia 56%. Mr. Sabrosky’s report on these replies (Bull. zool. Nomencel. 9 : 225-240 ; 1954) brought out the following salient points. Of the zoologists who replied, 171 (80%) stated that their field of work involved the disputed 1800 names. Of the 171, 114 (70%) stated that they used later names and 49 (30%) the 1800 names. In the two largest areas (U.S.A. & Canada ; Continental Europe) 59 and 53% respectively of the zoologists replying said that they used later names and the combined total for the rest of the world (58 replies) showed 91% as using those names. On the crucial question ‘‘ Do you vote for the present proposal to suppress the Meigen 1800 names ?” 155 (85%) replied ‘‘ Yes”’ and 28 (15%) replied “ No”’. III. Action required to give effect to Mr. Sabrosky’s proposal 12. From the evidence summarised in paragraphs 8 to 11 above it is clear that current usage and current opinion among Dipterists are alike in favour of the rejection of the Meigen 1800 names so as to validate the names in general use. It has already been explained in the Introduction, however, that to achieve this by simply suppressing the Nouvelle Classification under the Plenary Powers would have far-reaching disruptive effects on the current nomen- clature of other groups, owing to the existence of many junior homonyms of Meigen 1800 names, some of which have been replaced since Hendel (1908) resuscitated Meigen’s work. 13. Each of the new generic names in the Nouvelle Classification has there- fore been considered individually, and it has been found that they fall into three principal groups. There are first those names for which no junior homonyms exist ; these should be suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy so as to validate the junior synonyms applied to the same genera. Secondly, there are the names of which junior homonyms exist, whether in the Diptera or in some other group, and which contue 1 general use, no replacement names existing ; in this group, the Meiger: 1800 names should be suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority (so as to validace the junior synonyms in Diptera) and for those of the Law of Hommymy (so as to validate the junior homonyms). Thirdly, there are those uames of which the junior homonyms have been replaced ; here the Meigen 1800 names should be suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, so as to validate the junior synonyms in Diptera without giving a new lease of life to the junior homonyms in question and so invalidating the replacement names. This task, and the collecting of the data necessary to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the names.to be adopted in place of the Meigen, 1800 names has been very laborious, and it is for this reason that so much time has elapsed since the publication in 1954 of Mr. Sabrosky’s report on the replies to his questionnaire (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 225-240). : 14, The investigations have been carried out in the Commission’s office by Miss Diana Noakes, B.Sc. and particular thanks are due to her for the patience, care and skill which she devoted to this work. The closing stages were Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17 completed by Miss Margaret Spillane, B.Sc., in the same spirit of devotion. Mr. Sabrosky’s public-spirited action in bringing the problem to the attention of the Commission and his strenuous efforts to provide it with objective data to form the basis of a decision have been outlined above. He also submitted a report on consultations between himself and non-entomological colleagues in the United States National Museum in regard to names in other groups which are junior homonyms of the Meigen (1800) names. The warmest thanks are due to the Trustees and Librarians of the British Museum (Natural History) and to the Councils and Librarians of the Zoological and Royal Entomological Societies of London for the facilities granted to Miss Noakes and Miss Spillane and for help in tracing references. Professor L. W. Grensted, the Consulting Classical Adviser to the Commission, furnished a report on the gender of the generic names which are proposed below to be placed on the Official List. In the later stages of the investigation many specialists in the Diptera and in other groups were consulted in respect of particular names, and the grateful thanks of the Commission are due to them. They are : The following members of the staff of the British Museum (Natural History), London :— Mr. FE. B. Britton, Dr. W. E. China, Mr. R. L. Coe, Dr. L. R. Cox, F.RS., the late Dr. F. W. Edwards, Dr. P. Freeman, Mr. H. Oldroyd, Mr. S. Prudhoe, Dr. W. J. Rees, Mr. N. D. Riley, Dr. N. Tebble, Mr. P. E. 8. Whalley ; Dr. W. J. Hall and the late Dr. F. van Emden, Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London; Mr. A. B. Acton, University of Glasgow, Scotland ; the late Professor M. L. Aczél, Tucuman, Argentina, Professor C. P. Alexander, Amherst, Mass., U.S.A., Professor G. W. Byers, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A., J. E. Collin, Esq., Raylands, Newmarket, England, Dr. N. B. Eales, Reading, England, Professor Dr. H. Engel, Amsterdam, Netherlands, the late Capt. E. R. Goffe, King’s Somborne, Hants, England, Professor Elmo Hardy, Hawaii, Dr. A. M. Hemmingsen, Copenhagen, Denmark, Dr. W. Hennig, Berlin, Germany, Professor Dr. E. M. Hering, Berlin, Germany, Dr. W. D. Hincks, Manchester, England, Professor Dr. T. Jaczewski, Warsaw, Poland, Dr. E. L. Kessel, San Francisco, California, U.S.A., Dr. G. Kruseman, Amsterdam, Professor J. Lane, Sao Paulo; Brazil, Dr. H. Lemche, Copen- hagen, Professor G. Marcuzzi, Padua, Italy, Dr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott, London, Dr. E. G. Munroe, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Professor Dr. J. Nast, Warsaw, Dr. W. F. Rapp, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A., Dr. F. R. Shaw, Amherst, Mass., U.S.A., Dr. J. Smart, Cambridge, England, Dr. A. Stone, Washington, D.C., Professor A. Thienemann, Plon, Germany, Dr. 8. L. Tuxen, Copenhagen, Denmark, Dr. J. R. Vockeroth, Ottawa, Canada. 15. In order that the members of the Commission may be able to follow the successive steps needed to deal with the present case, it is necessary that they should first have before them a list of the generic names primarily involved. These are the 88 names published in the Nouvelle Classification and they are listed in Appendix I, where the 63 new names first published in that work are given in Part A and the 25 names established by earlier authors and used by Meigen are listed in Part B (see p. 24). 16. Of the 63 new generic names, all of which will be suppressed under the Plenary Powers if Mr. Sabrosky’s proposal is put into effect, three have already 18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature been suppressed by the Commission. Particulars of these are given in Appendix II (see p. 25). The number of names still to be dealt with is thus reduced to 60. 17. Of these 60 names, three are junior homonyms of names previously published for genera in other groups. Each of the senior homonyms is a valid name in general use and should thus be placed on the Official List. Particulars are given in Appendix III (see p. 25). 18. There then remain 57 names to be divided into the three groups described in paragraph 13 above. These are catalogued below as follows :— 1 name (Apivora Meigen, 1800) to be placed on the Official Index as a junior objective synonym of a name placed on the Official List in Opinion 441 (Volucella Geoffroy, 1762) ; 26 names without junior homonyms, to be suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy (Appendix IV, Part A, p. 26); 16 names with junior homonyms which have been replaced, to be sup- pressed in the same manner (Appendix IV, Part B, p.26;thereplaced junior homonyms, to be placed on the Official Index, are included in Appendix V, Part K, p. 44); 14 names with junior homonyms which have never been replaced (with one exception ; but the replacement name has never been adopted) to be suppressed for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy (Appendix IV, Part C, p. 27). It may be noted here that the junior homonyms validated by the sup- pression of this last group of 14 names consist of five generic names in Diptera, two in Scyphozoa, two in Polychaeta, one in Coleoptera, two in Lepidoptera, one in Gastropoda and one in Mammalia. IV. Names which would need to be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the event of the acceptance by the Commission of Mr. Sabrosky’s Proposal 19. In order to complete the action involved in giving effect to Mr. Sabrosky’s proposal it is necessary now to consider, first the names to be placed on the Official List as the counterparts in Diptera of the Meigen 1800 names, and secondly, the names (in Diptera and in other groups) validated by the sup- pression of certain of the Meigen 1800 names for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy. The first step in this part of the investigation is to determine what is the valid type-species of each of Meigen’s 63 new genera, each of which was established with a brief description but without any included species. When Hendel first revived those names in 1908, the Code had been in existence only three years and gave no guidance on problems of this nature, and Opinion 46, adopted four years later, did not provide a satisfactory solution. An objective basis for solving such problems was first provided by the Paris (1948) Congress (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 158-159, 346) when it ruled that the type-species of a genus established without any included species must be that species, or must be chosen from among those species, first subsequently referred to it. In the light of this decision a careful study has been made of Hendel’s Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 19 paper and of the important works by Coquillett (1910) and Stone (1941) and it has been possible to determine the type-species of all but four of the Meigen 1800 genera in question. In the case of these four exceptions (Orithea, Salpyga, Titia, Cyanea), no species has ever been referred to them nor have they been synonymised with other genera, so that their names remain nomina dubia and no question of a counterpart name in Diptera arises. 20. When these four nomina dubia and the three names already dealt with are subtracted from the 63 new generic names proposed by Meigen in 1800, there remain 56 names for which the valid counterparts in Diptera have to be found. Investigations carried out with the help of specialists have shown that in 31 cases the names currently in use for these genera fulfil all require- ments of the Code. These generic names, listed in Appendix V, Part A (p. 27), will be directly validated by the suppression under the Plenary Powers of the corresponding Meigen 1800 names and they can accordingly be placed on the Official List without further delay. Three further cases, briefly set out in Appendix V, Part B (p. 29), are the subjects of applications published in the Bulletin, and require separate consideration for this reason. The counterpart names involved fulfil all the necessary conditions and no Plenary Powers action is called for other than that involved in suppressing the Meigen 1800 names in each case (i.e. other than that involved in approving Mr. Sabrosky’s original proposal). These cases are thus segregated from Part A of this Appendix only on formal grounds because separate applications, not yet voted upon by the Commission, have been published on them. In a further 21 cases (including five unpublished applications to the Commission), there are obstacles of one kind or another which cannot be overcome without a more far-reaching use of the Plenary Powers. Summaries of these cases are given in Appendix V, Part C (p. 39) for information only. Action cannot be taken on them until they have been published in the Bulletin and public notice has been given of the possible use of the Plenary Powers. So far as the present ruling is concerned, therefore, it is recommended that the Commission should expressly postpone the consideration of these names to a later occasion. 21. It will readily be seen that counterpart Dipteran names can be found in the terms of the preceding paragraph for only 55 of the 56 names involved. The one remaining case is the counterpart name to replace Apivora Meigen, 1800, and this in fact already exists. The nominal genus Apivora was first provided with included species by Hendel (1908) and the species in question were Musca inanis Linnaeus, 1758, Musca pellucens Linnaeus, 1758, Musca inflata Fabricius, 1794 and Musca bombylans Linnaeus, 1758. Coquillett (1910 : 508) selected Musca pellucens as the type-species of Apivora and of Pterocera Meigen, 1803. The same species had, however, already become the type-species of Volucella Geoffroy, 1762 by selection by Curtis (1833, Brit. Ent. 1 : pl. 452), so that Apivora Meigen 1800 and Pterocera Meigen 1803 were already junior objective synonyms of Volucella at the time when, in Opinion 441 (1957) the Commission used its Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Volucella Geoffroy, 1762, and placed it on the Official List with Musca pellucens Linnaeus, 1758 as type-species. The attention of the Com- mission was not then drawn to the fact that Apivora Meigen 1800 and 20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Pterocera Meigen 1803 were invalid junior objective synonyms of Volucella Geoffroy, 1762, but this defect should now be remedied by placing these two generic names on the Official Index. At the same time Pierocera Meigen, 1803, is a junior homonym of Pterocera Lamarck, 1799 (Mém. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 1:72) (Class Gastropoda). This name, which is not now in general use, is itself a junior objective synonym of Lambis [Réding], 1798, because the type- species of both is Sirombus lambis Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. ed. 10 : 748) (of Lambis by absolute tautonymy and of Pterocera Lamarck by monotypy). Pterocera Lamarck should therefore be placed on the Official Index and Lambis [Roding], with the name of its type-species, on the Official List. 22. Parts D to H of Appendix V (p. 39) are concerned with names involved in the present case through the operations of the Law of Homonymy. Part D lists eight generic names which are junior homonyms of Meigen 1800 names listed in Appendix IV, Part D and which can themselves be placed on the Official List, and Part E gives three further such homonyms for which further par- ticulars are required. Parts F and G give respectively details of one senior homonym of a Meigen 1800 name which can be placed on the Official List and of two other senior homonyms for which information is still sought. Part H lists seven generic names adopted in place of junior homonyms of Meigen 1800 names which are fit to be placed on the Official List. 23. It is convenient at this point to consider the 25 generic names estab- lished by earlier authors and used by Meigen in 1800. Seven of these have already been dealt with by the Commission and placed on the Official List, as follows : Musca Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 82) ; Oestrus Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 106) ; Bibio, Scatopse and Stomoxys Geoffroy, 1762 (Opinion 441) ; Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762 (Opinion 442); and Hirtea Scopoli, 1763 (Opinion 441). In the case of eleven of the remaining names, current usage has been found on investigation to be in full agreement with the Code, so that they can be placed directly on the Official List (Appendix V, Part I (p. 42)). The remaining seven names cannot for various reasons be dealt with immediately by the Com- mission : particulars are given in Section J of Appendix V (p. 42). 24. Finally, part K of Appendix V (p. 44) lists a large number of names which are objectively invalid for various reasons and which can therefore be placed on the Official Index in the event of Mr. Sabrosky’s essential proposal being approved. These names consist of junior homonyms, junior objective synonyms, unjustified emendations and erroneous subsequent spellings of names involved in other parts of the present case. V. Names to be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology in the event of the acceptance by the Commission of Mr. Sabrosky’s proposal 25. It is necessary now to consider the type-species of each of the genera considered in the preceding section and to determine whether the name which is, under the Rules, that of the type-species, is the oldest available name for the species in question. In 58 cases this requirement is met and these specific names can be placed directly on the Official List ; they are listed in Part A of Appendix VI (p. 50). In Section B of that Appendix (p. 53) are given names which are subjectively considered to be senior synonyms of the type-species of Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 21 others of the genera involved, and it is recommended that these names, as the valid names for their species, be also placed on the Official List. VI. Family-group name problems 26. As might be expected, the existence over the last fifty years of two names for a large number of genera (a Meigen 1800 name and another name) has led to the duplication of a number of family-group names. If the proposal to suppress the 1800 names is accepted, then the family-group names will, under the provisions of Declaration 20, be automatically rejected. In nearly every case, however, these names were already invalid as junior synonyms of earlier names based on the generic names in use prior to Hendel’s paper of 1908. Part A of Appendix VII (p. 53) gives those of the names in this group which are recommended for addition to the Official Index, and names based on the generic names listed in Appendix V, Part B are listed in Appendix VII, Part B (p. 54). Various invalid spellings of family-group names based on generic names involved in this case are listed in Appendix VII, Part C (Order Diptera) (p. 54) and one invalid spelling of a family-group name in Polychaeta is given in Part D (p. 56). Both these groups of names should be placed on the Official Index. 27. Particulars are given in Appendix VIII of the family-group names involved in this case which are currently regarded as valid and which should thus be placed on the Official List. These are divided into :—Part A (p. 56), names in the Order Diptera based on counterparts of Meigen 1800 generic names ; Part B (p. 57), names based on generic names established by earlier authors ; Part C (p. 58), names for which the original references are still wanted ; Part D (p. 58), one name in a group other than Diptera based on a junior homonym of a Meigen 1800 name. VII. Treatment to be accorded to Meigen’s Nouvelle classification (1800) 28. It is an essential part of the proposals contained in this report that a number of the new generic names proposed by Meigen in 1800 should be suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. It follows from this that the work itself must continue to exist in relation to the rights which those names will retain under the Law of Homonymy. It is therefore proposed that the title of the Nouvelle Classt- fication be placed on the Official List of Works Approved as Available in Zoological Nomenclature subject to an endorsement that, in view of the action taken by the Commission under its Plenary Powers, the work is available only for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy in relation to those names first published in it which have been suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. VIII. Bibliographic references 29. In order to simplify the reading of this report and of the Appendices, all the bibliographic references concerned have been gathered into a separate Appendix (Appendix IX, p. 58), where they are listed in alphabetical order of authors and in chronological sequence of successive works by the same author. 22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature IX. Future developments 30. In spite of all the help received from specialists, and in spite of the work done in the Commission’s office, there still remain (April, 1959) a number of names of which the status is doubtful and for which the original reference is unknown or incomplete (see Appendix V, Parts C, E, G, and J and Appendix VIII, Sections C, D, and E). Efforts to fill these gaps continue and any further results obtained will be communicated to the members of the Commission with this report. Meanwhile it is recommended that the Commission should, if it accepts the proposals set out in the following paragraph, state in the ruling to be delivered on this case, that those names are expressly postponed for further consideration. X. Recommendations 31. In order to give effect to Mr. Sabrosky’s proposal, it is recommended that the Commission should :— (1) 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 42 generic names in the Order Diptera published by Meigen in 1800 and listed in Appendix IV, Parts A and B; (b) to suppress for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy the 14 generic names in the Order Diptera published by Meigen in 1800 and listed in Appendix IV, Part C; (2) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) the 42 generic names proposed in (1)(a) above to be suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (b) the 14 generic names proposed in (1)(b) above to be suppressed for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonynmy ; (c) the three generic names listed in Appendix III (invalid junior homonyms published by Meigen in 1800) ; (d) the 124 invalid generic names listed in Appendix V, Part K ; (8) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) the 31 generic names in Diptera listed in Appendix V, Part A, each to replace one of the names proposed in (1) above to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers ; (b) the generic names Chironomus Meigen, 1803, Dilophus Meigen, 1803 and Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803] as defined in Appendix V, Part B; (c) the seven generic names listed in Appendix V, Part D (junior homonyms in Diptera or in other groups validated through the proposed suppression in (1)(b) above of certain Meigen, 1800 names under the Plenary Powers for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy) ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 23 (d) the generic name Petawrista Link, 1795, as defined in Appendix V, Part F; , (e) the nine generic names defined in Appendix V, Part H (to replace junior homonyms of Meigen, 1800 names) ; (f) the eleven generic names established by authors prior to Meigen, 1800 and listed in Appendix V, Part I ; (g) the generic name Lambis [Réding], 1798 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Strombus lambis Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Gastropoda) (see paragraph 22 above) ; (4) postpone for further consideration the generic names listed in Appendix V, Parts C (except Platypeza Meigen, 1803), E, G and J ; (5) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) the 58 specific names listed in Appendix VI, Part A, each repre- senting the type-species of a genus whose name is recommended in (3) above to be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (b) the six specific names listed in Appendix VI, Part B, each being the oldest name subjectively available for the type-species of such a genus ; (6) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-group Names in Zoology : (a) the thirteen family-group names listed in Appendix VII, Part A, each based on a generic name proposed in (1) above to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers ; (b) the two family-group names listed in Appendix VII, Part B, each based on a generic name proposed in (1) above to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers ; (c) the 61 incorrect original spellings of family-group names listed in Appendix VII, Parts C and D ; (7) place on the Official List of Family-group Names in Zoology : (a) the fifteen family-group names listed in Appendix VIII, Part A, each based on the counterpart of a Meigen, 1800 name proposed in (1) above to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers ; (b) the thirteen names listed in Appendix VIII, Part B, based on generic names established by earlier authors and used by Meigen in 1800 ; (8) postpone for further consideration the 12 family-group names listed in Appendix VIII, Parts C and D; (9) place the title of the work “‘ Nouvelle Classification des Mouches 4 Deux Ailes ” published by J. W. Meigen in 1800 on the Official List of Works Approved as Available in Zoological Nomenclature subject to an endorsement that the work is available only for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy in relation to the generic names proposed to be 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. 24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature APPENDIX I LIST OF THE EIGHTY-EIGHT GENERIC NAMES CONTAINED IN MEIGEN’S ** NOUVELLE CLASSIFICATION DES MOUCHES A DEUX AILES ”’ (1800) viel fe :14 > 15 :16 ea Wf :18 6 Flabellifera Polymeda Liriope Pales Orithea Amphinome Petaurista Euphrosyne 10 Phryne 11 Zelmira 12 Fungivora 13 Lycoria 14 Tendipes 15 Pelopia 16 Helea 17 Phalaenula 18 Itonida 20 Polyxena 21 Melusina © CO 1 Or Pp eR 30 Potamida 31 Hermione 33 Chrysops 34 Chrysozona 37 Dionaea 40 Lapria 44 Coryneta 45 Noeza 46 Iphis 25 names established by earlier authors and used by Meigen, 1800 Part A : 29 : 30 Bail Ans 733 : 34 bs $9) : 36 : 37 :38 : 38 : 39 Part B 2 Tipula Linnaeus, 1758 : 585 19 Culex Linnaeus, 1758 : 602 23 Scathopse Geoffroy, 1762 : 450 24 Hirtea Scopoli, 1763 : 367 27 Sicus Scopoli, 1763 : 369 29 Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762 : 449, 475 32 Ceria Fabricius, 1794 : 277 35 Tabanus Linnaeus, 1758 : 601 names first published in the ‘“‘ Nouvelle Classification °’ 52 Omphrale 53 Clythia 54 Musidora 55 Cleona 56 Cypsela 57 Dorilas 58 Atalanta 59 Tylos 61 Chrysogaster - 62 Antiopa 65 Tritonia 66 Zelima 67 Lampetia 68 Tubifera 69 Cinaxia 70 Penthesilea 71 Trepidaria 72 Titania 73 Scopeuma 74 Statinia 75 Euribia 76 Apivora 78 Salpyga 79 Titia 82 Larvaevora 83 Rhodogyne 84 Crocuta 85 Calirrhoe 88 Cyanea Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 25 36 Bibio Geoffroy, 1762 : 450, 568 > 25 38 Empis Linnaeus, 1758 : 603 39 Asilus Linnaeus, 1758 : 605 :26 41 Hrax Scopoli, 1763 : 359 42 Conops Linnaeus, 1758 : 604 43 Myopa Fabricius, 1775 : 798 : 28 47 Sargus Fabricius, 1798 : 549 48 Rhagio Fabricius, 1775 : 761 49 Anthrax Scopoli, 1763 : 358 : 29 50 Oestrus Linnaeus, 1758 : 584 51 Bombylius Linnaeus, 1758 : 606 :32 60 Rhingia Scopoli, 1763 : 358 : 33 63 Thereva Latreille, 1796 : 167 64 Syrphus Fabricius, 1775 : 762 : 37 77 Musca Linnaeus, 1758 : 589 :40 86 Stomoxys Geoffroy, 1762 : 449, 538 87 Hippobosca Linnaeus, 1758 : 607 APPENDIX II THREE GENERIC NAMES ALREADY SUPPRESSED BY THE COMMISSION 46 Iphis Meigen, 1800, suppressed under the Plenary Powers in Direction 49 in order to validate Iphis Leach, 1817 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) which had been placed on the Official List in Opinion 73, 1922, when it was not realised that Leach’s name was a homonym of Meigen’s name. 59 Tylos Meigen, 1800, suppressed under the Plenary Powers in Opinion 369 in order to validate (a) Micropeza Meigen, 1803 (Order Diptera) and (b) Tylos Audouin, 1826 (Class Crustacea, Order Isopoda). The family-group names involved were dealt with in Direction 41. 72 Titania Meigen, 1800, suppressed under the Plenary Powers in Opinion 348 in order to validate Chlorops Meigen, 1803. The family-group name involved was dealt with in Direction 28. APPENDIX III THREE JUNIOR HOMONYMS PUBLISHED BY MEIGEN IN 1800 TO BE PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL INDEX OF REJECTED AND INVALID GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY Meigen, 1800 name A junior homonym of For counterpart name in Diptera see 7 Amphinome Amphinome Brugiére, [1792]: Appendix V A ix, 44 (Class Polychaeta) see Appendix V G 8 Petaurista Petaurista Link, 1795 : 52-78 Appendix V C (Class Mammalia) see Appendix V F 65 T'ritonia Tritonia Cuvier, 1798:387 Appendix V A (Class Gastropoda) see Appendix V G 26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature APPENDIX IV 56 MEIGEN 1800 GENERIC NAMES TO BE SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS Part A 26 names without junior homonyms to be suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy Meigen, 1800 For counterpart Meigen, 1800 For counterpart name name in Diptera name name in Diptera see see 1 Flabellifera Appendix V A 52 Omphrale Appendix V C 3 Polymeda Appendix V C 54 Musidora Appendix V A 6 Orithea none (a nomen 55 Cleona Appendix V A dubium) 56 Cypsela Appendix V C 11 Zelmira Appendix V C 12 Fungivora Appendix V C 57 Dorilas Appendix V B 13 Lycoria Appendix V A 68 Tubifera Appendix V C 14 Tendipes Appendix V B 71 Trepidaria Appendix V A 16 Helea Appendix V C 73 Scopeuma Appendix V A 17 Phalaenula Appendix V C 74 Statinia Appendix V C 78 Salpyga none (a nomen 18 Itonida Appendix V A dubium) 34 Chrysozona Appendix V A 80 Salmacia Appendix V C 40 Lapria Appendix V A 82 Larvaevora Appendix V A 44 Coryneta Appendix V C 83 Rhodogyne Appendix V A Part B 16 names to be suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy as senior homonyms of other names for which replacement names are in current use For counterpart Meigen, 1800 Meigen, 1800 For counterpart name name in Diptera name name in Diptera see see 9 Euphrosyne Appendix V A 53 Clythia Appendix V C 10 Phryne Appendix V A 58 Atalanta Appendix V A 15 Pelopia Appendix V C 62 Antiopa Appendix V A 20 Polyxena Appendix V A 66 Zelima Appendix V C 21 Melusina Appendix V C 67 Lampetia Appendix V A 22 Amasia Appendix V C 69 Cinxia Appendix V A 25 Philia Appendix V B 79 Titia none (a nomen dubium) 30 Potamida Appendix V C 85 Calirrhoe Appendix V A Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 27 Part C 14 names to be suppressed for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy so as to validate junior homonyms which have not been replaced For counterpart Meigen, 1800 For counterpart Meigen, 1800 name in Diptera name name in Diptera name see see 4 Liriope Appendix V A 45 Noeza Appendix V A 5 Pales Appendix V A 61 Chrysogaster Appendix V C 26 Erinna Appendix V A 70 Penthesilea Appendix V A 28 Eulalia Appendix V A 75 Euribia Appendix V C 31 Hermione Appendix V A 81 Echinodes Appendix V A 33 Chrysops Appendix V A 84 Crocuta Appendix V A 37 Dionaea Appendix V C 88 Cyanea none (a nomen dubium) APPENDIX V GENERIC NAMES TO BE PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OR (IN ADDITION TO THOSE IN APPENDIX IV) ON THE OFFICIAL INDEX Part A 31 generic names which represent the counterparts of Meigen 1800 names suppressed under the Plenary Powers in Appendix IV 1 Ctenophora Meigen, 1803 : 263 (gender: feminine), type-species, by ’ selection by Latreille, 1810: 442, 379, Tipula atrata Linnaeus, 1758. Counter- part of Flabellifera Meigen, 1800 4 Ptychoptera Meigen, 1803: 262 (gender: feminine), type-species, by selection by Latreille, 1810: 442, 379, Tipula contaminata Linnaeus, 1758. Counterpart of Liriope Meigen, 1800 5 Nephrotoma Meigen, 1803: 262 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Zipula dorsalis Fabricius, 1781. Counterpart of Pales Meigen, 1800 7 Limonia Meigen, 1803 : 262 (gender : feminine), type-species by selection by Westwood, 1840: 129, Tipula tripunctata Fabricius, 1781. Counterpart of Amphinome Meigen, 1800 9 Macrocera Meigen, 1803: 261 (gender: feminine), type-species, by selection by Curtis, 1837: pl. 637, Macrocera lutea Meigen, 1804. Counterpart of Euphrosyne Meigen, 1800 13 Sciara Meigen, 1803: 263 (gender: feminine), type-species, by mono- typy, Tipula thomae Linnaeus, 1767. Counterpart of Lycoria Meigen, 1800 18 Cecidomyia Meigen, 1803: 261 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Tipula pini De Geer, 1776. Counterpart of Itonida Meigen, 1800 20 Cordyla Meigen, 1803: 263 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Cordyla fusca Meigen, 1804. Counterpart of Polyxena Meigen, 1800 26 Xylophagus Meigen, 1803: 266 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Nemotelus cinctus De Geer, 1776. Counterpart of Hrinna Meigen, 1800 28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 28 Odontomyia Meigen, 1803: 265 (gender: feminine), type-species, by selection by Westwood, 1840 : 130, Musca hydroleon Linnaeus, 1758. Counter- part of Zulalia Meigen, 1800 31 Oxycera Meigen, 1803 : 265 (gender : feminine), type-species, by selection by Curtis, 1833 : pl. 441, Musca trilineata Linnaeus, 1767. Counterpart of Hermione Meigen, 1800 33 Chrysops Meigen, 1803: 276 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Tabanus caecutiens Linnaeus, 1758. Counterpart of Chrysops Meigen, 1800 34 Haematopota Meigen, 1803 : 267 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Tabanus pluvialis Linnaeus, 1758. Counterpart of Chrysozona Meigen, 1800 40 Laphria Meigen, 1803:270 (gender: feminine), type-species, by selection by Latreille, 1810 : 443, 389, Astlus gibbosus Linnaeus, 1758. Counter- part of Lapria Meigen, 1800 45 Hybos Meigen, 1803 : 269 (gender : masculine), type-species, by selection by Curtis, 1837 : pl. 661, Hybos funebris Meigen, 1804. Counterpart of Noeza Meigen, 1800 53 Platypeza Meigen, 1803 : 272 (gender : feminine), type-species, by selection by Blanchard, 1849 : pl. 170, fig. 7, Platypeza fasciata Meigen, 1804. Counter- part of Clythia Meigen, 1800 54 Lonchoptera Meigen, 1803 : 272 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Lonchoptera lutea Panzer, 1809. Counterpart of Musidora Meigen, 1800 55 Callomyia Meigen, 1804: 311 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Callomyia elegans Meigen, 1804. Counterpart of Cleona Meigen, 1800 58 Clinocera Meigen, 1803: 271 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Clinocera nigra Meigen, 1804. Counterpart of Atalanta Meigen, 1800 62 Chrysotoxum Meigen, 1803 : 275 (gender: neuter), type-species, by selection by Latreille, 1810 : 443, 396, Musca bicincta Linnaeus, 1758. Counter- part of Antiopa Meigen, 1800 65 Spilomyia Meigen, 1803: 273 (gender: feminine), type-species, by selection by Williston, 1886 : 244, Musca diophthalma Linnaeus, 1758. Counter- part of T’ritonia Meigen, 1800 67 Merodon Meigen, 1803: 274 (gender: masculine), type-species, by selection by Westwood, 1840 : 137, Syrphus clavipes Fabricius, 1781. Counter- part of Lampetia Meigen, 1800 69 Sericomyia Meigen, 1803: 274 (gender: feminine), type-species, by selection by Latreille, 1810 : 443,394, Musca lappona Linnaeus, 1758. Counter- part of Cinzia Meigen, 1800 70 Criorrhina Meigen, 1822: 236 (gender: feminine), type-species, by selection by Westwood, 1840 : 136, Syrphus asilicus Fallén, 1816. Counterpart of Penthesilea Meigen, 1800 71 Calobata Meigen, 1803: 276 (gender: feminine), type-species, by Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 29 monotypy, Musca petronella Linnaevs, 1758. Counterpart of Trepidaria Meigen, 1800 73 Scathophaga Meigen, 1803 : 277 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Musca merdaria Fabricivs, 1794. Counterpart of Scopewma Meigen, 1800 81 Eriothrix Meigen, 1803: 279 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, through Musca lateralis Fabricius, 1775, Eriothrix lateralis Hendel, 1908. Counterpart of Echinodes Meigen, 1800 82 T'achina Meigen, 1803: 280 (gender: feminine), type-species, by selection by Wachtl, 1894 : 142, Musca grossa Linnaeus, 1758. Counterpart of Larvaevora Meigen, 1800 83 Gymnosoma Meigen, 1803: 278 (gender: neuter), type-species, by monotypy, Musca rotundata Linnaeus, 1758. Counterpart of Rhodogyne Meigen, 1800 84 Bucentes Latreille, 1809: 339 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Bucentes cinereus Latreille, 1809, a replacement name for Musca geniculata De Geer, 1776. Counterpart of Crocuta Meigen, 1800 85 Prosena St. Fargeau & Serville, 1828 : 499, 500 (gender: feminine), type-species, by original designation, Stomoxys siberita Fabricius, 1775. Counter- part of Calirrhoe Meigen, 1800. Part B Three counterpart names in Diptera concerning which specific proposals have been published in the “* Bulletin ”’ 14 Chironomus Meigen, 1803: 260 (counterpart of Tendipes Meigen, 1800), see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 151-152, 1951. Z.N.(S.) 469 The two generic names involved here are objective synonyms, for Tipula plumosa Linnaeus, 1758 : 587, is the type-species of Tendipes by selection by Coquillett, 1910 : 260, and of Chironomus by selection by Latreille, 1810 : 442, 377. The particular proposal before the Commission (by Dr. John Smart) is that the Plenary Powers be used to suppress T’endipes so as to validate Chironomus—that is, in the same sense as Mr. Sabrosky’s primary proposal. He is supported by Dr. Alexander and Dr. Shaw, by Dr. Marcuzzi and by Mr. Acton. The opposite view (that T'endipes should be placed on the Official List and Chironomus rejected) is taken by Mr. Alan Stone and Dr. Hennig. In an unpublished contribution on this case, Dr. G. Kruseman asks that the Plenary Powers be used to set aside all designations of a type-species hitherto made for Tendipes so as to designate Chironomus barbipes Staeger, 1839 : 561. This proposal is defective in two respects : (a) Dr. Kruseman is of the opinion that no valid type-designation has ever been made for Tendipes, and he overlooks Coquillett’s selection of Tipula plumosa; (b) under the Rules Tendipes and Chironomus are objective synonyms, and they have always been so regarded. Dr. Kruseman adduces no evidence that they have been, or should in future be, used as independent names. Substantially, therefore, 30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the choice before the Commission is simply between Dr. Smart’s proposal (which is in line with the main Sabrosky proposal) to suppress T'endipes and validate Chironomus, and Dr. Stone’s proposal in the exactly opposite sense. This is perhaps one of the most important individual cases in the whole complex. The family cHIRONOMIDAE is very large and widely distributed, as is the genus Chironomus itself, and the confusion caused by the resuscitation of the name J'endipes (which has given rise to the family-name TENDIPEDIDAE) is therefore all the greater. There is stronger support for the suppression of Tendipes than there is for its addition to the Official List. 25 Dilophus Meigen, 1803 : 264 (counterpart of Philia Meigen, 1800), see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 153-155, 1951. Z.N.(S.) 498 This is another case of a choice between two objective synonyms, for Tipula febrilis Linnaeus, 1758 : 588, is the type-species of Philia by selection by Coquillett, 1910: 588, and of Dilophus by Latreille, 1810:422, 381. Professor Elmo Hardy originally asked that Philia be placed on the Official List and Dilophus rejected, but he has since withdrawn this proposal which was in consequence supported only by the late Professor Aczél. Dr. Stone, Dr. Hennig, Dr. Alexander and Dr. Shaw all wish to see Philia suppressed under the Plenary Powers and Dilophus validated (in line with Mr. Sabrosky’s main proposal) and in this they are now supported by Professor Hardy. 57 Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803] (counterpart of Dorilas Meigen, 1800), see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 140-149, 346-348, 1951. Z.N.(S.) 221 The type-species of Dorilas, by designation by Coquillett, 1910 : 535, is Pipunculus campestris Latreille, [1802-1803]: 463. This is also the type- species of Pipunculus, by monotypy, and of Microcera Meigen, 1803 : 273, by selection by Coquillett, 1910 : 569. Microcera, however, has never come into use since Meigen himself (1824 : 19) synonymised it with Pipunculus. Mr. Rapp proposes that Dorilas be suppressed under the Plenary Powers so as to validate Pipunculus (in line with Mr. Sabrosky’s main proposal) and he is supported by Dr. Smart, Dr. Alexander, Dr. Shaw and Mr. Oldroyd. The opposite view is taken by Dr. Stone, Professor E. D. Hardy, Profexsor Aczél and Dr. Hennig. Part C Brief particulars of names which represent the counterparts of Meigen 1800 names and which should be postponed for further consideration 3 Erioptera Meigen, 1803 : 262 (counterpart of Polymeda Meigen, 1800). Z.N.(S.) 1406 Erioptera was established without included species. In 1804 (: 50-52) Meigen referred six species to it, including Z. grisea Meigen, 1804: 51, Ei. lutea Meigen, 1804: 52, and Z. ater [sic] Meigen, 1804: 50. Curtis (1835: pl. 557) designated Tipula flavescens Linnaeus, 1758 as type-species, but this is invalid Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 31 because the species was not one of those originally included. The first valid designation was of H. grisea by Blanchard, [1846] : pl. 163, fig. 3 (see Stone, 1941 : 413), and Coquillett (1910 : 540) selected HL. lutea. These two species are not now regarded as congeneric. Molophilus Curtis, 1833 : pl. 444, has as type-species, by original designation, M. brevipennis Curtis, 1833 (vbid.) and this is a junior subjective synonym of Erioptera atra Meigen, which is still regarded as congeneric with EH. grisea Meigen but not with HL. lutea. Current usage seems to adopt Hrioptera in the sense of #. lutea and Molophilus in the sense of M. brevipennis (=ater), and specialists are asked to say whether they wish the Plenary Powers to be used to stabilise this usage. 8 Trichocera Meigen, 1803 : 262 (counterpart of Petawrista Meigen, 1800). 21 Altractocera Meigen, 1803 : 263 (counterpart of Melusina Meigen, 1800). Z.N.(S.) 1407 The type-species of T'richocera (by monotypy) and of Petaurista (by mono- typy : the sole species referred to the genus by Hendel, 1908 : 47) is Tipula hiemalis De Geer, 1776 : 360. This is currently considered congeneric with Tipula regelationis Linnaeus, 1758 : 587, which is the type-species of Atractocera by monotypy, and of Melusina by selection by Hendel, 1908 : 50. Of these four genera, Petaurista is invalid as a junior homonym of Petaurista Link, 1795, (see Appendix III) and the other three are synonyms of one another. In 1818 (: 290) Meigen said that he had misidentified Tipula regelationis in 1803 and proposed Simulia [sic] ornata for the species which he had then had before him, but under the Rules, he must be presumed to have correctly identified his species (see Stone, 1941 : 412), so that the true regelationis is the valid type-species of Atractocera. Coquillett (1910: 512, 567) and other authors, however, regard Simuliwm ornatum as the type-species of Atractocera, which thus becomes a subjective junior synonym of Simulium Latreille, [1802-1803] : 426 (type-species, by monotypy, Rhagio colombaschensis Fabricius, 1787 : 333), and these authors regard ornatum and colombaschensis as distinct species of Simuliwm. Under the Rules, however, Atractocera (which is not in general use) is a synonym of T'richocera, not of Simulium. It is not at present clear how stability would best be preserved in this case, but specialists are asked to comment on the following : that T'richocera (type- species Tipula hiemalis) and Simulium (type-species Rhagio colombaschensis) be placed on the Official List of Generic Names and that the specific names hiemalis, colombaschensis, regelationis and ornata be placed on the Official List of Specific Names. No action is called for in respect of Atractocera. 10 Anisopus Meigen, 1803 : 264 (counterpart of Phryne Meigen, 1800). Z.N.(S.) 1408 Anisopus was first established without any included species, and of the two species first referred to it by Meigen in 1804, Anisopus fuscus Meigen, 1804 : 103 (a junior subjective synonym of Tipula fuscata Fabricius, 1775 : 755) was selected as type-species by Coquillett in 1910 (:507). Anisopus thus became a senior subjective synonym of Rhyphus Latreille, [1804-1805] : 291 32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (type-species, by monotypy, Tipula fenestrarum [sic] =T. fenestralis Scopoli, 1763 : 322); and a junior subjective synonym of Sylvicola Harris, 1776 : 100, by virtue of Coquillett’s (1910 : 610) selection of Sylvicola brevis Harris, which is a junior synonym of fenestralis Scopoli, as type-species of Sylvicola. [The generic name Sylvicola was established in the Index to Harris’s work as the name for thirteen species described in his text as ‘‘ Dipterae Sylvicolae ’’.] Sylvicola thus becomes the oldest available name for the genus to which Tipula fenestralis Scopoli, Sylvicola brevis Harris, Tipula fuscata Fabricius and 7’. fusca Meigen are all referred, but it is not known whether it or one of the junior synonyms is in general use. Specialists are asked to comment on the three following alternatives :— (1) that Sylvicola Harris (type-species S. brevis Harris) be placed on the Official List of Generic Names, with fenestralis Scopoli on the Official List of Specific Names as the oldest available name for that species ; (2) that Anisopus be placed on the Official List of Generic Names with A. fuscus Meigen as type-species and with fuscata Fabricius on the Official List of Specific Names as the oldest available name for that species ; (3) that Rhyphus Latreille and the name of its type-species (a Scopoli) be placed on the Official Lists. If either of the last two choices is preferred, then some means will have to be found of suppressing the senior synonym or synonyms involved. 11 Platyura Meigen, 1803 : 264 (counterpart of Zelmira Meigen, 1800). Z.N.(S.) 1409 Platyura was established without any included species, and of the five species first referred to it by Meigen in 1804 (: 101-102), P. marginalis Meigen, 1804: 101, was selected as type-species by Blanchard, [1846] : pl. 164, fig. 10. Usage has, however, generally followed a later and therefore invalid selection of P. fasciata Meigen, 1804 : 101, made by Zetterstedt, 1851 : 4077, which was also designated as type-species of Zelmira by Coquillett in 1910 (: 621). Under the first selection, Platywra becomes a senior objective synonym of Apemon Johannsen, 1909 : 20 (type-species, by original designation, Platyura pectoralis Coquillett, 1895 : 199) and, assuming the suppression of Zelmira in accordance with Mr. Sabrosky’s primary proposal, there is no name available for the genus containing Platyura fasciata) Meigen. Thus if the Rules are strictly followed, Zelmira (type-species fasciata) and Platywra (type-species marginata) would be placed on the Official List and Apemon would become a junior synonym of Platyura. Alternatively the Plenary Powers could be used to designate fasciata as the type-species of Platywra and to place Apemon (type-species pectoralis) on the Official List. The specific name marginalis Meigen, 1804 could at the same time be placed on the Official List of Specific Names as a valid specific name in its own right. 12 Mycetophila Meigen, 1803 : 263 (counterpart of Fungivora Meigen, 1800). Z.N.(S.) 717 Professor John Lane and Dr. Paul Freeman, in an unpublished application Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 33 to the Commission, point out that Meigen (1803 : 263) originally included two species in Mycetophila, namely, Tipula fungorum “ De Geer” and Tipula agarici seticornis “‘ De Geer” [of which the latter should apparently be cited as Tipula agarici de Villers, 1789 : 393]. De Geer’s Tipula fungorum included (a) larval stages of at least two species of ? Mycetophila and (b) the adult male of the species now known as Mycetophila fungorum (De Geer, 1776). T'. agarici seticornis De Geer, 1776 : 367, is a nomen dubium, but the description appears to refer to a species of T'richonta Winnertz, 1863 : 847. Confusion has been introduced by later authors, for Olivier (1811) described material of Tipula fungorum as agarict. Winnertz (1863 : 879) placed fungorum in his new genus Hxechia and Johannsen (1909) designated fungorum as type- species of Hxechia and agarici as type-species of Mycetophila. The latter selection was adopted by Coquillett (1910: 545). Thus under the Rules Trichonta must give place to Mycetophila, with type-species the indeterminate agarici, and Mycetophila must give place to Hxechia, with type-species fungorum, while Exechia must give way to its earliest available synonym, which appears to be Brachydicrania Skuse, 1888. In 1804 (: 91) Meigen renamed his Mycetophila fungorum of 1803 as M. fusca. This species is always regarded as a species of Hxechia, and the true fungorum De Geer as a species of Mycetophila. The applicants therefore seek the use of the Plenary Powers to set aside all designations of type-species for Mycetophila and Exechia hitherto made and to designate Tipula fungorum De Geer, 1776, as type-species of Mycetophila and Mycetophila fusca Meigen, 1804, as type- species of Hxechia. 15 Tanypus Meigen, 1803: 261 (counterpart of Pelopia Meigen, 1800). Z.N.(S.) 1410 The type-species of Tanypus (by selection by Latreille, 1810 : 442,377) and of Pelopia (by selection by Coquillett, 1910 : 586) is Tipula cincta Fabricius, 1794 : 246, but this species is unrecognisable, so that both generic names are nomina dubia. Thienemann (1916) suggests that the Plenary Powers could be used to designate Tipula monilis Linnaeus, 1758 : 587, as type-species of Pelopia, and either 7’. culiciformis Linnaeus, 1767 : 978, or Tanypus punctipennis Meigen, 1818 : 61, as type-species of Tanypus, but there is no evidence at hand to put before the Commission to justify overriding the fact that the two generic names are objective synonyms of one another. 16 Ceratopogon Meigen, 1803 : 261 (counterpart of Helea Meigen, 1800). Z.N.(S.) 1411 The type-species of Ceratopogon, by monotypy, is Tipula barbicornis Linnaeus, 1767 : 974, but this species is unrecognisable, so that the generic name is a nomen dubium. Coquillett (1910 : 520, 549) and other authors have regarded Ceratopogon communis Meigen, 1804 : 27, as the valid name for the species cited as barbicornis Linnaeus by Meigen in 1803 and have taken it as the type-species of Ceratopogon. Thienemann (1916), however, suggests that Ceratopogon lucorum Meigen, 1818 : 72, should be taken as the type-species. Comments are sought on the merits of these two proposals, either of which would require the use of the Plenary Powers to bring it into effect. 34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17 Psychoda Latreille, 1796 : 152 (counterpart of Phalaenula Meigen, 1800). Z.N.(S.) 1412 Psychoda was established without any included species, but in [1802-1803] : 424 Latreille referred a single species to it, and this species (Tipula phalaenoides Linnaeus, 1758 : 588) is therefore the type-species by monotypy. T'richoptera Meigen, 1803 : 261, has the same type-species, by selection by Coquillett, 1910: 616. In the same paper (: 587) Coquillett designated T'richoptera ocellaris Meigen, 1804 : 44, as the type-species of Phalaenula, but this was invalid, because the species was not among those first referred to Phalaenula by Hendel in 1908; these species were Tipula phalaenoides ‘‘ Fab.” (i.e. Linnaeus, as above) and 7’. hirta ‘“ Fabricius” (i.e. Linnaeus, 1761 : 438). The specific name ocellaris was proposed by Meigen for the species which he had identified as Tipula hirta in 1803, but this does not alter the fact that he must be presumed, under the Rules, to have identified his species correctly in the first instance, so that 7’. ocellaris (which is now referred to Clytocerus Eaton, 1904, a genus far removed from Psychoda) is not eligible for selection as the type-species of either T'richoptera or Phalaenula. Coquillett’s designation of the type-species of T'richoptera was made in the form ‘‘ Psychoda alternata Say (as Tipula phalaenoides Fabricius)” because P. alternata Say (1824 : 358) is generally agreed to be the valid name for Tipula phalaenoides Fabricius, non Linnaeus. This again does not alter the fact that, under the Rules, the species identified by Fabricius must be presumed to be the true phalaenoides, and that that species is the valid type-species of Trichoptera. Latreille, [1802-1803], in the passage referred to above, stated under Psychoda ‘‘ Exemples. Tipula phalaenoides Linn., ou le genre psychodes de mon Précis . . . Celui de phalaenule de Meigen ’’, and although this establishes the type-species of Psychoda, it does not do so for Phalaenula, because the generic name was cited in the vernacular. Dr. Paul Freeman, to whom the above information is due, presents three alternative solutions to this problem, and specialists are asked to comment on them (he prefers the first alternative) :— (1) assuming the suppression of Phalaenula under the Plenary Powers (in conformity with Mr. Sabrosky’s main proposal), to place Psychoda on the Official List with Tipula phalaenoides Linnaeus as type- species, and TJ'richoptera on the Official Index as a junior objective synonym of Psychoda ; (2) to use the Plenary Powers to designate T'richoptera ocellaris Meigen as type-species of T'richoptera, thus displacing Clytocerus ; (3) to use the Plenary Powers to designate Psychoda alternata Say as the type-species of T'richoptera, thus making that genus a junior subjective synonym of Psychoda. 21 Atractocera Meigen, 1803 : 263 (counterpart of Melusina Meigen, 1800), see above under 8 T'richocera Meigen, 1803. 22 Penthetria Meigen, 1803 : 264. Z.N.(S.) 548 Professor Elmo Hardy points out that this genus was synonymised with Amasia Meigen, 1800, by Hendel, 1908 (: 50). But the generic name Amasia Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 35 has never been used, no species have ever been referred to it, and Hendel’s synonymy has never been accepted, so that Amasia is generally considered to be a nomen dubium, never having been defined in terms of an included species. Penthetria was also established without included species, but in 1804 (: 104) Meigen referred the single species P. funebris Meigen, 1804 to it and this is the type-species by monotypy. This unpublished application thus involves the use of the Plenary Powers to suppress Amasza (in line with the Sabrosky pro- posal) and to place Penthetria, as defined above, on the Official List. 30 Chippium Latreille, [1802-1803] : 448 (counterpart of Potamida Meigen, 1800). Z.N.(S.) 1413 Chippium was established with two included species, Stratiomys ephippium and S. microleon Fabricius, 1775 : 759, neither of which was designated or indicated as type-species. In [1804-1805] (: 341) Latreille emended the generic name to Ephippium (a junior homonym of Ephippium [Roding], 1798) and in 1810 (: 442, 384) stated that Stratiomys ephippiwm was the type-species. Some authors have given Ephippium Latreille priority over Clitellaria Meigen, 1803 : 265, of which S. ephippiwm is also the type-species, by monotypy. In 1902 (: 191) Bezzi proposed Ephippiomyia as a replacement name for Ephippium Latreille, non [Rodding]. The four names Chippium Latreille, [1802-1803], Clitellaria Meigen, 1803, Ephippium Latreille, [1804-1805], and Ephippiomyia Bezzi, 1902 are thus all objective synonyms of one another, but the first and oldest has never been used and the third is an invalid junior homonym. Specialists are asked to comment on the tentative proposal that the Plenary Powers be used to suppress Chippium ; that Clitellaria be placed on the Official List ; and that Ephippium Latreille and Ephippiomyia Bezzi be placed on the Official Index. 37 Platyptera Meigen, 1803 : 269 (counterpart of Dionaea Meigen, 1800). Z.N.(S.) 1414 The type-species of Platyptera is Empis platyptera Panzer, 1794: tab. 23, by absolute tautonymy. This specific name is considered to be a junior synonym of Empis marginata Fabricius, 1784 : 364, which is placed in the subgenus Rhamphomyia Meigen, 1822: 42. English zoologists generally use Platyptera as a subgenus of Empis for the group of Empis borealis Linnaeus, 1758 : 603, and Rhamphomyia either as a subgenus of Empis or as a separate genus. There is not yet enough information on this case to frame tentative proposals for the criticism of specialists. 44 Tachydromia Meigen, 1803 : 269 (counterpart of Coryneta Meigen, 1800). Z.N.(S.) 1415 Tachydromia was established with two included species, Musca cursitans Fabricius, 1775 : 782, and M. cimicoides [sic] Fabricius, 1779: 253. In 1822 (: 70) Meigen stated that he had misidentified Musca cimecoides Fabricius in 1803 and renamed his species T'achydromia connexa. Curtis, 1833 : pl. 477, selected Musca arrogans Linnaeus, 1767 : 995, (which he regarded as a synonym 36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of M. cimicoides [sic]) as type-species of T'achydromia, but this is, of course, invalid. Coquillett (1903, 1910) selected 7’. connexa as type-species, but this is equally invalid. According to Mr. Oldroyd, Musca arrogans is still regarded as the valid name of the true M. cimecoides Fabricius, and M. arrogans and T'. connexa are both currently placed in Tachydromia. Specialists are therefore asked to comment on the tentative proposal that the Plenary Powers be used to designate T'achydromia connexa Meigen, 1822, as the type-species of T'achy- dromia Meigen, 1803. 52 Hypselura Meigen, 1803 : 273 (counterpart of Omphrale Meigen, 1800). Z.N.(S.) 549 The type-species of Hypselura, by monotypy, is Musca senilis Fabricius, 1794 : 33, a junior synonym of M. fenestralis Linnaeus, 1758 : 597. This latter is the type-species, by monotypy, of Scenopinus Latreille, [1802-1803] : 463, so that Hypselura and Scenopinus are subjective synonyms. Since Scenopinus is in general use, there seems to be no obstacle to placing it on the Official List, but the advice of specialists is sought on the current status of Hypselura and as to whether WV. fenestralis Linnaeus and M. senilis Fabricius should be regarded as congeneric (following Kertész, 1909) or not (following Kroéber, 1937). In the latter case, Hypselura can also be placed on the Official List. 53 Platypeza Meigen, 1803 : 272 (counterpart of Clythia Meigen, 1800). Z.N.(S.) 542 This is a simple case of a choice between two objective synonyms, for Platypeza fasciata Meigen, 1804 : 310, is the type-species of Clythia, by designa- tion by Coquillett, 1910 : 525, and of Platypeza by selection by Blanchard, 1849 : pl. 170, fig. 7. Professor Kessel, in an unpublished application, asks that Clythia be placed on the Official List and Platypeza rejected (in direct opposition to Mr. Sabrosky’s primary proposal). This case can in fact be dealt with in the course of the present ruling ; for if Mr. Sabrosky’s proposal is accepted, Platypeza will be automatically validated and can be placed on the Official List, while if his proposal is rejected, Clythia will be placed on the Official List and Platypeza on the Official Index. 56 Borborus Meigen, 1803 : 276 (counterpart of Cypsela Meigen, 1800). Z.N.(S.) 1416 The type-species of Borborus, by selection by Curtis, 1833: pl. 469, is Musca subsultans Linnaeus, 1767 : 993, which is a nomen dubium. Coquillett (1910 : 530) selected M. subsultans Fabricius, 1794 : 392, as the type-species of Cypsela ; this species is recognisable and it is clear that Fabricius misapplied the Linnean name. The Fabrician species is, however, regarded as congeneric with Sphaerocera curvipes Latreille, [1804-1805]: 394, the type-species, by monotypy, of Sphaerocera Latreille, 1804: 24. The advice of specialists is sought as to whether Borborus and Sphaerocera are used in competition for the same genus, and if so which is the more widely used ; or whether they are treated as distinct genera, and if so what should be taken as the type-species of Borborus ? Should the Plenary Powers be used to suppress Musca subsultans Linnaeus, 1767 so as to validate M. subsultans Fabricius, 1794 ? Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 37 61 Chrysogaster Meigen, 1803: 274 (counterpart of Chrysogaster Meigen, 1800). Z.N.(S.) 1417 Meigen in 1803 placed three species in this genus, coemiteriorum, metallinus and umbrarum, all attributed to Fabricius. Zetterstedt (1843 : 816) selected Chrysogaster solstitialis Fallén, 1817 : 56, as type-species, but this was invalid because the species was not one of the originally included species and because he synonymised it with doubt with “Musca coemiteriorum Linn. Fn. svec. 1842 2?” (a name published before 1758). Specialists are asked to say whether Musca coemiteriorum Linnaeus, 1758 : 597, M. coemiteriorum Fabricius, 1787 : 339, and M. coemiteriorwm Meigen, 1803, are identical or not. Should M. coemiteriorum Linnaeus, 1758, be designated as type-species of Chrysogaster, or should the Plenary Powers be used to designate C. solstitialis Fallén ? 66 Eumeros Meigen, 1803 : 273 (counterpart of Zelima Meigen, 1800). Z.N.(S.) 1418 Meigen established Humeros with two included species, Musca segnis Linnaeus, 1758: 595, and Musca pipiens Linnaeus, 1758: 594. Syritta St. Fargeau & Serville, 1828 : 808, was established with M. pipiens as type- species by monotypy, so that under Opinion 6, M. segnis became the type- species of Humeros. This species was designated type-species of Zelima by Coquillett (1910 : 621) and of Xylota Meigen, 1822 : 211, by Curtis (1832 : pl. 409). Thus Zelima, Eumeros and Xylota are objective synonyms. Mr. J. E. Collin points out in an unpublished application that Xylota was proposed as a replacement name for Heliophilus Meigen, 1803 : 273, on account of a supposed homonymy with Heliophila in Botany, so that under the Rules the two genera should have the same type-species. The type-species of Heliophilus is Musca sylvarum Linnaeus, 1758 : 592, by designation by Coquillett, 1910 : 550. Mr. Collin proposes that Heliophilus (which is technically available) should be suppressed under the Plenary Powers in order to avoid confusion with the Syrphid genus Helophilus Meigen, 1822 : 368, and that Curtis’s type- selection for Xylota be validated. It appears that Xylota is more widely used than its senior objective synonym Eumeros. This may be because in 1804 (: 20) Meigen emended Eumeros to Eumerus and then, in 1822 (: 202), proposed Humerus for an entirely different genus (again a Syrphid) for which Humerus Meigen, 1822, non 1804 is consistently used. It is therefore proposed that Hwmeros Meigen, 1803 be suppressed under the Plenary Powers, that the unjustified emendation Humerus Meigen, 1804 be placed on the Official Index and that Humerus Meigen, 1822, be validated under the Plenary Powers and placed on the Official List (its type- species is Syrphus tricolor Fabricius, 1798 : 563, by designation by Curtis, 1839 : pl. 749) ; and that Xylota (with type-species M. segnis) be also validated under the Plenary Powers. 68 Elophilus Meigen, 1803 : 274 (counterpart of Tubifera Meigen, 1800). Z.N.(S.) 1419 The type-species of Elophilus, by selection by Latreille, 1810 : 443, 395, is Musca tenax Linnaeus, 1758 : 591. The same species is the type-species of Tubifera by selection by Coquillett, 1910: 618. In 1832, however (: pl. 432), 38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Curtis selected that species as the type-species of Hristalis Latreille, 1804 : 194, and chose Musca pendula Linnaeus, 1758 : 591, as the type-species of Hlophilus, and this invalid action has been generally followed. Mr. Collin states in an unpublished application that Hlophilus and Hristalis are invalid under the Rules as junior objective synonyms of T'ubifera, and that the rejection of Elophilus would necessitate the proposal of a new name for the pendula-group. He also states that Fabricius (1805 : 233) emended Elophilus to Helophilus and that this emendation has been universally adopted (it is not clear, however, how this name is related to Helophilus Meigen, 1822, mentioned under the preceding item). He supports Mr. Sabrosky’s proposal to suppress J'ubifera Meigen, 1800, and suggests that the Plenary Powers be used to validate Curtis’s designation of Musca pendula as type-species of Hlophilus and to validate Fabricius’s emendation of this name to Helophilus. Eristalis (with M. tenax as type- species) and Helophilus (M. pendula) could then be placed on the Official List. 74 Dictya Meigen, 1803: 277 (counterpart of Statinia Meigen, 1800). Z.N.(S.) 1420 Sack (1939 : 56) selected Musca umbrarum Linnaeus, 1758: 599, as type- species of Dictya, but it is not known if this is the earliest type-designation for this genus. Hendel’s selection (1924 : 211) of Musca marginata Fabricius, 1775 : 784, as type-species of Statinia was invalid, because this was not one of the two species (‘“‘ M. cucullaria, umbrarum Fab.”’) which he had first attributed to the genus in 1908, and Stone (1941: 414) was in error in following this. An unfortunate result has been that some authors have needlessly discarded Coremacera Rondani, 1856:106, (type-species, by original designation, M. marginata Fabricius) as though it were a junior objective synonym of Statinia. Hendel (1908 : 64) synonymised Dictya not only with Statinia but also with Tetanocera ‘‘ Duméril, 1798, sens. lat.”, but this latter name cannot be traced (it may perhaps refer to the French vernacular ‘“‘ Tétanocére ” Dumeéril, 1798; see Cresson, 1920: 55). The earliest use of Tetanocera appears to be by Latreille, 1804 : 196 (type-species, by monotypy, Musca graminum Fabricius, 1775 : 785). In 1920 (: 54) Cresson published Chaetomacera (type-species, by original designation, M. elata Fabricius, 1781 : 441) as a replacement name for “« Tetanocera Duméril, 1806 ”’, but the name then used by Duméril (: 282) was Tetanocerus and he included no species in the genus. It appears, however, that Tetanocera, wrongly attributed to Duméril, 1806 (and as such a junior homonym of Tetanocera Latreille, 1804) is in general use with M. elata Fabricius treated as its type-species. The advice of specialists is therefore sought on the following questions :— (1) Should Dictya be placed on the Official List with Musca wmbrarum Linnaeus, 1758, as type-species ? (2) Should Coremacera Rondani, 1856, be placed on the Official List with Musca marginata Fabricius, 1775, as type-species ? (3) Should the Plenary Powers be used to suppress J'etanocera Duméril, 1798, (acheirony m) and Tetanocera Latreille, 1804, so as to validate that name from whatever author so emended Jetanocerus Duméril, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 39 1806, and to designate Musca elata Fabricius, 1781, as its type-species? (4) Should Chaetomacera Cresson, 1920, be placed on the Official Index (as a junior objective synonym of “‘ T'etanocera”’) 2 (5) Should any of these questions be modified by reason of the fact that any or all of the following species are regarded as congeneric : Musca umbrarum Linnaeus, 1758, M. graminum Fabricius, 1775, and M. elata Fabricius, 1781 2 75 Trypeta Meigen, 1803: 277 (counterpart of Euribia Meigen, 1800). Z.N.(S.) 1421 The type-species of T'rypeta, by selection by Coquillett, 1910: 618, is Musca artemisiae Fabricius, 1794 : 351, and according to Mr. Oldroyd this is the oldest available name for the species and the generic name, thus defined, is in general use. Spilographa Loew, 1862 : 39, (type-species, by selection by Coquillett, 1910 : 607, Trypeta hamifera Loew, 1846 : 496) is treated as a junior synonym of T'rypeta, since the oldest available name for this species is T'ephritis immaculata Macquart, 1835, considered congeneric with M. artemisiae. It is not clear, however, whether or no Trypeta and Spilographa are currently employed in different senses and the advice of specialists is sought on this point. 80 Gonia Meigen, 1803 : 280 (counterpart of Salmacia Meigen, 1800). Z.N.(S.) 1422 Gonia contained no species until Meigen (1826 : 2-7) referred thirteen species to it. One of these, Musca capitata De Geer, 1775 : 3, was selected as type-species by Curtis (1835 : pl. 533) and is usually so regarded. It seems, however, that Wiedemann (1819 : 25) had already, before Meigen, referred his two new species G. bimaculata and G. fasciata to the genus, so that one of these must be the type- species, but it is not clear whether Gonia Wiedemann is to be treated as a subse- quent usage or as a junior homonym of Gonia Meigen, 1803. Specialists are asked to say whether they wish the Plenary Powers to be used to designate M. capitata as type-species of Gonia or whether either G. bimaculataor G@. fasciata Wiedemann should be regarded as its type-species. Part D Seven generic names which are junior homonyms of names suppressed for both priority and homonymy (see Appendix IV, Part D) and which can thus be placed on the Official List 26 Erinna H. & A. Adams, 1855 : 120 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation, Erinna newcombi H. & A. Adams, 1855 (Class Gastro- poda) 37 Dionaea Robineau-Desvoidy, [1830] : 253 (gender: feminine), type- species, by selection by Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863 : 54, Tachina forctpata Meigen, 1824 (Order Diptera) 40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45 Noeza Walker, 1866 : 1839 (gender : feminine), type-species, by mono- typy, Noeza telegraphella Walker, 1866 (Order Lepidoptera) 70 Penthesilea Ragonot, [1891] : 439 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Penthesilea sacculalis Ragonot, [1891] (Order Lepidoptera) 75 Euribia Latreille, [1802-1803] : 458 (gender : feminine), type-species, by selection by Hendel, 1927:37, Musca cardui Linnaeus, 1758 (Order Diptera) 81 Echinodes Zimmermann, 1869 : 253 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Hetaerius setiger Leconte, 1859 (Order Coleoptera) 84 Crocuta Kaup, 1818: 1145 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Canis crocuta Erxleben, 1777 (Class Mammalia) Part E Three names of the same sort as those in Part D above postponed for further consideration 4 Liriope Lesson, 1843 : 39 (Class Seyphozoa). Z.N.(S.) 1423 This genus was established with two included species, L. cerasiformis Lesson, 1843 and Medusa proboscidalis Forskal, 1775. The latter is the type- species of Geryonia Peron & Lesueur, 1810, by selection by Mayer, 1910 and this, under Opinion 6, would make L. cerasiformis the type-species of Liriope, in accord with current practice. The Commission needs to be assured, however, that there is no earlier type-selection for Liriope or for Geryonia, and the advice of specialists is needed on this point. 28 Eulalia Savigny, 1822 : 45 (Class Polychaeta). Z.N.(S.) 104 This genus was established with two included species, Nereis viridis and N. maculata O. F. Miller, 1776. The former is currently regarded as_ the type-species of Hulalia, but it is not known on what grounds. Moreover, both the specific names mentioned appear to be homonyms rather than subsequent usages of NV. viridis and N. maculata Linnaeus, 1767 : 1086. Information is therefore needed on the earliest type-designation for Eulalia and on the relationship of the Miillerian and Linnean specific names. 31 Hermione Blainville, 1828 : 457 (Class Polychaeta). Z.N.(S.) 1424 The type-species, by monotypy, of this genus is Halithea hystrix Lamarck, 1818 : 307, but it is not known whether this is the oldest available name for the species nor whether it is in current use. Part F A senior homonym of a Meigen 1800 name to be placed on the Official List 8 Petaurista Link, 1795 : 52-78 (gender : feminine) type-species, by abso- lute tautonymy, Sciwrus petaurista Pallas, 1766 : 54 (Class Mammalia). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 41 Part G Two senior homonyms of Meigen 1800 names postponed for further consideration 7 Amphinome Bruguiére, [1792] : ix, 44 (Class Polychaeta) Z.N.(S.) 1425 The type-species of this genus is reported to be “Aphrodite rostrata Pallas, 1780’, but it is not known why, nor whether this is the oldest available name for the species in question and in current use. 65 Tritonia Cuvier, 1798 : 387 (Class Gastropoda). Z.N.(S8.) 1215 This genus was established without any included species, but in 1801 Lamarck referred the single species Doris clavigera O. F. Miiller, 1776, to it, and this is therefore the valid type-species, by monotypy. This species is now, however, referred to Limacia O. F. Miiller, 1781, while T'ritonia is inter- preted by reference to 7'. hombergit Cuvier, 1803. In an unpublished applica- tion, Dr. Henning Lemche, a specialist in the group concerned, asks that the Plenary Powers be used to designate T'ritonia hombergii Cuvier, 1803 as the type-species of T'ritonia Cuvier, 1798. Part H Nine generic names to replace junior homonyms of Meigen 1800 names and to be placed on the Official List 10 Triphysa Zeller, 1850: 308, 311 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, through Phryne Herrich-Schaeffer, [1844]: 90, Papilio tircis Stoll, [1782] (Order Lepidoptera) 10 Calybia Kirby, 1892 : 446 (gender: feminine), type-species, by mono- typy, through Phryne Grote, 1865, Phryne immaculata Grote, 1865 (Order Lepidoptera) 21 Melusinella Metcalf, 1952 : 230 (gender: feminine), type-species, by selection by Funkhouser, 1927: 214, through Melusina Stal, 1867 : 552, Ceresa nervosa Fairmaire, 1846 (Order Hemiptera) 58 Cerogenes Horvath, 1909 : 532 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, through Atalanta Stal, 1861 : 149, Phenax auricoma Burmeister, 1835 (Order Hemiptera) 62 Antiopula Bergroth, 1894: 163 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, through Antiopa Stal, 1863 : 47, Antiopa pumila Stal, 1863 (Order Hemiptera) 66 Graphium Scopoli, 1777 : 433 eng : neuter), type-species, by selection by Hemming, 1933 : 199, Papilio sarpedon Linnaeus, 1758 (Order Lepidoptera) (a generic name regarded as a senior synonym of Zelima Fabricius, 1807). 67 Xanthia Latreille, 1818 : 29 (gender: feminine), type-species, through Lampetia Curtis, 1830, Noctua croceago [Dennis & Schiffermiiller], 1775 (Order Lepidoptera) 42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69 Madates Strand, 1910 : 19 (gender : masculine), type-species, by original designation, through Cinzia Stal, 1862 : 105 and Datames Horvath, 1909 : 631, Cimex limbatus Fabricius, 1803 (Order Hemiptera) 79 Titiella Bergroth, 1920 : 29 (gender : feminine), type-species, by mono- typy, through Titia Stal, 1866 : 105, Acocephalus punctiger Stal, [1855] (Order Hemiptera). Part I Eleven names established by earlier authors and used by Meigen, 1800, to be placed on the Official List 19 Culex Linnaeus, 1758: 602 (gender: masculine), type-species, by selection by Latreille, 1810 : 442, 376, Culex pipiens Linnaeus, 1758 35 Tabanus Linnaeus, 1758 : 601 (gender: masculine), type-species, by selection by Latreille, 1810 : 443, 385, Tabanus bovinus Linnaeus, 1758 38 Empis Linnaeus, 1758: 603 (gender: feminine), type-species, by selection by Latreille, 1810 : 443, 390, Empis pennipes Linnaeus, 1758 39 Asilus Linnaeus, 1758: 605 (gender: masculine), type-species, by selection by Latreille, 1810 : 443, 389, Asilus crabroniformis Linnaeus, 1758 42 Conops Linnaeus, 1758 : 604 (gender: feminine), type-species, by selection by Curtis, 1831 : pl. 377, Conops flavipes Linnaeus, 1758 47 Geosargus Bezzi, 1907 : 53 (a replacement name for Sargus Fabricius, 1798 : 549 non Walbaum, 1792 : 586) (gender: masculine), type-species, by selection by Latreille, 1810 : 442, 384, through Sargus Fabricius, 1798, Musca cuprarius Linnaeus, 1758 48 Rhagio Fabricius, 1775: 761 (gender: feminine), type-species, by selection by Latreille, 1810 : 443, 387, Musca scolopacea Linnaeus, 1758 51 Bombylius Linnaeus, 1758 : 606 (gender: masculine), type-species, by selection by Latreille, 1810 : 443, 392, Bombylius major Linnaeus, 1758 60 Rhingia Scopoli, 1763 : 358 (gender : feminine), type-species, by mono- typy, Conops rostrata Linnaeus, 1758 63 Thereva Latreille, 1796:167 (gender: feminine), type-species, by selection by Latreille, 1810 : 443, 388, Musca plebeia Linnaeus, 1758 87 Hippobosca Linnaeus, 1758 : 607 (gender: feminine), type-species, by selection by Latreille, 1810 : 444, 407, Hippobosca equina Linnaeus, 1758 Part J Seven generic names established by earlier authors and used by Meigen in 1800, postponed for further consideration 2 Tipula Linnaeus, 1758 : 585. Z.N.(S.) 896 The placing of this important generic name on the Official List is delayed by a taxonomic problem, for the nomenclatorial status of the name is clear. The type-species of the genusis T'ipula oleracea Linnaeus, 1758 : 585, by selection by Latreille, 1810 : 442, 379, and this is the oldest available name for the species and isin current use. Dr. Lemche points out, however, in an unpublished Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 43 application, that the specific name has been applied to three different, though closely related species, and that the conservation of the name in the sense of majority-usage requires the designation of a neotype.* Further advice on this point from specialists in the Tipulid flies is desirable. 27 Sicus Scopoli, 1763 : 369. Z.N.(S8.) 1426 The type-species of this genus is Conops ferruginea Linnaeus, 1761 : 468, by selection by Coquillett, 1910 : 605, and this is the oldest available name for the species and is in current use. Before the generic name can be placed on the Official List, however, the status of Sicus Latreille, 1796:158, and Sicus Fabricius, 1798 : 547, 554, must be made clear. The type-species of Sicus Latreille, by monotypy, is Musca cimecoides Fabricius, 1779: 253, and the generic name is a senior synonym of T'achydromia Meigen, 1803 (see Part C above). No type-selection is known for Sicus Fabricius. Conops ferruginea Linnaeus is one of the included species, so that the generic name could be a junior objective synonym of Sicus Scopoli were it not that Fabricius seems to have misidentified Conops ferruginea Linnaeus. See also 43 Myopa below. 32 Ceria Fabricius, 1794: 277. Z.N.(S.) 1427 This genus was established without any included species. The type- species is Cina [sic] clavicornis Fabricius, 1798 : 557, by selection by Latreille, 1810 : 443, 396, but the specific name is invalid as a junior primary homonym. Moreover, Ceria Fabricius is itself a junior homonym of Ceria Scopoli, 1763: 351, which is a junior subjective synonym of Scatopse Geoffroy, 1762. See 64 Syrphus below. 41 Hrax Scopoli, 1763 : 359. Z.N.(S.) 1435 The type-species of this genus is Hrax barbatus Scopoli, 1763 : 360, by selection by Coquillett, 1910 : 539. This species is congeneric, or even conspecific, with Asilus punctatus Fabricius, 1781 (placed in Dasypogon by Meigen, 1804 : 251), which in turn is the same as Asilus punctipennis Meigen, 1820: 330. A. punctatus is regarded as the type-species of Protophanes Loew, 1860 : 143, which originally included A. punctipennis also. Macquart, 1838, used Hraz in a widely different sense from Scopoli, and Hine, 1919, designated Hrax rufibarbis Macquart, 1838 : 232, as type-species of Hrax Macquart non Scopoli. LHrax is currently used in this strictly invalid sense, allowing Protophanes, which is technically a synonym of Hrax, to be used for the Palaearctic species for which Scopoli originally intended Hrax. It seems, however, that other generic names are involved in this case and it is not yet clear how or to what extent the Plenary Powers may need to be invoked in order to conserve current usage. 43 Myopa Fabricius, 1775 : 798. Z.N.(S.) 1428 The first valid type-designation for this genus was made by Latreille, 1810: 444, 398, who selected Conops ferruginea Linnaeus, 1761. The generic name thus became a junior objective synonym of Sicus Scopoli, 1763 (see above), but in fact it is generally interpreted according to a later designation of Conops buccata Linnaeus, 1758 : 605, by Curtis, 1838 : pl. 677. The Plenary Powers may thus be needed to conserve current usage of Myopa and Sicus. * A neotype has been designated since this report was drafted. See Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 209-213. N.D.R. at Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49 Anthrax Scopoli, 1763 : 358. Z.N.(S.) 1429 The type-species of this genus, by monotypy, is Musca morio Linnaeus, 1758 : 590, but it is not known whether this is the oldest available name for the species nor whether it is in current use. 64 Syrphus Fabricius, 1775 : 762. Z.N.(S.) 1430 Curtis (1839: pl. 753) designated Musca lucorum Linnaeus, 1758 : 592, as the type-species of this genus. The same species is type of Leucozona Schiner, 1860 : 214, by monotypy. Westwood, 1840:137, designated “‘ Musca rufi- cornis Linnaeus ’’ as type-species of Syrphus ; he presumably intended Musca ruficornis Fabricius, 1794: 314. Rondani, 1844: 459, designated Musca ribesit Linnaeus, 1758 : 593, as type-species. In spite of efforts by Coquillett (1910 : 611) and Goffe (1933 : 78) to re-establish Curtis’s prior designation, usage has consistently followed Rondani, because this fixes the generic name to a group of species preying on aphids in the sense in which Meigen had used the name. Mr. Collin proposes, in an unpublished application, that the Plenary Powers be used to designate ribesti as the type-species of Syrphus and lucorum as the type-species of Leucozona, but no comments from other specialists are available at present on this suggestion. Part K 124 invalid generic names to be placed on the Official Index 1 Tanyptera Latreille, 1804 : 188, a junior objective synonym of Ctenophora Meigen, 1803 1 Ctenophora Blackwall, 1870 : 401 (Class Arachnida), a junior homonym of Ctenophora Meigen, 1803 4 Liriope Rathke, 1843: 60 (Class Crustacea), a junior homonym of Liriope Lesson, 1843 4 Liriope Gistl, [1847]: 563; 1848:171 (Class Gastropoda), a junior homonym of Liriope Lesson, 1843 4 Liriope Gegenbaur, 1856 : 256 (Class Scyphozoa), a junior homonym of Ttriope Lesson, 1843 4 Ptychoptera Christoph, 1880 : 83 (Order Lepidoptera), a junior homonym of Ptychoptera Meigen, 1803 5 Pales Dejean, 1835: 408 (Order Coleoptera), a junior homonym of Pales Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 and a nomen nudum 5 Pales Koch, 1850: 64 (Class Arachnida), a junior homonym of Pales Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 5 Pales Gray, 1867 : 234 (Class Zoantharia), a junior homonym of Pales Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 7 Limnobia Meigen, 1818: 116, a junior objective synonym of Limonia Meigen, 1803 7 Limonia J. L. R. Agassiz, 1846 : 211 (Order Lepidoptera), an unjustified emendation of Lemonia Hiibner, [1820] Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45 7 Limonia Thorell, 1870 : 190 (Class Arachnida), an unjustified emendation of Leimonia Koch, 1847 8 Petaurista Desmarest, 1820 : 268 (Class Mammalia), a junior homonym of Petaurista Link, 1795 8 Petaurista Berthold, 1827 : 400 (Order Coleoptera), a junior homonym of Petaurista Link, 1795 8 Petaurista Reichenbach, [1863] : 105 (Class Mammalia), a junior homo- nym of Petaurista Link, 1795 8 Trichocera de Haan, [1833] in Siebold : 16 (Class Crustacea), a junior homonym of T'richocera Meigen, 1803 9 Huphrosyne Savigny, 1822: 45 (Class Polychaeta), a junior homonym of HEuphrosyne Meigen, 1800 and an erroneous subsequent spelling of Euphrosine Lamarck, 1818 9 EHuphrosyne Gray, 1866 : 214 (Class Mammalia), a junior homonym of Euphrosyne Meigen, 1800 9 Macrocera Latreille, 1810 : 339, 439 (Order Hymenoptera), a junior homonym of Macrocera Meigen, 1803 10 Phryne Oken, 1816: 210 (Class Amphibia), a junior homonym of Phryne Meigen, 1800 10 Phryne Herrich-Schaeffer, [1844]: 90 (Order Lepidoptera), a junior homonym of Phryne Meigen, 1800 10 Phryne Grote, 1865: 246 (Order Lepidoptera), a junior homonym of Phryne Meigen, 1800 12 Mycetophila Gyllenhal, 1810 : 541 (Order Coleoptera), a junior homonym of Mycetophila Meigen, 1803 15 Pelopia H. Adams, 1868 : 16 (Class Pelecypoda), a junior homonym of Pelopia Meigen, 1800 15 Tanypus Oppel, 1812 : 159 (Class Aves), a junior homonym of Tanypus Meigen, 1803 15 Tanypus Keyserling, 1882 : 1415 (Class Arachnida), a junior homonym of Tanypus Meigen, 1803 17 Trichoptera Lioy, 1864: 1109 (Order Diptera), a junior homonym of Trichoptera Meigen, 1803 17 Trichoptera Strobl, 1880 : 64 (Order Diptera), a junior homonym of Trichoptera Meigen, 1803 18 Cecidomia Passerini, 1849: 70, an erroneous subsequent spelling of Cecidomyia Meigen, 1803 18 Cecidomyza Zetterstedt, 1850 : 3673, an erroneous subsequent spelling of Cecidomyia Meigen, 1803 20 Polyxena Blainville, 1834 : 278 (Class Scyphozoa), a junior homonym of Polyxena Meigen, 1800, and an erroneous subsequent spelling of Polyxenia Eschscholtz, 1829 20 Cordyla Billberg, 1820: 96 (Order Odonata), a junior homonym of Cordyla Meigen, 1803, and an erroneous subsequent spelling of Cordulia [Leach], [1815] 21 Melusina Stal, 1867 : 552 (Order Hemiptera), a junior homonym of Melusina Meigen, 1800 46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 21 Melusina Haekel, 1880 : 534 (Class Scyphozoa), a junior homonym of Melusina Meigen, 1800 21 Simulia Meigen, 1818 : 289, an erroneous subsequent spelling of Simulium Latreille, [1802-1803] 22 Amasia Dejean, 1835 : 411 (Order Coleoptera), a nomen nudum and a junior homonym of Amasia Meigen, 1800 22 Amasia Chapuis in Lacordaire, 1874 : 313 (Order Coleoptera), a junior homonym of Amasia Meigen, 1800 22 Penthetria Cabanis, 1847 : 331 (Class Aves), a junior homonym of Penthetria Meigen, 1803 22 Penthetria Edwards, 1881 : 80 (Order Lepidoptera), a junior homonym of Penthetria Meigen, 1803 25 Philia [Oken], 1829: 1111 (Class Gastropoda), a junior homonym of Philia- Meigen, 1800 and an erroneous subsequent spelling of Philine Ascanius, 1772 25 Philia Schioedte, (1842) : 279 (Order Hemiptera),a junior homonym of Philia Meigen, 1800 and an unnecessary replacement name for Calliphara Germar, 1839 25 Philia Koch, 1846 : 54 (Class Arachnida), a junior homonym of Philia Meigen, 1800 25 Dilophus Vieillot, 1816 : 34 (Class Aves), a junior homonym of Dilophus Meigen, 1803 26 Erinna Moerch, 1865 : 387 (Class Gastropoda), a junior homonym of Erinna H. & A. Adams, 1855 and an erroneous subsequent spelling of Hremina Pfeiffer, 1855 27 Coenomyia Latreille, 1796 : 159, a junior objective synonym of Sicus Scopoli, 1763 28 Odontomya Latreille, 1809 : 274, an erroneous subsequent spelling of Odontomyia Meigen, 1803 28 Odonthomya Rondani, 1856 : 170, an erroneous subsequent spelling of Odontomyia Meigen, 1803 28 Odonthomyia Bellardi, 1859 : 232, an erroneous subsequent spelling of Odontomyia Meigen, 1803 30 Potamida Schweigger, 1820 : 720, 770 (Class Gastropoda), a junior homonym of Potamida Meigen, 1800, and an erroneous subsequent spelling of Potamides Brongniart, 1810 30 Potamida J.L.R. Agassiz, 1846: 306 (Class Pelecypoda), a junior homonym of Potamida Meigen, 1800, and an unjustified emendation of Potomida Swainson, 1840 31 Hermione Forbes & Goodsir, (1840) : 82 (Class Polychaeta), a junior homonym of Hermione Blainville, 1828 31 Hermione Gray, 1852 : 306 (Class Pelecypoda), a junior homonym of Hermione Blainville, 1828 31 Hermione Meyrick, 1883 : 526 (Order Lepidoptera), a junior homonym of Hermione Blainville, 1828 31 Oxycera Giebel, 1875 : 785 (Class Aves), a junior homonym of Oxycera Meigen, 1803, and an erroneous subsequent spelling of Oxycerca Gray, 1842 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47 37 Platyptera Panzer, 1809 : tab. 20, a junior homonym of Platyptera Meigen, 1803, and an erroneous subsequent spelling of Platypeza Meigen, 1803 37 Platyptera Cuvier, 1829 : 248 (Class Pisces), a junior homonym of Platyptera Meigen, 1803 37 Platyptera Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1837 321 (Class Pisces), a junior homonym of Platyptera Meigen, 1803 37 Dionnaea Hendel, 1908 : 54, an erroneous subsequent Spelling of Dionaea Meigen, 1800 39 Asilus Moehring, 1758 : 28 (Class Aves), a junior homonym of Asilus Linnaeus, 1758 39 Asilus Brisson, 1760, 3 : 479 (Class Aves), a junior homonym of Asilus Linnaeus, 1758 39 Asilus Bechstein, 1802 : 173 (Class Aves), a junior homonym of Asilus Linnaeus, 1758 41 Dasypogon Leconte, 1861 : 170 (Order Coleoptera), a junior homonym of Dasypogon Meigen, 1803 42 Conops Walckenaer & Gervais, 1847 : 382 (Class Arachnida), a junior homonym of Conops Linnaeus, 1758, and an erroneous subsequent spelling of Oonops Templeton, [1833] 44 Tachydromya Oken, 1815: 486, an erroneous subsequent spelling of Tachydromia Meigen, 1803 44 Tachydromyia Macquart, 1823 : 152, an erroneous subsequent spelling of Tachydromia Meigen, 1803 47 Sargus Fabricius, 1798 : 549 (Order Diptera), a junior homonym of Sargus Walbaum, 1792 (Class Pisces) 47 Sargus Lacépéde, 1802: 167, a junior homonym of Sargus Walbaum, 1792 48 Leptis Fabricius, 1805 : 69 (Order Diptera), a junior objective synonym of Rhagio Fabricius, 1775 51 Bombylius Fauvel, 1902 : 42 (Order Coleoptera), a junior homonym of Bombylius Linnaeus, 1758 53 Clythia H. Milne Edwards, 1836 : 132 (Class Hydrozoa), a junior homonym of Clythia Meigen, 1800, and an erroneous subsequent spelling of 53 Clythia Berendt, 1845 : 56 (Class Arachnida), a junior homonym of Clythia Meigen, 1800 53 Clythia Menge, 1854 : 45 (Class Arachnida), a junior homonym of Clythia Meigen, 1800 55 Callomya Oken, 18165 : 490, an erroneous subsequent spelling of Callo- myia Meigen, 1804 55 Callimyia J. L. R. Agassiz, 1846 : 59, an unjustified emendation of Callomyia Meigen, 1804 55 Calomyia Rossi, 1848 : viii, an erroneous subsequent spelling of Callomyia Meigen, 1804 57 Microcera Meigen, 1803 : 273, a junior objective synonym of Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803] 48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 57 Microcera Mannerheim, 1831 : 486 (Order Coleoptera), a junior homonym of Microcera Meigen, 1803 57 Microcera Zetterstedt, 1837: col. 33; 1838: 572 (Order Diptera), a junior homonym of Microcera Meigen, 1803 57 Microcera Lioy, 1864: 906 (Order Diptera), a junior homonym of Microcera Meigen, 1803 58 Atalanta Stal, 1861: 149 (Order Hemiptera), a junior homonym of Atalanta Meigen, 1800 58 Atalanta Seeley, 1864: 50 (Class Pelecypoda), a junior homonym of Atalanta Meigen, 1800 58 Atalanta Knocker, 1869 : 617 (Class Gastropoda), a junior homonym of Atalanta Meigen, 1800, and an erroneous subsequent spelling of Ailanta Lesueur, 1817 58 Clinocera Deyrolle, 1864 : 116 (Order Coleoptera), a junior homonym of Clinocera Meigen, 1803 58 Clinocera Reitter, 1906 : 459 (Order Coleoptera), a junior homonym of Clinocera Meigen, 1803, and an erroneous subsequent spelling of Clinocrara Thomson, 1859 60 Rhyngia Rondani, 1844 : 459 (Order Diptera), an erroneous subsequent spelling of Rhingia Scopoli, 1763 62 Antiopa Alder & Hancock, 1848: 190 (Class Gastropoda), a junior homonym of Antiopa Meigen, 1800 62 Antiopa Stal, 1862: 47 (Order Hemiptera), a junior homonym of Antiopa Meigen, 1800 . 65 Tritonia Turton, 1825 : 365 (Class Gastropoda), a junior homonym of Tritonia Cuvier, 1798 65 Tritonia Geyer, 1832: 25 (Order Lepidoptera), a junior homonym of Tritonia Cuvier, 1798 65 Spilomya Oken, 1815 : 513, an erroneous subsequent spelling of Spilomyia Meigen, 1803 66 Zelima Fabricius, 1807 : 279 (Order Lepidoptera), a junior homonym of Zelima Meigen, 1800 66 Zetides Hiibner, [1819]: 85 (Order Lepidoptera), a junior objective synonym of Graphiwm Scopoli, 1777 66 Chlorisses Swainson, 1832 : pl. 89 (Order Lepidoptera), a junior objective synonym of Graphium Scopoli, 1777 67 Lampetia Stephens, 1829 : 43 (Order Lepidoptera), a junior homonym of Lampetia Meigen, 1800 67 Lampetia Curtis, 1830 : pl. 153 (Order Lepidoptera), a junior homonym of Lampetia Meigen, 1800 67 Lampetia Boie, 1837 : 536 (Order Lepidoptera), a junior homonym of Lampetia Meigen, 1800 67 Lampetia Chun, 1880 : 282 (Class Ctenophora), a junior homonym of Lampetia Meigen, 1800 68 Elophilus Labbé, 1935 : 312 (Class Gastropoda), a Rises! homonym of Elophilus Latreille, 1804 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49 69 Cinzia Stal, 1862 : 105 (Order Hemiptera), a junior homonym of Cinzia Meigen, 1800 69 Sericomya Oken, 1815:515, an erroneous subsequent spelling of Sericomyia Meigen, 1803 69 Sericomya Rondani, 1844: 451, an erroneous subsequent spelling of Sericomyia Meigen, 1803 69 Sericomyza Zetterstedt, 1838 : 589, an erroneous subsequent spelling of Sericomyia Meigen, 1803 70 Criorhina Williston, 1886 : 209, an erroneous subsequent spelling of Criorrhina Meigen, 1822 70 Chriorhyna Rondani, 1844 : 456, an erroneous subsequent spelling of Criorrhina Meigen, 1822 72 Titania J. L. R. Agassiz, [1846]: 67 (Order Lepidoptera), a junior homonym of Titania Meigen, 1800, and an unjustified emendation of Titanio Hiibner, [1825] 73 Scatophaga Fabricius, 1805 : 203, an erroneous subsequent spelling of Scathophaga Meigen, 1803 74 Dictya J. L. R. Agassiz, 1846 : 123 (Order Diptera), a junior homonym of Dictya Meigen, 1803, and an unjustified emendation of Dyctia Robineau- Desvoidy, 1830 74 Dictya de Chaudoir, 1871 : 123 (Order Coleoptera), a junior homonym of Dictya Meigen, 1803 74 Dictya Kobayashi, 1933 : 137 (Class Trilobita), a junior homonym of Dictya Meigen, 1803 75 Euribia Rang, 1827 : 320, 328 (Class Pteropoda), a junior homonym of Euribia Latreille, 1802 76 Pterocera Lamarck, 1799: 72 (Class Gastropoda), a junior objective synonym of Lambis [Roding], 1798 76 Pterocera Meigen, 1803 : 275, a junior homonym of Pierocera Lamarck, 1799 and a junior objective synonym of Volucella Geoffroy, 1762 _ 76. Apivora Meigen, 1800, a junior objective synonym of Volucella Geoffroy 1762 79 Tita Hermann, 1804 : 135 (Class Aves), a junior homonym of Titia Meigen, 1800 79 Titia Stal, 1866 : 105 (Order Hemiptera), a junior homonym of Titia Meigen, 1800 80 Gonia Heinemann, [1870] : 331 (Order Lepidoptera), a junior homonym of Gonia Meigen, 1803 81 Echinodes Trouessart, 1879 : 274 (Class Mammalia), a junior homonym of Echinodes Zimmermann, 1869 81 Echinodes Jacquet, [1889] : 1888 (Order Coleoptera), a junior homonym of Echinodes Zimmermann, 1869 81 Hriothryx Schiner, [1868] : 292, an erroneous subsequent spelling of Eriothrix Meigen, 1803 82 Echinomya Latreille, [1804-1805] : 377, a junior objective synonym of Tachina Meigen, 1803 50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 83 Gymnosoma Quatrefages, [1866]: 482 (Class Polychaeta), a junior homonym of Gymnosoma Meigen, 1803 83 Gymnosomia Latreille, 1829 : 511, an erroneous subsequent spelling of Gymnosoma Meigen, 1803 85 Calirrhoe Reichenbach, 1828 : 99 (Class Cephalopoda ?), a junior homo- nym of Calirrhoe Meigen, 1800, and an erroneous subsequent spelling of Callirhoe Montfort, 1810 87 Hippoboscus Gray, 1832: 778, an erroneous subsequent spelling of Hippobosca Linnaeus, 1758 APPENDIX VI SPECIFIC NAMES TO BE PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LIST Part A 58 specific names of type-species of genera listed in Appendix V 1 atrata Linnaeus, 1758 : 586, as published in the binomen Tipula atrata (type-species of Clenophora Meigen, 1803) 4 contaminata Linnaeus, 1758 : 586, as published in the binomen Tipula contaminata (type-species of Ptychoptera Meigen, 1803) 5 dorsalis Fabricius, 1781 : 403, as published in the binomen Tipula dorsalis (type-species of Nephrotoma Meigen, 1803) 7 tripunctata Fabricius, 1781 : 405, as published in the binomen Tipula tripunctata (type-species of Limonia Meigen, 1803) 8 petaurista Pallas, 1766 : 54, as published in the binomen Sciwrus petaurista (type-species of Petaurista Link, 1795) 9 lutea Meigen, 1804 : 46, as published in the binomen Macrocera lutea (type- species of Macrocera Meigen, 1803) 10 immaculata Grote, 1865: 246, as published in the binomen Phryne immaculata (type-species of Calybia Kirby, 1829) 14 plumosa Linnaeus, 1758 : 587, as published in the binomen Tipula plumosa (type-species of Chironomus Meigen, 1803) 18 pini De Geer, 1776 : 417, as published in the binomen Tipula pini (type- species of Cecidomyia Meigen, 1803) 19 pipiens Linnaeus, 1758 : 602, as published in the binomen Culex pipiens (type-species of Culex Linnaeus, 1758) 20 fusca Meigen, 1804 : 93, as published in the binomen Cordyla fusca (type- species of Cordyla Meigen, 1803) ; 21 nervosa Fairmaire, 1846 : 289, as published in the binomen Ceresa nervosa (type-species of Melusinella Metcalf, 1952) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61 25 febrilis Linnaeus, 1758 : 588, as published in the binomen Tipula febrilis (type-species of Dilophus Meigen, 1803) 26 cinctus De Geer, 1776 : 183, as published in the binomen Nemotelus cinctus (type-species of Xylophagus Meigen, 1803) 26 newcombi H. & A. Adams, 1855: 120, as published in the binomen Erinna newcombi (type species of Hrinna H. & A. Adams, 1855) 28 hydroleon Linnaeus, 1758 : 589, as published in the binomen Musca hydroleon (type-species of Odontomyia Meigen, 1803) 31 trilineata Linnaeus, 1767 : 980, as published in the binomen Musca trilineata (type-species of Oxycera Meigen, 1803) 33 caecutiens Linnaeus, 1758 : 602, as published in the binomen Tabanus caecutiens (type-species of Chrysops Meigen, 1803) 34 pluvialis Linnaeus, 1758 : 602, as published in the binomen Tabanus pluvialis (type-species of Haematopota Meigen, 1803) 35 bovinus Linnaeus, 1758 : 601, as published in the binomen Tabanus bovinus (type-species of Tabanus Linnaeus, 1758) 37 forcipata Meigen, 1824 : 272, as published in the binomen Tachina forcipata (type-species of Dionaea Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830) 38 pennipes Linnaeus, 1758 : 604, as published in the binomen Hmpis pennipes (type-species of Hmpis Linnaeus, 1758) 39 crabroniformis Linnaeus, 1758 : 605, as published in the binomen Asilus crabroniformis (type-species of Asilus Linnaeus, 1758) 40 gibbosus Linnaeus, 1758 : 605, as published in the binomen Asilus gibbosus (type-species of Laphria Meigen, 1803) 42 flavipes Linnaeus, 1758 : 604, as published in the binomen Conops flavipes (type-species of Conops Linnaeus, 1758) 45 telegraphella Walker, 1866 : 1839, as published in the binomen Noeza telegraphella (type-species of Noeza Walker, 1866) 47 cupraria Linnaeus, 1758:598, as published in the binomen Musca cupraria (type-species of Geosargus Bezzi, 1907) 48 scolopacea Linnaeus, 1758: 590, as published in the binomen Musca scolopacea (type-species of Rhagio Fabricius, 1775) 51 major Linnaeus, 1758 : 606, as published in the binomen Bombylius major (type-species of Bombylius Linnaeus, 1758) 53 fasciata Meigen, 1804 : 310, as published in the binomen Platypeza fasciata (type-species of Platypeza Meigen, 1803) 54 lutea Panzer, 1809 : tab. 20, 21, as published in the binomen Loncho- ptera lutea (type-species of Lonchoptera Meigen, 1804) 55 elegans Meigen, 1804: 311, as published in the binomen Callomyia elegans (type-species of Callomyia Meigen, 1804) 57 campestris Latreille, [1802-1803] : 463, as published in the binomen Pipunculus campestris (type-species of Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803]) 58 nigra Meigen, 1804 : 292, as published in the binomen Clinocera nigra (type-species of Clinocera Meigen, 1803) 58 auricoma Burmeister, 1835 : 168, as published in the binomen Phenax auricoma (type-species of Cerogenes Horvath, 1909) 52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60 rostrata Linnaeus, 1758 : 604, as published in the binomen Conops rostrata (type-species of Rhingia Scopoli, 1763) 62 bicincta Linnaeus, 1758 : 592, as published in the binomen Musca bicincta (type-species of Chrysotoxum Meigen, 1803) 62 pumila Stal, 1863 : 47-48, as published in the binomen Antiopa pumila (type-species of Antiopula Bergroth, 1894) 63 plebeia Linnaeus, 1758 : 589, as published in the binomen Musca plebeia (type-species of Thereva Latreille, 1796) 65 diophthalma Linnaeus, 1758 : 593, as published in the binomen Musca diophthalma (type-species of Spilomyia Meigen, 1803) 66 sarpedon Linnaeus, 1758 : 461, as published in the binomen Papilio sarpedon (type-species of Graphiwm Scopoli, 1777) 67 clavipes Fabricius, 1781 : 427, as published in the binomen Syrphus clavipes (type-species of Merodon Meigen, 1803) 67 croceago [Dennis & Schiffermiiller], 1775 : 86, as published in the binomen Noctua croceago (type-species of Xanthia Latreille, 1818) 69 lappona Linnaeus, 1758: 591, as published in the binomen Musca lappona (type-species of Sericomyia Meigen, 1803) 69 limbatus Fabricius, 1803 : 176, as published in the binomen Cimex limbatus (type-species of Madates Strand, 1910) 70 asilicus Fallén, 1816 : 22, as published in the binomen Syrphus aeMtaea (type-species of Criorrhina Meigen, 1822) 70 sacculalis Ragonot, [1891] : 439, as published in the binomen Penthesilea sacculalis (type-species of Penthesilea Ragonot, [1891]) 71 petronella Linnaeus, 1758 : 598, as published in the binomen Musca petronella (type-species of Calobata Meigen, 1803) 75 cardui Linnaeus, 1758 : 600, as published in the binomen Musca cardui (type-species of Huribia Latreille, [1802—1803]) 76 lambis Linnaeus, 1758 : 743, as published in the binomen Strombus lambis (type-species of Lambis [Roding, 1798]) 79 punctiger Stal, [1855]: 98, as published in the binomen Acocephalus punctiger (type-species of Titiella Bergroth, 1920) 81 setiger Leconte, 1859 : 316, as published in the binomen Hetaerius setiger (type-species of Echinodes Zimmermann, 1869) 82 grossa Linnaeus, 1758 : 596, as published in the binomen Musca grossa (type-species of J'achina Meigen, 1803) 83 rotundata Linnaeus, 1758 : 596, as published in the binomen Musca rotundata (type-species of Gymnosoma Meigen, 1803) 84 geniculata De Geer, 1776: 38, as published in the binomen Musca geniculata (type-species of Bucentes Latreille, 1809) 84 crocuta Erxleben, 1777 : 578, as published in the binomen Canis crocuta (type-species of Crocuta Kaup, 1828) 85 siberita Fabricius, 1775 : 798, as published in the binomen Stomozxys siberita (type-species of Prosena St. Fargeau & Serville, 1828) 87 equina Linnaeus, 1758 : 607, as published in the binomen Hippobosca equina (type-species of Hippobosca Linnaeus, 1758) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53 Part B Six specific names which are senior subjective synonyms of nominal type-species and which are the oldest available names for the species concerned 5 pavida Meigen, 1824 : 398, as published in the binomen Tachina pavida (the oldest available name for the type-species of Pales Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830) 10 phryne Pallas, 1771 : 470, as published in the binomen Papilio phryne (the oldest available name for the type-species of T'riphysa Zeller, 1850) 13 hemerobioides Scopoli, 1763 : 324, as published in the binomen Tipula hemerobioides (the oldest available name for the type-species of Sciara Meigen, 1803) 45 grossipes Linnaeus, 1767 : 988, as published in the binomen Musca grossipes (the oldest available name for the type-species of Hybos Meigen, 1803) 73 stercoraria Linnaeus, 1758 : 599, as published in the binomen Musca stercoraria (the oldest available name for the type-species of Scathophaga Meigen, 1803) 81 rufomaculata De Geer, 1776 : 28, as published in the binomen Musca rufomaculata (the oldest available name for the type-species of Hriothrix Meigen, 1803) APPENDIX VII FAMILY-GROUP NAMES TO BE PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL INDEX OF REJECTED AND INVALID FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY Part A + Thirteen names based on Meigen 1800 generic names and invalidated by the suppression of those generic names under the Plenary Powers 4 LIRIOPEIDAE Goffe, 1932 : 61 (type-genus Liriope Meigen, 1800) 8 PETAURISTIDAE Lindner, 1930 : 11 (type-genus Petaurista Meigen, 1800) 10 PHRYNEIDAE Lindner, 1930 : 1 (type-genus Phryne Meigen, 1800) 12 FUNGIVoRIDAE Landrock, 1926 : 1 (type-genus Fungivora Meigen, 1800) 13 LycormpaE Lengersdorf, 1928 : 1 (type-genus Lycoria Meigen, 1800) 16 HELEIDAE Goetghebuer & Lenz, 1933 : 1 (type-genus Helea Meigen, 1800) 18 ITONIDIDAE Felt, 1913 : 127 (type-genus Jtonida Meigen, 1800) 21 MELUSINIDAE Goffe, 1932 : 61 (type-genus Melusina Meigen, 1800) 52 OMPHRALIDAE Kroéber, 1926 : 1 (type-genus Omphrale Meigen, 1800) 53 CLYTHIIDAE Czerny, 1930 : 1 (type-genus Clythia Meigen, 1800) 54 MUSIDORIDAE Goffe, 1932 : 62 (type-genus Musidora Meigen, 1800) 56 CYPSELIDAE Goffe, 1932 : 64 (type-genus Cypsela Meigen, 1800) 82 LARVAEVORIDAE Goffe, 1932 : 64 (type-genus Larvaevora Meigen, 1800) 54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Part B Two family-group names based on generic names concerning which specific proposals are laid before the Commission (see Appendix V, Part B) 14 TENDIPEDIDAE Goffe, 1932 : 61 (type-genus Tendipes Meigen, 1800) 57 DORILAIDAE Kertész, 1910 : 367 (type-genus Dorilas Meigen, 1800) Part C Incorrect original spellings of family-group names in Diptera 2 TIPULARIAE Latreille, [1802-1803] : 419 (type-genus Tipula Linnaeus, 1758) 2 TIPULARIDES [Leach], [1815] : 161 (type-genus Z'ipula Linnaeus, 1758) 7 LIMNoBIINA Rondani, 1856 : 38 (type-genus Limnobia Meigen, 1818) 9 MACROCERINA Rondani, 1856 : 40 (type-genus Macrocera Meigen, 1803) 10 RHYPHITES Newman, (1834) : 379, 387 (type-genus Rhyphus Latreille, [1804-1805]) 10 ruHyYPHI Zetterstedt, 1842 : 9, 85 (type-genus Rhyphus Latreille, [1804- 1805]) 10 RIPHIDAE Rondani, 1856 : 18 (type-genus Rhyphus Latreille, [1804-1805]) 12 mycrropHitites Newman, (1834) : 379, 386 (type-genus Mycetophila Meigen, 1803) 14 curronomites Newman, (1834) : 379 (type-genus Chironomus Meigen, 1803) 16 crRATOPOGONITES Newman, (1834) : 379 (type-genus Ceratopogon Meigen, 1803) 17 psycHopiTEs Newman, (1834) : 379, 388 (type-genus Psychoda Latreille, 1796) 17 psycHopipEs Zetterstedt, 1840 : vi, 824 (type-genus Psychoda Latreille, 1796) 18 cecrpomurEes Newman, (1834): 379, 386 (type-genus Cecidomyia Meigen, 1803) 18 cecrpomyiTrEs Newman, 1835:181 (type-genus Cecidomyia Meigen, 1803) 18 cECIDOMYIADAE Harris, 1841 : 421 (type-genus Cecidomyia Meigen, 1803) 18 cecipomyzipEs Zetterstedt, 1842 : 10, 90 (type-genus Cecidomyia Meigen, 1803) 19 cuLicrres Newman, (1834) : 379, 388 (type-genus Culex Linnaeus, 1758) 21 stmuLtuTEs Newman, (1834): 379 (type-genus Simulium Latreille, [1802-1803]) 21 smmuLipEs Zetterstedt, 1842 : 9, 85 (type-genus Simulium Latreille, [1802-1803]) 26 xyLopHaciTEs Newman, (1834): 379, 393 (type-genus Xylophagus Meigen, 1803) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55 28 oponTHOMYNA Rondani, 1856: 35 (type-genus Odontomyia Meigen, 1803) 35 TABANI Latreille, [1802-1803] : 438 (type-genus T'abanus Linnaeus, 1758) 35 TABANIDES [Leach], [1815] : 161 (type-genus T'abanus Linnaeus, 1758) 35 TABANITES Newman,(1834): 379, 389 (type-genus J'abanus Linnaeus, 1758) 38 EMPIDES [Leach], [1815] : 161 (type-genus Empis Linnaeus, 1758) 38 EMPITES Newman, (1834) : 379, 392 (type-genus Hmpis Linnaeus, 1758) 39 astLict Latreille, [1802-1803] : 432 (type-genus Asilus Linnaeus, 1758) 39 astLipEs [Leach], [1815] : 161 (type-genus Asilus Linnaeus, 1758) 39 astLitEs Newman, (1834) : 379, 392 (type-genus Asilus Linnaeus, 1758) 40 LapHRINA Rondani, 1856 : 32 (type-genus Laphria Meigen, 1803) 41 DasyPogonina Rondani, 1856 : 32 (type-genus Dasypogon Meigen, 1803) 42 conopsaR14E Latreille, [1802-1803] : 442 (type-genus Conops Linnaeus, 42 conopsipEs [Leach], [1815] : 162 (type-genus Conops Linnaeus, 1758) 42 conoritEs Newman, (1834) : 379, 390 (type-genus Conops Linnaeus, 17 58) 43 myopina Rondani, 1856 : 21 (type-genus Myopa Fabricius, 1775) 44 TACHIDROMyNA Rondani, 1856 : 30 (type-genus T'achydromia Meigen, 48 rHAcIoNIDES Latreille, [1802-1803] : 440 (type-genus Rhagio Fabricius, 1775) 49 anTHRacIDES [Leach], [1815] : 162 (type-genus Anthrax Scopoli, 1763) 50 oxsTRIDES [Leach], [1815] : 162 (type-genus Oestrus Linnaeus, 1758) 50 OESTRITES Newman, (1834) : 379, 391 (type-genus Oestrus Linnaeus, 1758) 51 BomBYLaRU Latreille, [1802-1803] : 427 (type-genus Bombylius Linnaeus, 1758) 51 BomBYLIDEs [Leach], [1815] : 162 (type-genus Bombylius Linnaeus, 1758) 51 BoMBILUTES Newman, (1834) : 379, 389 (type-genus Bombylius Linnaeus, 1758) ; 51 BOMBYLIADAE Harris, 1841 : 406 (type-genus Bombylius Linnaeus, 1758) 52 SCENOPINI Meigen, 1824 : xi, 111 (type-genus Scenopinus Latreille, [1802-1803]) * 54 LONCOPTERIDAE Rondani, 1856: 13 (type-genus Lonchoptera Meigen, 1803) 56 BORBORITES Newman, (1834) : 379, 396 (type-genus Borborus Meigen, 1803) 57 PIPUNCULINI Zetterstedt, 1842 : 4, 45 (type-genus Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803}]) 62 cHRYSOTOXxITES Newman, (1834) : 379, 394 (type-genus Chrysotoxum Meigen, 1803) 63 THEREVITES Newman, (1834) : 379, 391 (type-genus Thereva Latreille, 1796) 68 ERISTALITES Newman, (1834) : 379, 394 (type-genus Eristalis Latreille, 1804) 72 CHLOROPINA Rondani, 1856 : 26 (type-genus Chlorops Meigen, 1803) 73 SCATOPHAGITES Newman, (1834) : 379, 395 (type-genus Scatophaga Meigen, 1803) 56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 74 TETANOCERITES Newman, (1834) : 379, 395 (type-genus T'etanocera Latreille, 1804) 80 GonmDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863 : 728 (type-genus Gonia Meigen, 1803) 82 TACHINARIAE Macquart, 1835 : 59 (type-genus TJ'achina Meigen, 1803) 82 TACHINADAE Harris, 1841 : 411] (type-genus T'achina Meigen, 1803) 82 ECHINOMYDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 : 610 (type-genus Echinomya Latreille, [1802—1803]) 87 HIpPpoBoscITES Newman, (1834) : 379, 397 (type-genus Hippobosca Linnaeus, 1758) 87 HIPPOBOSCADAE Harris, 1841 : 18 (type-genus Hippobosca Linnaeus, 1758) Part D One incorrect original spelling of a family-group name not in Diptera 7 AMPHINOMAE Savigny, [1822] : 822 (type-genus Amphinome Bruguiére, [1792], Class Polychaeta) APPENDIX VIII FAMILY-GROUP NAMES TO BE PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY Part A Fifteen names validated through the suppression of Meigen 1800 generic names 4 PTYCHOPTERIDAE Kertész, 1902 : 275 (type-genus Ptychoptera Meigen, 1803) 13 SCIARINAE Zetterstedt, 1840 : 825 (type-genus Sciara Meigen, 1803) 14 CHIRONOMIDAE Newman, (1834) : 379 (correction of CHIRONOMITES) (type-genus Chironomus Meigen, 1803) 16 CERATOPOGONIDAE Newman, (1834) : 379 (correction of CERATOPOGONITES) (type-genus Ceratopogon Meigen, 1803) 18 cEcIDOMymIDAE Newman, (1834) : 379, 386 (correction of CECIDOMIITES) (type-genus Cecidomyia Meigen, 1803) 26 XYLOPHAGINAE Newman, (1834) : 379, 393 (correction of XYLOPHAGITES) (type-genus Xylophagus Meigen, 1803) 40 LAPHRIINAE Rondani, 1856 : 32 (correction of LAPHRTINA) (type-genus Laphria Meigen, 1803) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 57 44 TACHYDROMUNAE Rondani, 1856 : 30 (correction of TACHIDROMYNA) (type-genus T'achydromia Meigen, 1803) 45 HYBOTINAE Meigen, 1820 : x, 346 (type-genus Hybos Meigen, 1803) 54 LONCHOPTERINAE Macquart, 1835 : 13 (type-genus Lonchoptera Meigen, 1803) 57 PIPUNCULIDAE Zetterstedt, 1842 : 4, 45 (correction of PIPUNCULINI) (type- genus Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803]) 59 MICROPEZIDAE Loew, 1862 : 38 (type-genus Micropeza Meigen, 1803) 72 CHLOROPIDAE Rondani, 1856 : 26 (correction of CHLOROPINA) type- genus Chlorops Meigen, 1803). [Correction of the original reference for this family-group name given in Direction 28] 80 GontINAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863 : 728 (correction of GoNmDAE) type- genus Gonia Meigen, 1803) 82 TACHINIDAE Macquart, 1835 : 59 (correction of TACHINARIAE) (type- genus T'achina Meigen, 1803). Part B Thirteen names based on generic names established by authors earlier than Meigen, 1800 2 TIPULIDAE Latreille, [1802-1803] : 419 (correction of TIPULARIAE) (type- genus 7'ipula Linnaeus, 1758) 19 cuLicipaE Newman, (1834) : 379, 388 (correction of CULICITES) (type- genus Culex Linnaeus, 1758) 35 TABANIDAE Latreille, [1802-1803] : 438 (correction of TABANII) (type- genus J’abanus Linnaeus, 1758) 38 EMPIDIDAE [Leach], [1815] : 161 (correction of EMPIDES) (type-genus Empis Linnaeus, 1758) 39 asmipaE Latreille, [1802-1803] : 432 (correction of ASILICI) (type-genus Asilus Linnaeus, 1758) 42 conoPipaE Latreille, [1802-1803] : 442 (correction of CONOPSARIAE) (type-genus Conops Linnaeus, 1758) 43 MyopinaE Rondani, 1856 : 21 (correction of myoprna) (type-genus Myopa Fabricius, 1775) 48 RHAGIONIDAE Latreille, [1802-1803] : 440 (correction of RHAGIONIDES) (type-genus Rhagio Fabricius, 1775) 49 ANTHRACINAE [Leach], [1815] : 162 (correction of ANTHRACIDES) (type- genus Anthrax Scopoli, 1763) 51 BomByLUDAE Latreille, [1802-1803] : 427 (correction of BOMBYLARI) (type-genus Bombylius Linnaeus, 1758) 63 THEREVIDAE Newman, (1834) : 379, 391 (correction of THEREVITES) (type-genus Thereva Latreille, 1796) - j 87 HIPPOBOSCIDAE Newman, (1834) : 379, 397 (correction of HIPPOBOSCITES) (type-genus Hippobosca Linnaeus, 1758) 58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Part C Eleven names for which information is required 3 ERIOPTERINI; 7 LIMONIINAE; 8 TRICHOCERIDAE ; 10 ANISOPODIDAE ; 15 TANYPODINAE; 30 CLITELLARIINAE ; 34 HAEMATOPOTINAE ; 56 SPHAERO- CERIDAE ; 58 CLINOCERARINAE ; 71 CALOBATINAE ; 75 TRYPETIDAE Part D One name in a group other than Diptera 7 AMPHINOMIDAE Savigny, [1822] : 822 (correction of AMPHINOMAE) (type- genus Amphinome Bruguiére, [1792], Class Polychaeta) APPENDIX IX References Adams, H., 1868, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1868 : 14-17 & Adams, A., 1854-1858, The genera of Recent M ollusca 2, London & , 1855, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 23 : 119-124 Agassiz, J. L. R., 1846, NV omencl. zool. Index univ., Solothurn , 1846, Nomencel. zool. Lepidoptera, Solothurn , 1862, Contrib. nat. Hist. U.S.A. 4 Alder, J., & Hancock, A., 1848, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 1 : 189-192 Bechstein, J. M., 1802, Orn. Taschenb. 1 Bellardi, L., 1859, Saggio Ditt. Messic. 1 (Jem. R. Accad. Torino 19 : 201-277) Berendt, C., 1845, Bernst. bef. org. Reste 1(1), Berlin Bergroth, E., 1894, Rev. ent. France 13 : 152-163 , 1920, Ark. Zool. 12 (17) Berthold, A. A., 1827, in Latreille, Nat. Fam. Thierr., Weimar Bezzi, M., 1902, Z. syst. Hym. Dipt. (Konow) 2 : 190-192 , 1907, Wien. ent. Ztg., 26 : 51-56 Billberg, G. J., 1820, Enum. Ins. Mus. Billberg, Stockholm Bjerkander, C., 1778, K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Handl. 39 : 240-241 Blackwall, J., 1870, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (4) 5 : 394-405 Blainville, H. M. D. de, 1828, Dict. Sci. nat. 57, Paris , 1834, Man. Actin., Paris Blanchard, ©. E., [1846], in Cuvier, Régne anim. [ed. 3 (Disciples’ ed.)] 14 (Ins. Atlas 2), Paris —, 1849, ibid. 7 (Ins. 3) Boie, F., 1837, Naturh. Tidsskr. 1 : 521-549 Brisson, M. J., 1760, Ornithologia, 6 vols., Paris Bruguiére, J. G., [1792], Hncy. méth. Vers 1 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59 Burmeister, C. H. C., 1835, Handb. Ent. 2, Berlin Cabanis, J., 1847, Arch. Nat. 13(1) : 308-352 Chapuis, F., 1874 in Lacordaire, Hist. nat. Ins., Gen. Col. 10 Chaudoir, M. de, 1871, Bull. Soc. imp. Nat. Moscou 43(2) : 111-255 Christoph, H., 1880, Bull. Soc. imp. Nat. Moscow 55(2) : 33-121 Chun, C., 1880, F. Fl. Neapol. 1 (Naples, zool. Stat.) Coquillett, D. W., 1895, Canad. Ent. 27 : 199-201 —,, 1903, Proc. ent. Soc. Washington 25 : 245-272 , 1910, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 87 : 499-622 Cresson, E. T., 1920, Trans. ent. Soc. Amer. 46 : 27-89 Curtis, J., 1826, Brit. Ent., pl. 106, London ——,, 1830, Brit. Ent., pl. 153 ——,, 1830, Guide brit. Ins., London —., 1831, Brit. Ent., pl. 377 ——,, 1832, Brit. Ent., pls. 409, 432 ——,, 1833, Brit. Ent., pls. 444, 452 ——,, 1835, Brit. Ent., pls. 553, 557 —, 1837, Brit. Ent., pls. 637, 661 ——,, 1838, Brit. Ent., pl. 677 , 1839, Brit. Ent., pls. 749, 753 Cuvier, G., 1803, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris 1 : 480-496 ,G. L. C. F. D., 1798, Tabl. élém. Paris , 1829, Régne anim. (ed. 2) 2, Paris Czerny, L., 1930, in Lindner, Die Fliegen, fam. 42(a), Stuttgart De Geer, C., 1776, Mém. Ins. 6, Stockholm Dejean, P. F. H. A., 1835, Cat. Col., ed. 2, 5, Paris [Denis, M. & Schiffermiiller, I.], 1775, Ank. syst. Verz. Schmett. Wiener Gegend Desmarest, A. G., 1820, Ency. méth. (Mamm.) 1 Deyrolle, H., 1864, Ann. Soc. ent. Belge 8 : 1-312 Dumeéril, A. M. C., 1806, Zool. anal., Paris Eaton, A. E., 1895, Ent. mon. Mag., 29 : 120-130 ——, 1904, ibid. 40 : 55-59 Edwards, F. W., 1920, Mesure Arc mérid. Amér. Sud 10 : 143-162, Paris ——,, Henry, 1881, Papilio 1 : 80-81 Enderlein, G., 1935, Sitzungsber. Ges. naturf. Freunde Berlin, Jahrg. 1935 : 246— 250 Erxleben, J. C. P., 1777, Syst. Anim. Fabricius, J. C., 1775, Syst. Ent., Flensburg & Leipzig , 1779, Reise Norwegen, Hamburg —, 1781, Spec. Ins. 2, Hamburg ——,, 1781, Mantissa Ins. 1, 2, Copenhagen ——, 1794, Ent. Syst. 4, Copenhagen —, 1798, Suppl. Ent. Syst., Copenhagen ——, 1803, Syst. Rhyng., Brunswick —, 1805, Syst. Antliat., Brunswick ——, 1807, Mag. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 279-289 60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Fairmaire, L., 1846, Ann. Soc. ent. France, (2) 4 : 265-320 Fallén, C. F., [1811], K. svenska Vetensk.-Akad. nya Handl. 31(4) : 253-287 , 1816, Dipt. Svec. (Syrph. 2), Lund , 1817, ibid. (Syrph. 3), Lund Fauvel, A., 1902, Rev. Ent. France 21 : 40-43 Felt, E. P., 1913, Bull. U.S. State Mus., 165, Rept. State Entomologist— Appendix Forbes, E., & Goodsir, J., (1840), Rep. brit. Assoc. 1839 (Notices), 79-82 Forskal, P., 1775, Descr. Anim. [op. post. ed. Niebuhr], Copenhagen Funkhouser, W. D., 1927, General Catalogue Hemiptera, Fasc. 1 (Membracidae), Northampton, Mass. Gegenbaur, C., 1856, Z. wiss. Zool. 8 (no. 2) : 202-273 Geoffroy, E. L., 1762, Hist. abrég. Ins. 2, Paris Geyer, C., 1832, in Hiibner, Zutr. z. Samml. exot. Schmett. 4, Augsburg Giebel, C. G. A., 1875, Thes. orn. 2, fasc. 2, Leipzig Gistl, J., & Bromme, [1847], Handb. Nat. 1850, Stuttgart ——, J. von N. F. X., 1848, Nat. Thierr., Stuttgart Gmelin, J. F., [1790], Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1, (5), Leipzig Goetghebuer, H., & Lenz, F., 1933, in Lindner, Die Fliegen, Fam. 13(a), Stuttgart Goffe, E. R., 1932, Trans. ent. Soc. 8S. Engl. 8 : 58-64 , 1933, ibid. 8 : 77-83 Gray, G., 1832, in Griffith’s Cuvier, Anim. Kingd. (Ins.) 15, London , J. E., 1852 [op. post. of W.E. Leach], Syn. Moll. g. Brit., London ——,, 1866, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1866 : 211-216 , 1867, ibid. 1867 : 233-240 Grote, A. R., 1865, Proc. ent. Soc. Philad. 5 : 227-255 Gyllenhal, L., 1810, Ins. Svec. 1 Coleopt. 1(2) Haan, W. de, [1833], in Siebold, Fauna Japon. (Crust.), Leiden Haekel, E., 1880, Monogr. Medusen, Denkschr. med.-naturw. Ges. Jena 1 Harris, M., 1776, Exp. Eng. Ins., London Harris, T. W., 1841, Rep. Ins. Mass. inj. Veg. [ed. 1], Boston Heinemann, H. von, [1870], Schmett. Deutschl. u. Schweiz 2 (Klein-Schmett. 2) Heft 1 (1877), Brunswick Hemming, F., 1933, Entomologist 66 : 196-200 Hendel, F., 1908, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 58 : 43-69 ——., 1924, Konowia 2 (1923) : 203-215 , 1927, in Lindner, Die Fliegen, Fam. 49, Stuttgart Hermann, J., 1804, Obs. Zool., Paris Herrich-Schaeffer, G. A. W., [1844], Schmett. Europ. 1, Regensberg Hine, J. 8., 1919, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 12 : 103-154 Horvath, G., 1909, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Hung. 7 : 631-632 Hiibner, J., [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. 1818 : 17-176, Augsburg International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1910, Opinion 28, Smithson. Publ. 1989 : 66-67 ——, 1944, Opinion 152, Ops. Decls. Int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 181-196 ——, 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 158-159, 346, 557-558 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61 Jacquet, E., [1889], Ann. Soc. ent. France 6 : CXLIM-CXLV Johannsen, O. A., 1909, Gen. Ins. 93 (Dipt. Mycet.) Kaup, J. J., 1828, Isis (Oken) 21 : 1144-1150 Kertész, C., 1902, Cat. Dipt. 1, Budapest (Mus. Nat. Hung.) , 1910, ibid. 7 Keyserling, E. von, 1882, in Koch (Keyserling), Arachn. Austr. 1, Nuremberg Kirby, W. F., 1892, Cat. Lep. Het. 1, London & Berlin Kloet, G. S., & Hincks, W. D., 1945, Check List brit. Ins., Stockport, England Knocker, H. H., 1869, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1868 : 615-622 Kobayashi, T., 1933, Jap. J. Geol. Geogr. 11 : 55-155 Koch, C. L., 1846, Die Arachn. 13(2), Nuremberg , 1850, Ueber Arachn. 5, Nuremberg Krober, O., 1925, in Lindner, Die Fliegen, Fam. 27, Stuttgart Labbé, A., 1935, Bull. Soc. zool. France 60 : 312-317 Lacépéde, B. G. E. de la V., 1802, Hist. nat. Paris in Buffon, Hist. nat. (1794- 1804 ed.) Lamarck, J. B. P. de, 1799, Mém. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 1 : 63-91 ——, 1818, Hist. nat. Anim. s. Vert. 5, Paris Landrock, K., 1926, in Lindner, Die Fliegen, Fam. 18, Stuttgart Latreille, P. A., 1796, Précis Caract. Ins., Paris , [1802-1803], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3, Paris (in Sonnini’s Buffon) —, 1804, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. 24, Paris ——, [1804-1805], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 14, Paris (in Sonnini’s Buffon) ——, 1809, Gen. Crust. Ins. 4, Paris ——,, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arachn. Ins., Paris ——,, 1818, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. (nouv. ed.) 23 : 29 ——,, 1829, in Cuvier, Régne Anim. (ed. 2) 1, Paris [Leach, W. E.], [1815], Edinb. Ency. 9(1), Edinburgh Leconte, J. L., 1859, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1859 : 310-317 ——, 1861, Smithson. Misc. Coll. 3(3) Lengersdorf, F., 1928, in Lindner, Die Fliegen, Fam. 7, Stuttgart Lesson, R. P., 1843, in Roret’s Suite 4 Buffon, Hist. nat. Zooph., Acaléphes, Paris Lindner, E., 1930, in Lindner, Die Fliegen, Fam. 1a, 1b, Stuttgart Link, H. F., 1795, Beytr. Nat. 1(2), Rostock & Leipzig Linnaeus, C., 1746, Fauna svecica [ed. 1], Stockholm —,, 1758, Syst. Nat., ed. X (1). Stockholm —., 1761, Fauna svecica (ed. 2), Stockholm ——,, 1767, Syst. Nat. ed. XII (q) 2, Stockholm Lioy, Da P., 1864, Aiti Ist Veneto (3) 9(2) : 879-910, 989-1027, 1087-1126, 1311-1352 Loew, H., 1846, Linn. Entom. (Ent. Verein Stettin) 11 : 319-530 ——,, 1860, Dipt.- Fauna Siidafr., Berlin [ex Abh. naturw. Ver. Sachs. Thiir. in Halle, 2] ——,, 1862, Smithson. Misc. Coll. 6 (Art. 1) 62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature , 1862, in Peters, W. C. H., Reise Mossambique, pt. 5, Diptera, Berlin Macquart, P. J. M., 1823, Rec. Trav. Soc. amat. Sci. Lille 1 : 137-165 , 1835, Hist. nat. Ins. 2, Paris Mannerheim, C. G., 1831, Mém. prés. Acad. imp. Sci. St. Petersb. 1(5) : 415-502 Mannheims, B., 1952, in Lindner, Die Fliegen, Fam. 15, Stuttgart Mayer, A. G., 1910, Medusae of the World 3, Scyphomedusae (Carnegie Inst. Wash. Publ. 109) Meigen, J. W., 1800, Nouvelle Class. Mouches a deux Ailes, Paris (fascimile ed. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 119-160) —., 1803, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 2 : 259-281 ——, 1804, Klass. Beschr. europ. zweifl. Ins., Brunswick ——, 1818-1838, Syst. Beschr. bek. ewrop. zweifl. Ins., Aachen and Hamm. 1, 1818 ; 2, 1820; 3, 1822; 4, 1824; 5, 1826; 6, 1830; 7, 1838 Menge, A., 1854, in Berendt, Bernst. Reste 1(2), Berlin Metcalf, Z. P., 1952, J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 42 : 226-231 Meyrick, E., 1883, N.Z.J.Sci. 1 : 526-531 Milne Edwards, H., 1836, in Lamarck, Hist. nat. Anim. s. Vert. (ed. 2), 2, Paris and London Moerch, O. A. L., 1865, J. Conchyl. 18 [(3) 5] : 376-396 Montfort, D. de, 1810, Conch. syst. 1, Paris Miiller, O. F., 1776, Zool. dan. Prodr., Copenhagen , 1781, Zool. dan. (Danm. Norges Dyrs Hist.), Copenhagen Nozeman, C. & Vosmaer, P., 1758, [Moehring’s] Geslach. Vogel 2 Newman, E., (1834), Ent. Mag. 2 : 379-431 , 1835, Grammar Ent., London Oken, L., 1815, Lehrb. Nat. 3(1) and 5, Leipzig and Jena , 1816, ibid. 3(2) [ ], 1829, Isis (Oken) 22 : 1111 Olivier, M., 1811, Ency. méth., Hist. nat. Ins. 8 Oppel, M., 1812, Denkschr. k. Akad. Wiss. Miinchen 1811-1812 : 159-166 Pallas, P. S., 1766, Misc. zool., The Hague Panzer, G. W. F., 1794, F. Ins. Germ., Heft 24, Nuremberg , 1809, ibid. Hefte 103, 108 Passerini, C., 1849, Cont. Atti Accad. Econ.-Agr. Georgofili Firenze 27 : 70-79 Peron, F., & Lesueur, C. A., 1810, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris 14 : 325-366 Quatrefages de Bréau, J. L. A. de, [1866], Hist. nat. Annel. 2 (1865), Paris (Roret’s Suite 4 Buffon) Ragonot, E.-L., [1891], Ann. Soc. ent. France (6) 10 : 435-546 Rang, M., 1827, Ann. Sci. nat. 12 : 320-329 Rathke, H., 1843, Nova Acta Acad. Leop. Carol. 20(1) : 1-264 Reichenbach, H. G. L., 1828, Zool. Thierr. 9, Dresden , [1863], Central-Atlas zool. Garten Lief. 20, 21, Dresden and Leipzig Reitter, E., 1906, in Heyden, Reitter & Weise, Cat. Col. Zur. Caucas. Armen. (ed. 2), Paskau Robineau-Desvoidy, A. J. B., 1830, Mém. prés. Acad. roy. Sci. Inst. France 2 (Essai Myod.) ——, 1847, Ann. Soc. ent. France 1847 : 283 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63 ——, 1863, Hist. nat. Dipt. Env. Paris, 2 vols., Paris [Roding, P. F.], 1798, Museum Boltenianum 2, Hamburg Rondani, C., 1844, N. Ann. Soc. nat. Bologna (2) 2 : 443-459 , 1856, Dipt. Ital. 1, Parma Rossi, F. W., 1848, Syst. Verz. zweifl. Ins., Vienna Sabrosky. C. W., 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 131-141 , 1954, ibid. 9 : 225-240 Sack, P., 1939, in Lindner, Die Fliegen, Fam. 37, Stuttgart St. Fargeau, A. L. M., & Serville, J. G. A., 1825, Ency. méth., Ins. 10(1) : 1-344 , & ——, 1828, ibid. 10(2) : 345-832 Samouelle, G., 1819, Ent. useful Comp., London Savigny, M. J. C. L. de, 1822, Hist. nat. Egypte 1(3), Syst. Annel. (Paris, Commission d’Egypte) Say, T., 1824, in Keating, Baped. Peter River 2, Philadelphia Schiner, I. R., 1860, Wien. ent. Monatsber. 4 : 208-216 , [1868], Reise Novara, Zool. 2, Dipt., Vienna Schioedte, J. C., (1842), Naturh. Tidsskr. 4 : 279-312 Schweigger, A. F., 1820, Handb. Nat., Leipzig Scopoli, G. A., 1763, Ent. Carn., Vienna , 1777, Introd. Hist. nat., Prague Seeley, H. G., 1864, Geologist 7 : 44-50 Smart, J., 1944, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (11) 11 : 261-272 Staeger, C., 1839, Naturh. Tidsskr. 2 : 549-600 Stal, C., [1855], Ofvers. k. Vetensk.-Akad. Férhandl. 12 + 89-100 , 1861, Stettin ent. Z. 22 : 129-153 ——,, 1862, ibid. 23 : 81-118 ——,, 1863, Ann. Soc. ent. France (4) 3 : 25-58 ——, 1866, Hem. Afr. 4, Stockholm , 1867, Ofvers. k. Vetensk.-Akad. Férhandl. 24 : 491-560 Stephens, J. F., 1829, Nom. brit. Ins., London Stoll, C., [1782], in Cramer, Uitl. Kapellen 4(32), Amsterdam Stone, A., 1941, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 34: 404-418 Strand, E., 1910, Soc. ent. Frankfurt Jahrg. 25 : 19 Strobl, G., 1880, XIV Progr. Ober. Gymnas. Benedict. zu Seitenstetten (Dipt. Funde Seitenstetten) Swainson, W., 1832, Zool. illustr. (2) 2, London Thienemann, A., 1916, Archiv. f. Hydrobiol. Suppl.-Bd. 2 : 483-554 Thorell, T., 1870, N. Acta Soc. Uppsala (3) 7(2) : no. 1 Trouessart, E. L., 1879, Rev. Mag. Zool. (3) 7 : 218-285 Turton, W., 1825, Zool. Journ. 2(7) : 361-367 Valenciennes, A., 1837, in Cuvier & Valenciennes, Hist. nat. Poissons 12, Paris Vieillot, L. J. P., 1816, Analyse Ornith., Paris Villers, C. J. de, 1789, C. Linnaei Ent. Fn. Svec. descr. aucta 3, Leiden Wachtl, F. A., 1894, Wien. ent. Z. 13 : 140-144 Walbaum, J. J., (1788)-1793, P. Artedi Renov. Ichth. (3), ed. 2, Greifswahl Walckenaer, C. A., & Gervais, F. L. P., 1847, Aptéres 4 (Roret’s Suite a Buffon) Walker, Francis, 1866, List. Spec. Lep. Ins. Coll. B.M. 35 : 1839 64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Westwood, J. O., 1840, Introd. mod. Class. Ins. 2 Synopsis Gen., London Winnertz, J., 1863, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 13 (Abh.) : 637-964 Wiedemann, C. R. W., 1819, Zool. Mag. 1(3) : 1-40 Williston, S. W., 1886, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 31 Zeller, P. G., 1850, Stettin ent. Ztg. 11 : 308-313 Zetterstedt, J. W., 1837, Isis (Oken) 30 : 837 , 1838, Ins. Lapp. Descr. (1) Leipzig ——, 1840, ibid. (1) ——, 1842 Dipt. Scand. 1, Lund ——, 1843, ibid. 2 —,, 1850, ibid. 9 , 1851, ibid. 10 Zimmermann, C., 1869, in Leconte, Trans. ent. Soc. Amer. 2 : 243-259 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME IDOTEA FABRICIUS, 1798, AND MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH. Z.N.(S.) 412 (See Volume 17, pages 178-184.) By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) It is always much easier for the few specialists in a certain group to remember changes of anmes and to realize what recently dug-out names stand for. The difficulties in changes of generic names for reasons of priority are much more strongly felt by the general zoologists who use such names only now and then but, on the other hand, meet a much larger number of them. The name Mesidotea, now proposed to be suppressed for reasons of priority, is such a name which is well known by quite a large number of zoologists working in ecology and zoogeography, whereas Saduria is almost completely unknown. Hence, I propose to accept the proposals of Dr. Heegaard and Dr. Holthuis as set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 182-184 with the following changes : (1)(e) add “ to suppress the generic name Saduria Adams, 1852, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ” ; (2)(e) replace by “‘ Mesidotea Richardson, 1905 (gender : feminine) type-species, by designa- tion by Heegaard and Holthuis, 1960, Oniscus entomon Linnaeus, 1758 ” ; (3)(£) replace by ‘“ entomon Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Oniscus entomon (type-species of Mesidotea Richardson, 1905) ” ; (4)(i) replace by “‘ Saduria Adams, 1852, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(e) above’’. . Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 65 REPORT ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF THE GENERIC NAME ENCRINUS IN ITS ACCUSTOMED SENSE (CRINOIDEA). Z.N.(S.) 434 By Margaret Spillane (Zoological Assistant, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The present case was first brought to the attention of the Commission’s Office by the late Dr. Th. Mortensen in 1932, when he made an application to validate Encrinus as a generic name from Schultze, 1760, with Hncrinus liliiformis Lamarck, 1801, as type-species. Dr. Mortensen at that time had consulted a large number of specialists in Echinoidea and had their support for his proposal. At the meeting of the Commission in Paris, 1948, during the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Dr. Mortensen suggested that the application could better be submitted by a specialist in Crinoidea than by himself. This suggestion was accepted by the Commission and the Secretary was asked to find such a specialist so that a decision on whether or not to use the plenary powers in this case could be taken as soon as possible (Bull. zool Nomencel. 4 : 513). 2. After the Paris meeting, the late Secretary to the Commission (Mr. Francis Hemming) made a number of attempts to find an interested specialist who would inform the Commission of the status of the name Encrinus under the Rules and a request for information was published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 216-217, but without success. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was several times given but without eliciting any objection to Dr. Mortensen’s proposal. 3. Encrinus is a very well-known generic name used by biologists, geologists and palaeontologists since pre-linnean times for a genus of fossil crinoids. The first post-linnean author to use it was C. F. Schultze, 1760 (Betrachtung der versteinerten Seesterne und ihrer Theile: 21). Schultze used the name only once (in the form Encrinwm), not as a generic name, and furthermore Schultze’s book is non-binominal. Fisher (1908, Smiths. misc. Coll. 52 : 91-93) discussed at length the status of Schultze, 1760, and pointed out that most of the names are derived directly from Linck (1733, De Stellis Marinis) and are given in the same non-binominal manner. Those which seem to be binominal are not generic and specific names, but are descriptive terms applied to “ generic ” names mentioned earlier in the work. Fisher considered the effect on star- fish nomenclature of the rejection of the work and cited three generic names— Pentaceros, Astropecten and Pentagonaster—as being at that time in general use and dating from Schultze, 1760. He explained that these three names were easily replaced by Oreaster Miiller and Troschel, 1842, Astropecten Gray, 1840 and Goniaster Agassiz (1836), respectively. Pentaceros, Astropecten and Pentagonaster are now no longer in use as from Schultze, 1760. 4. The discussion of the status of the name Hncrinus was begun by Bather, 1898 (Natural Science 12 : 245), to whom Schultze appeared to be binominal. He therefore used Encrinus Schultze, 1760. Clark, 1908 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 34 : 517), in his review of the nomenclature of the crinoids, rejected Schultze as non-binominal and pointed out that Andreae, 1763, used Hncrinus in a binomina]l manner. In 1909 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (8)3 : 308-310) Clark ignored Andreae Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 1. December 1960. 66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and accepted Encrinus from Blumenbach, 1779. This involved the transfer of the generic name to Jsocrinus Agassiz, 1836, the genus in which Jsis asteria Linnaeus, 1767, was then placed. Also in 1909, Springer (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 36 : 182-187) gave a very full account of the history of the name Encrinus. He considered that Schultze was non-binominal, and that Andreae’s figured fragments were unrecognizable, but was prepared to use Encrinus dated from Schultze, 1760, in order to prevent confusion. 5. Bather in 1909 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (8)4 : 37-42) admitted that Schultze was non-binominal but accepted Hncrinus saying that it was perfectly clear what Schultze meant by the name and that terrible difficulties would arise if Schultze were not accepted. Bather urged that the case should be referred for decision to the Commission. 6. The first binominal author to use the generic name Encrinus was Andreae, 1763-4 Briefe aus der Schweiz published in the Hannoverisches Magazin and later (1776) in book form. Andreae applied the name Encrinus coralloides to fragments of what seemed to him to be a hitherto unrecognized species of Encrinus. These fragments are now supposed to be the terminal stem branches or roots of Millericrinus. It cannot, however, be certainly known what species were represented by Andreae’s fragments and so the name is considered to be a nomen dubium. 7. The next use of the generic name Encrinus was by Blumenbach Handb. Naturgesch., 1779 (ed. 1) : 435 for a genus with three included species :—(1) asteria, a recent crinoid ; (2) mylii, a pennatulid ; (3) boltenii (with ref. to Linnaeus, 1771), an ascidian. The oldest available names for these species are (1) Isis asteria Linnaeus, 1767 ; (2) Isis encrinus Linnaeus, 1758 ; (3) Vorti- cella ovifera Linnaeus, 1767 (= Vorticella bolteni Linnaeus, 1771). In 1788, in the third edition of the Handb. Naturgesch. : 503, Blumenbach again used the generic name Encrinus but replaced the specific names mylii and boltenii with radiatus and ovifer respectively. 8. None of the species first included in Encrinus Blumenbach belongs to Encrinus in its current sense. Isis asteria Linnaeus, 1767 (Syst. nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1288) is type-species of the genus Cenocrinus Wyville Thomson, 1864 (The Intellectual Observer 6 : 2). A. H. Clark, 1923 (J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 13 : 10) cited Pentacrinites caput-medusae Miller, 1821 as the type of Thomson’s genus. This name dates from Lamarck, 1801 (as Encrinus caput medusae) and is a junior objective synonym of Jsis asteria Linnaeus. 9. Isis encrinus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 800) was placed in the genus Umbellularia by Lamarck, 1801, and is the type-species, by monotypy, of that genus (Syst. anim. s. vert. : 380). Lamarck published at the same time the specific name Umbellularia groenlandica as a replacement for, and therefore an objective synonym of, Isis encrinus Linnaeus. There is a family name UMBELLULARIIDAE based on the generic name Umbellularia Lamarck, first published by Lindahl, 1874 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (4) 18 : 258) in the form UMBELLULAE. 10. The third species was placed in the genus Boltenia by Savigny in 1816. Savigny’s genus contained two species: Boltenia ovifera (Linnaeus, 1767) (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1319) and Boltenia fusiformis (a replacement name for Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 67 Vorticella bolteni Linnaeus). These species are considered to be synonymous and Boltenia ovifera (Linnaeus) was designated as type-species by Huntsman, 1912 (Trans. canad. Inst. 9 : 133). 11. Thus the adoption of the genus Encrinus Blumenbach would affect the nomenclature not only of the fossil and recent Crinoidea, but also of the Pennatulids and the Ascidians, and would necessitate the replacement of one of the following generic names: Cenocrinus (a recent crinoid), Umbellularia (a pennatulid), or Boltenia (an ascidian), all of which are familiar generic names and are in common use. 12. The first binominal use of Encrinus in its currently accepted sense was by Lamarck, 1801 (Syst. Anim. s. vert. : 379) who included two species : Encrinus caput medusae (a replacement name for Isis asteria Linnaeus) and the new species Hncrinus liliiformis which has always been regarded as the type- species of Encrinus. The International Commission is now asked to use its plenary powers to preserve the generic name Encrinus in the sense in which it has been used since Lamarck, 1801 with Encrinus liliiformis as the type- species. There isin current use a family-group name ENCRINIDAE first published in the vernacular French as ENCRINIENS by Dujardin & Hupé, 1862 (Hist. nat. Zoophytes, Echinodermes : 161). 13. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked :— — (1) to use its plenary powers : (a) to suppress for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy the following generic names :— (i) Encrinus Andreae, 1763 (a nom. dub.) ; (i) Encrinus Andreae, 1776 (a nom. dub.) ; (iii) Encrinus Blumenbach, 1779 ; (iv) Encrinus Blumenbach, 1788 ; (b) to set aside all type-selections for the genus Encrinus Lamarck, 1801, made prior to the Ruling now requested and having done so to designate Encrinusliliiformis 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) Encrinus Lamarck, 1801 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b), above, Encrinus liliiformis Lamarck, 1801 (Class Crinoidea) ; (b) Cenocrinus Thomson, 1864 (gender: masculine), type-species by monotypy, Isis asteria Linnaeus, 1767 (Class Crinoidea) ; (c) Umbellularia Lamarck, 1801 (gender : feminine) type-species, by monotypy, Isis encrinus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Anthozoa) ; (d) Bolienia Savigny, 1816 (gender: feminine) type-species, by designation by Huntsman, 1912, Vorticella ovifera Linnaeus, 1767 (Class Ascidiacea) ; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) Lilitformis Lamarck, 1801, as published in the binomen Encrinus liliiformis (type-species of Encrinus Lamarck, 1801) ; 68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (b) asteria Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Isis asteria (type-species of Cenocrinus Thomson, 1864) ; (c) encrinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Isis encrinus (type-species of Umbellularia Lamarck, 1801) ; (d) ovifera Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Vorticella ovifera (type-species of Boltenia Savigny, 1816) ; (4) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Encrinus Schultze, 1760 (a technically unavailable name, published by a non-binominal author in a non-binominal work) ; (b) Encrinus Andreae, 1763, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a)(i) above ; (c) Encrinus Andreae, 1776, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a)(ii) above ; (d) Encrinus Blumenbach, 1779, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a)(iii) above ; (e) Encrinus Blumenbach, 1788, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a)(iv) above ; (5) to place the following specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) groenlandica Lamarck, 1801, as published in the binomen Umbellu- laria groenlandica (a junior objective synonym of Isis encrinus Linnaeus, 1758) ; (b) caputmedusae Lamarck, 1801, as published in the combination Encrinus caput medusae (a junior objective synonym of Isis asteria Linnaeus, 1767) ; (c) fusiformis Savigny, 1816, as published in the binomen Boltenia fusiformis (a junior objective synonym of Vorticella bolteni Linnaeus, 1771) ; (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoo- logical Nomenclature : Schultze (C. F.), 1760, Betrachtung der Ver- steinerten Seesterne und ihrer Theile (a work in which the author did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature) ; (7) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following group-names :— (a) UMBELLULARIDAE (correction of UMBELLULAE) Lindahl, 1874 (type-genus : Umbellularia Lamarck, 1801) ; (b) ENCRINIDAE (correction of ENCRINIENS) Dujardin & Hupé, 1862 (type-genus : Encrinus Lamarck, 1801) ; (8) to place the following family-group names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :— (a) UMBELLULAE Lindahl, 1874 (an incorrect original spelling for UMBELLULARIDAE) ; (b) UMBELLULEAE KoOlliker, 1875 (Festschr. Phys.-Med. Ges. Wiirz- burg: 10) (an incorrect spelling for UMBELLULARIIDAE) ; (c) ENCRINIENS Dujardin & Hupé, 1862 (an incorrect original spelling for ENCRINIDAE). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69 MYELOPHILUS EICHHOFF, 1878 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA) : PRO- POSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 467. By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 1. History of the Case In 1950, Dr. K. W. Dammerman (Ent. Berichten 13(295) : 13) wrote “ Hichhoff (1864, Berlin. ent. Z. 8: 25) separated the genus Blastophagus from the genus Hylurgus. In 1878 (Ent. Ztg. Stettin 39 : 400) he dropped this name and replaced it by Myelophilus, the name Blastophagus being preoccupied by Gravenhorst’s name of 1827 (Uebers. Arb. Verdnder. schles. Ges. vaterl. Cultur, Breslau, 1826 : 23). Two years later Gravenhorst himself emended his name into Blastophaga (Beitr. Entom., Schlesische Fauna 1 : 27) which name came into general use for the well-known fig-insects. Independently of whether we accept Gravenhorst’s name Blastophagus (or Blastophaga), the new name Myelophilus introduced by Eichhoff is valid. Eichhoff included in his new genus at least two species, piniperda L. and minor Hart., but did not expressly indicate a type-species. This was done by Lacordaire in 1866 (Hist. nat. Ins. Col. 7 : 360), who fixed Dermestes piniperda L., 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 355) as the type of Eichhoff’s genus Blastophagus. Without any difficulty the name Myelophilus Eichhoff, 1878, and the type Dermestes piniperda L., 1758 can be fixed officially ”’. 2. In the same year and in the same journal (1950, Ent. Berichten 13(300) : 96) Dr. Karl E. Schedl wrote : ‘‘ With regard to the generic names Blastophagus Eichh. and Myelophilus Eichh. a final fixation is most desirable, especially because the genus is well marked, being of the greatest economic importance, and comprising a few species only, and there is certainly no need of using two names all the time. Concerning priority Blastophagus ranks first (1864, Berlin ent. Z. 8:25), and the reason why Eichhoff changed this name into Myelophilus (1878, Stettin Ent. Zig. 39 : 400) has obviously become worthless as Gravenhorst emended his name of Blastophagus into Blastophaga as Dr. Dammerman stated himself. From my knowledge of taxonomic and economic literature of the subject it seems to be wiser to maintain priority and the commonly used name of Blastophagus Eichh. instead of the second Myelophilus for which the necessity has disappeared ”’. 3. Later in 1950, Dr. Dammerman (Ent. Berichten 13(304) : 154) wrote : “ Prof. Schedl recommends the fixation of Blastophagus EKichhoff, 1864, instead of Myelophilus Kichhoff on the ground that the earlier name Blastophagus Gravenhorst (1827) became worthless by the emendation of this name by the same author into Blastophaga (1829). This supposition, however, is certainly incorrect. No name loses its priority or validity by a later emendation. ~ The name Blastophagus Gravenhorst can only be invalidated by its suppression by the International Commission. Even if a proposal should reach the Commission to suppress the name Blastophagus Gravenhorst and to fix the emendation Blastophaga officially, it would be unwise and confusing to re-introduce the Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 1. December 1960. 70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature same name Blastophagus as a generic name for another insect, especially in this case where the original author (Eichhoff) has already rejected his first name on grounds of pre-occupation. Neither can we fall in with Prof. Schedl’s opinion of the name Blastophagus Eichhoff being the commonly used name. Eichhoff’s new name Myelophilus was generally accepted after its introduction and only recently the name Blastophagus has been revived. The name Myelophilus is still used, e.g. by Hagedorn in the “‘ Coleopterorum Catalogus ” (1910) and by Kloet and Hincks in their Check List of British Insects (1945). The valid name Myelophilus Kichhoff can be fixed without suspension of the Rules, but Blastophagus Eichhoff cannot. Therefore, the Commission is asked to place the generic name Myelophilus Eichhoff on the Official List of Generic Names and is requested to add the invalid generic name Blastophagus Eichhoff to the Official Index of Invalid and Rejected Names ”’. 4. The case was first referred to the Commission by Prof. Dr. H. Boschma, on behalf of the Committee on Nomenclature of the Netherlands Entomological Society, in June 1950, who sent to the Secretary two copies of Dammerman’s first paper on the subject. These were acknowledged by Mr. Francis Hemming, on June 5th 1950, who wrote to both Boschma and Dammerman. On the 22nd July Boschma sent to the Commission what was virtually the manu- script of Dammerman’s second paper quoted in (3) above. He added that ““ There being no controversy whatever about the trivial specific name, piniperda Linnaeus, 1758 (Dermestes), we should accept the typification by Lacordaire . (1866) who made the said species the type of the invalid genus Blastophagus Eichhoff. The Commission is therefore asked to designate Dermestes piniperda Linnaeus as the type-species of Myelophilus Eichhoff.”’ 5. Nothing further was done by the Commission and in the meantime Dr. Dammerman died on November 19th, 1951 and Mr. Hemming retired. In August 1959 the Assistant Secretary, Mr. Richard V. Melville wrote to Professor Boschma reviving the case and requesting details especially of the Hymemoptera side of the Case. Professor Boschma therefore handed a copy of his draft proposal on Myelophilus to the hymenopterist Dr. J. van der Vecht and at the same time sent his typescript application to the Commission under the joint authorship of himself and the late K. W. Dammerman. Dr. van der Vecht, having investigated the case himself, reported to Melville on 24th September 1959 that it contained several mistakes. 6. On 19 October, van der Vecht wrote to the Commission as follows : “ (i) I have checked Gravenhorst, 1827 : the wasps living in wild figs are called there Blastophagus grossorum ; actually the insects are not described there, and the names are mentioned only in an announcement of a paper, the MS. of which was handed in at a meeting. The only indications given in this announcement are that the insects live in figs and that they are not Cynips psenes (in the author’s opinion), but Chalcids, etc. Dr. Holthuis agrees that this is not enough to regard the name Blastophagus as validly published, and consequently we regard it as a nomen nudum. (ii) The name Blastophaga was validly published in a paper by Gravenhorst, entitled ‘ Disquisitio de Cynipe psene auctorum, et descriptio Blastophagae, novi Hymenopterorum generis,’ which appeared in Beitrdge zur Entomologie, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 71 besonders in Bezug auf die Schlesische Fauna, 1, 1829, : 27-33. The type- species of Blastophaga is grossorum Gravenhorst loc. cit. : 27 by monotypy. (iii) All hymenopterists have disregarded the older spelling Blastophagus and have accepted the name Blastophaga. In fact, this is the only name recorded in the Cat. Hym. of Dalla Torre, in the Catalogue of type-species of the genera of the Chalcidoidea (Bull. U.S.N.M. 124, 1923), and in various catalogues of the fig insects published in recent years by G. Grandi (See G. Grandi, 1952 Catalogo ragionato delle Agaonine di tutto il mondo, 4a ed., Bull. Ist. Ent. Univ. Bologna 19 : 69-96). (iv) The name Blastophagus Hichhoff, 1864, appears to be a valid name (unless Blastophagus Grav. 1827 is not regarded as a nomen nudum) and its replacement by Myelophilus Hichhoff, 1878 must therefore be considered unnecessary. (v) Nevertheless it may be desirable to retain the name Myelophilus Eichhoff, 1878 on the grounds that (a) this name has been in general use for a long time and (b) that the revival of the name Blastophagus Kichhoff, 1864, would be unpleasant in view of its similarity to the name of the fig wasp.” 2. Present position 7. It will be seen that Dammerman, Schedl and Boschma were in error in the presentation of this case since they all assumed that Blastophagus Gravenhorst was a valid name. There is no doubt that this name is a nomen nudum as pointed out by Dr. J. van der Vecht in his very clear and concise statement of the case (6, above). Mr. J. F. Perkins and other hymenopterists at the British Museum also support this contention. Gravenhorst, 1827 (Uebersicht der Arbeiten und Verdnderungen der Schlesischen Gesellschaft fiir vaterldindische Cultur im Jahre 1826, Breslau, 1827) wrote :— . “Der Berichtestatter .. . zeigte die in wilden Feigen lebenden gemeinhin Cynips psenes genannten, kleinen Insekten vor, die aber weder zu Cynips, noch zu Chalcis, noch zu Diplolepis gehoren, sondern eine besondere Gattung bilden, welche Blastophagus gennant wurde; die Art erhielt den Namen Blastoph. grossorum, weil sie mit keiner Beschreibung des eigentlichen Cynips psenes iibereinstimmte. Die mit Abbildungen begleitete Monographie dieser Gattung wurde ebenfalls handschriftlich eingereicht.” It is obvious, as Dr. van der Vecht says, that this amounts only to the announcement of the forthcoming paper, by the author, on the new fig wasp. This paper was not published until 1829 when it appeared in the Society’s Beitrdge Entomologie with the name spelled Blastophaga and the single species B. grossorum Gravenhorst which had also previously appeared in the 1827 report as a nomen nudum. It follows that Blastophagus Eichhoff, 1864 (Coleoptera) is a valid name differing by one letter from the Hymenopterous genus Blastophaga. Myelophilus Hichhoff, 1878 is therefore an unnecessary replacement name and should sink as an objective synonym of Blastophagus Kichhoff, 1864. In view, however, of the fact that Myelophilus was, until Schedl introduced the name Blastophagus, the name in general use for this genus, as pointed out by Dammerman (f 3 above), and in view of the fact that the name of the well-known bark beetles Blastophagus (Coleoptera) might easily 72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature be confused with the name of the well-known fig wasps Blastophaga it might be better to conserve the name Myelophilus as desired by Dammerman and suggested by van der Vecht. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked : (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Blastophagus Kichhoff, 1864 for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) to place the following generic names on the List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Myelophilus Hichhoff, 1878 (gender: masculine), type-species through Blastophagus Hichhoff, 1864, by selection by Lacordaire, 1866, Dermestes piniperda Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) ; (b) Blastophaga Gravenhorst, 1829 (gender: feminine), type-species by monotypy Blastophaga grossorum Gravenhorst, 1829 (Hymenoptera). (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) piniperda Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Dermestes piniperda (type-species of Myelophilus Eichhoff, 1878) (Cole- optera) ; (b) grossorum Gravenhorst, 1829, as published in the binomen Blastophaga grossorum (type-species of Blastophaga Gravenhorst, 1829) (Hymenoptera). (4) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— Blasiophagus Gravenhorst, 1827, a nomen nudum ; Blastophagus Eichhoff, 1864, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above. So far as is known no family group names have been based on any of the above genera. COMMENT ON THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO STABILISE THE NAMES OF THE NORTH EUROPEAN SPECIES BELONGING TO THE TIPULA OLERACEA GROUP. Z.N.(S.) 896 (See Volume 17, pages 209-213.) By R. Laughlin (School of Agriculture, King’s College, Newcastle upon Tyne, England) I have received a separate of a proposal by Drs. Hemmingsen and Lemche to stabilise the names of the three N. European species of the Tipula oleracea group. The note on the cover of the reprint asks for comments on the proposal. I am not a specialist in the taxonomy of the group and in fact have been working on the physiology of the three species for several years without realising that any controversy over their names was impending or even possible. Any changes in the nomenclature would cause considerable confusion since a good deal of work has been and is being done on these insects, particularly in the field of applied entomology. The proposal therefore has my full support since it preserves current practice in the naming of the group. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 73 GEPHY ROCERATIDAE FRECH, 1897: PROPOSED ACCEPTANCE OF THE EMENDATION TO GEPHUROCERATIDAE (CLASS CEPHALO- PODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA), Z.N.(S.) 982 By A. K. Miller, W. M. Furnish (State University of Iowa, Department of Geology, Iowa City, Iowa, U.S.A.) and Brian F. Glenister (University of Western Australia, Department of Geology, Nedlands, Western Australia) The purpose of the present application is to obtain a ruling from the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature that the emendation to GEPHUROCERATIDAE of the family name GEPHYROCERATIDAE Frech, 1897, is to be accepted as the correct spelling of the name. 2. In 1884, Hyatt (Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist. 22 : 316) established the generic name Gephuroceras for certain Devonian goniatites and designated Goniatites sinuosus Hall, 1843 (Geol. of New York (4) : 244, 246, figs. 106(6), 107(9)) as the type-species. Hyatt stated in a footnote that the generic name was derived from “ é¢upx, a bridge”. He thereby introduced an apparent solecism, which he used four times in the original publication and which presumably, therefore, cannot be interpreted as a typographical error. 3. On the following page of the same publication, Hyatt established the generic name Manticoceras for similar forms, designating Goniatites simulator Hall, 1874 (Descr. new sp. Goniatidae : 2-3 [preprint of New York State Mus., Ann. Rep. 27, 1875 : 133-134]) as the type-species. The two generic names are now generally regarded as subjective synonyms, and the latter is used to the exclusion of the former, largely because the type-material of the type- species of Gephuroceras is poor. The first person to point out that the generic names were synonymous was John M. Clarke (New York State Geol., Ann. Rep. 16 : 44-45, 1899) who employed the name Manticoceras to the exclusion of Gephuroceras and who thus acted as “first reviser”. Manticoceras is of widespread occurrence, is of great biostratigraphic significance, and is commonly mentioned even in elementary textbooks. 4. A good many authors have “ corrected” Gephuroceras to Gephyroceras, of whom the first was Carus, 1884, Zool. Anz. '7 : 538. In 1900 the founder of the genus (Hyatt in Zittel-Eastman Tezxt-book of Palaeontology (ed. 1) 1 : 550) employed the revised spelling, using it at least three times. 5. A family name was subsequently established for this genus and its affines. In 1897 the name GEPHYROCERATIDAE was introduced by Frech (Lethaea geognostica, Theil I, Lethaea palaeozoica 2(1) : 125). However, in 1913 and 1918, respectively, the names MANTICOCERATINAE and MANTICO- CERATIDAE were coined by Wedekind (SitzBer. Ges. naturf. Freunde Berlin, 1913 : 23, 38, 70; and Palaeontographica 16 : 118, 120). Furthermore, the spelling GEPHUROCERATIDAE was introduced in 1934 by Spath (Cat. foss. Ceph. Brit. Mus. (4) : 7, 8). 6. The family names GEPHYROCERATIDAE and MANTICOCERATIDAE have been used at different times by several authors, but GEPHUROCERATIDAE seems Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 1. December 1960. 74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature to have been used only in 1934 by Spath (op. cit.) and in 1954 and 1957 by Miller and Furnish (J. Paleont. 28 : 687, 688; and Treatise invert. Paleont., Mollusca (4) :'7, 26, 33). It is clear that the first of these three names has priority, but its stem is not derived from the valid spelling of the type genus. The last name, GEPHUROCERATIDAE, though perhaps objectionable linguistically, seems to be satisfactory from the nomenclatorial point of view. However, it was not employed until many years after the family was recognized and named (invalidly). 7. The specific names Goniatites sinuosus Hall, 1843, and Goniatites simulator Hall, 1874, are considered to the the oldest available names for the type-species concerned and it should be stated that these two species, though now generally believed to be congeneric, are sufficiently different that in the future they may well come to be regarded as generically distinct, just as they were by Hyatt in 1884. 8. 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) Manticoceras Hyatt, 1884 (gender: neuter), type-species, by original designation, Goniatites simulator Hall, 1874 (a name to be given precedence over the generic name CGephuroceras Hyatt, 1884, through the action of J. M. Clarke, 1899, as first reviser) ; (b) Gephuroceras Hyatt, 1884 (gender : neuter), type-species, by original designation, Goniatites sinuosus Hall, 1843 (not to be given precedence over Manticoceras Hyatt, 1884) ; (2) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) simulator Hall, 1874, as published in the binomen Goniatites simulator (type-species of Manticoceras Hyatt, 1884) ; (b) sinwosus Hall, 1843, as published in the binomen Goniatites sinuosus (type-species of Gephuroceras Hall, 1884) ; (3) to place the generic name Gephyroceras Carus, 1884, an unjustified emendation of Gephuroceras Hall, 1884, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the family-group name GEPHUROCERATIDAE (correction by Spath, 1934, of GEPHYROCERATIDAE) Frech, 1897 (type-genus Gephuroceras Hyatt, 1884) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ; (5) to place the family-group name GEPHYROCERATIDAE Frech, 1897 (type- genus Gephuroceras Hyatt, 1884) (an incorrect original spelling of GEPHUROCERATIDAE) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 75 ANOLIS NANNODES COPE, 1864: REQUEST FOR A RULING ON LECTOTYPE SELECTION (CLASS REPTILIA). (Z.N.(S.) 1189) By Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) ; and W. I. Follett (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.) In the most recent account of Guatemalan anoles (Stuart, 1955, Misc. Publ. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan 91 : 20) the name Anolis nannodes Cope (1864, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia 16 : 173) is used for the same species referred to by Smith and Taylor (1950, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 199 : 63) as Anolis stuarti Smith (in Smith and Taylor, loc. cit.). In view of information now available, it appears that the proper name actually is not objectively determinable from the International Code, and may well be Anolis cortezi Stuart (1942, Occ. Papers Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan 464 : 8). That this last name is available for this species was first pointed out in 1955 (Stuart, op. cit.) ; previously it had been regarded as pertaining to a distinct and different species. Anolis stuarti therefore no longer enters into consideration of the valid name for this species, since it is antedated by Anolis cortezi. The question of the valid name now hinges entirely upon what constitutes an authoritative selection of lectotype for Anolis nannodes, since three species were represented among the syntypes. It is believed that no question of maintenance of nomenclatural stability is involved, since confusion has reigned in the nomenclature of the species concerned ; therefore no reason exists for suspension of the Rules on this ground. Furthermore, none of the names figures in any problems of types for genus or family. 2. In the original description of Anolis nannodes, Cope (loc. cit.) cited “several specimens but designated none as type ; thus the name was based upon a series of syntypes. The syntypes were stated to be five in number : three in the British Museum, two from Coban, Alta Verapaz, Guatemala (the third, although not so stated by Cope, lacks data) ; and two in the U.S. National Museum, one from “Arriba ’’, Costa Rica, the other from Jalapa, Veracruz, Mexico. Three species are represented by these cotypes, one from each geographic region ; for present discussion the three species may be designated “M”, “G” and “C” for the Mexican, Guatemalan and Costa Rican species respectively. 3. The names Anolis intermedius Peters (1863, Monatsh. Akad. Wiss. Berlin : 143, type-locality Veragua, Panama), and Anolis tessellatus O’Shaughnessy (1875, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., ser. 4, 15 : 279; type-locality Costa Rica) are without ambiguity available for species C, and are the only names other than nannodes based upon types identifiable as species C. The name Anolis laevi- ventris (Wiegmann) (1834, Herpetologia Mexicana : 47, type-locality “‘ Mexico ”’, restricted by Smith and Taylor loc. cit. to Jalapa, Veracruz) is without ambiguity available for species M, and is the only name based upon types identifiable as species M. For species G the names Anolis cortezi Stuart (1942, loc. cit. ; Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 1. December 1960. 76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature type-locality Finca Los Alpes, Alta Verapaz, Guat.) and Anolis stuarti Smith (1950, in Smith and Taylor, loc. cit; type-locality Coban, Alta Verapaz, based upon the two syntypes of nannodes in the British Museum) are the only ones, other than nannodes, based upon types representing species G. Since names older than nannodes (1864) are available for both species M (laeviventris, 1834) and C (intermedius, 1863), the disposition of nannodes would not affect these names. Species G, however, is directly affected ; if nannodes were restricted to species G, it would constitute the valid name for that species ; on the contrary, if nannodes were restricted to either species M or C, the Guatemalan species would bear the name cortezt. 4. In four works “ types” of some sort are mentioned in connection with Anolis nannodes. The earliest is by Bocourt (1873, Miss. Sct. Mex., Rept., Livr. 2:71, pl. 15, fig. 5). This author mentions having examined the particular type-specimen sent from the British Museum (in reference to four specimens of his own from Coban, he says “. .. ils offrent, comparés au type communiqué par le musée de Londres, cette seule différence:...”), and identifies the illustrated specimen as “Anolis Nannodes, type ?”’ (actually the illustrated specimen is the male from Coban, as has kindly been determined by Miss Alice Grandison). If Bocourt’s action were accepted as selection of lectotype, the Guatemalan species would be known as nannodes. 5. In 1885, Boulenger (Cat. Liz. Brit. Mus., 2 : 79) listed the specimens of Anolis intermedius Peters, 1863, and included in that list two ($¢) from Coban, Guatemala, and one (2) without data, all cited as “ Types of A. nannodes”’. Cope’s name Anolis nannodes was cited in the synonymy of Anolis intermedius by Boulenger, who thus clearly regarded the latter as a subjective senior synonym of Anolis nannodes Cope. The two species are now held to be distinct, so that if Boulenger’s action were accepted as selection of a lectotype, species G would be known as nannodes. 6. In 1930, Dunn (Proc. New England Zool. Club 12 : 18), in discussing Anolis intermedius of Costa Rica, mentions “‘ the type of nannodes, U.S.N.M., No. 12206, Costa Rica ”, stating that upon comparison with the type of Anolis intermedius the two proved identical. If Dunn’s action were accepted as constituting a selection of lectotype, species G would be known as cortezt since nannodes would become a junior synonym of intermedius. 7. Finally, in 1948, Stuart (Misc. Publ. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan 69 : 50) pointed out that three species were represented by the syntypes of Cope’s Anolis nannodes : Anolis laeviventris Wiegmann, 1834 (the “ Jalapa ” syntype), Anolis intermedius of Panama and Costa Rica, and a Guatemalan species to which he restricted the name nannodes through limitation of type-locality and through selection of the British Museum specimens as “lectotypes”. This restriction was subsequently fortified (Stuart, 1955, loc. cit.) by listing the “‘lectotype ” as Brit. Mus. Nat. Hist. Nos. 1946.8.5.66-67. If Stuart’s action were accepted as constituting a selection of lectotype, species G would be known as nannodes. 8. Returning to the first of these four authors, and considering the signi- ficance of each reference in turn, there is no evidence that Bocourt (loc. cit.) meant to select the illustrated specimen as “ the” type, since there were also Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17 types in the U.S. National Museum ; at least it can reasonably be construed that he simply referred to “the” particular syntype that was sent to him by the British Museum. Likewise Boulenger seemingly had no intent of selection in any manner by citing certain specimens as “types”’. The sense of the word “type ”’ in both cases is rather clearly that of “‘ syntype ” in the more precise terminology of today. 9. Dunn (loc. cit.), however, unquestionably was familiar with modern type terminology, and with the facts that (1) Cope cited syntypes of Anolis nannodes from several areas, and that (2) the syntypes could possibly thus represent more than one species. Whether he intended deliberately by his own action to select U.S.N.M., no. 12206 as lectotype is dubious, but there is no question from the context that he at least construed that specimen to be the name-bearer, else he could not fix (as he so stated) the application of the name Anolis nannodes. His action was taken by Smith and Taylor (loc. cit.) as constituting a selection of lectotype. On the other hand it can be construed that Dunn’s treatment does not constitute a valid selection, since he did not use the word “ lectotype ”’ or expressly state that he selected aspecimenasthe type. The latter interpreta- tion would perhaps be justified by the statement of Rule (g) in Article 30 (incorporated into Article 31) which formerly provided that “The meaning of the expression ‘select the type’ is to be rigidly construed ...”. Such interpretation would be favoured still further by action of the Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 75, Conclusion 11(2)(b)(iii), whereby the provision quoted was repeated and augmented by the requirement of “a clear indication that a selection is being made”. The Paris interpretation was revoked, however, by the Copenhagen Colloquium (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 73), which substituted no equally rigid requirement. In Dunn and Stuart (1951, Copeia : 57) it is stated that Dunn had no intention of selection of lectotype or restriction of nannodes to intermedius. This disavowal by Dunn of intent to select a lecto- type is an excellent example in support of the view that “ selection of type ” should be rigidly construed, for without Dunn’s later disavowal his 1930 action could very reasonably be construed as constituting a type selection, as indeed Smith and Taylor (op. cit.) thought. 10. If “ selection of the type ”’ is to be rigidly construed, Stuart’s selection in 1948 is invalid, for a lectotype can be but a single specimen (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 77), whereas Stuart (1948 and 1955, loc. cit.) actually selected two “ lectotypes”’ (called “‘lectotypes ” by Stuart in 1955, a name and concept not recognised by the Rules). Thus, so far as selection of lectotype is concerned, if Dunn’s selection is ruled out, so also is Stuart’s, leaving unsettled even yet the objective definition of the name (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 72). 11. The problem might be complicated by the further consideration of restriction of type-locality. If Dunn’s treatment is ruled out as inadequate for type fixation it is likewise eliminated as a valid restriction of type-locality, but Stuart’s (1948) treatment clearly is valid, for there is an express statement (loc. cit.) that the type-locality is ‘‘ here restricted to Coban, Alta Verapaz ”’. Fortunately at the London (1958) Congress the Section on Zoological Nomen- 78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature clature voted for disregard of restriction and designation of type-locality in name-fixation, relying wholly upon earliest lectotype designation. 12. Since it can reasonably be construed that no acceptable designation of lectotype yet exists for Anolis nannodes, we hereby designate Brit. Mus. Nat. Hist. 1946.8.5.66 (male, specimen a in Boulenger, loc. cit., from Coban) as lectotype of Anolis nannodes. 13. In order to remove present uncertainties, the Commission is requested to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) the specific name nannodes Cope, 1864, as published in the binomen Anolis nannodes, lectotype by present designation Brit. Mus. Nat. Hist. No. 1946.8.5.66 ; (b) the specific name intermedius Peters, 1863, as published in the binomen Anolis intermedius, holotype Berlin Mus. No. 503 ; (c) the specific name laeviventris Wiegmann, 1834, as published in the binomen Anolis laeviventris, holotype Berlin Mus. No. 525 (Berlin Mus. type numbers courtesy Dr. H. Wermuth). COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED ADDITION OF CERTAIN GENERIC AND SPECIFIC NAMES IN THE FAMILY PHASMATIDAE TO THE OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES. Z.N.(S.) 1167. (See Volume 17, pages 235-240.) By H. F. Lower (Waite Agricultural Research Institute, University of Adelaide, South Australia) In the best interests of taxonomy, I strongly support the submission made by Dr. K. H. L. Key to the International Commission. His proposed corrections do more than clear up a series of nomenclatorial errors which have accumulated over the years. They have an added practical importance in view of the work on certain Phasmatidae at present in progress in Australia, and contemplated in the future. For this work to be most productive, an established nomenclature is essential. As a result of his painstaking and scholarly research, Dr. Key has made a valuable contribution to taxonomy, and I sincerely trust that the Commission will, in its wisdom, see fit to approve of his submissions. By L. R. Clark (Division of Entomology, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, Australia) I strongly support the application made by Dr. K. H. L. Key of C.S.1.R.0. (Australia) to have added to the Official Lists and Indexes certain generic and specific names in the family PHas- MATIDAE. These insects are of much economic importance in Australia and in the near future I expect to be involved, together with colleagues in C.S.I.R.O. and various State Authorities, in extensive ecological investigations on them. Placing of names on the Official Lists will remove any doubts as to the future application of them to these phasmatids. By D. R. Ragge (British Museum (Natural History), London) I have read Dr. K. H. L. Key’s proposals concerning the names of certain stick-insects and am in full agreement with them. Since some of the species concerned are of economic importance, it is most desirable that the nomenclature involved should be stabilized. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 79 COUCHII (LEPI DOGASTER) KENT, 1883 (CLASS PISCES) : PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1330 By Denys W. Tucker ( formerly of the British Museum (Natural History), London) W. Saville Kent in his Handbook of the Marine and Freshwater Fishes of the British Isles, London, 1883, proposed the name Lepidogaster couchii (: 55-56) with the following remarks :—‘“ During several years residence in the Channel Islands the writer has become acquainted with what will probably have to be regarded as a fourth British species of the genus Lepidogaster [sic], but which, by Couch and other writers, has apparently been overlooked as a variety only of L. bimaculatus. While exhibiting manifold variations in the general ground colour of its body, which may be represented by different shades of red, green, or brown, the two lateral ocelli, distinctive of the last-named type, are never found ; but in lieu of this a single, very conspicuous dark-coloured streak is developed along each side of the head, the eye being stationed immediately in its centre and interrupting it at this point. Additionally to these distinctive markings, important structural differences are found to exist in the composition of the dorsal, anal, and caudal fins, and more especially in that of the ventral acetabulum. Finally it is found to affect a different habitat, for while L. bimaculatus is to be obtained only with the aid of a dredge at some little distance from the shore, the form here introduced is a strictly litoral [sic] species, obtainable beneath stones in the rock-pools at all ordinary ebb-tides, This distinction in the habitats of the spotted and so-called unspotted varieties of the last-named type is alluded to in Couch’s “ British Fishes ”, as important evidence in support of the probable specific distinctions of the unspotted form. “ Being unable also to identify it with any of the various non-British Continental members of the same genus, the writer has proposed provisionally to distinguish this apparently new type by the title of Couch’s Sucker (Lepido- gaster [sic] couchit) ”’. 2. This name does not appear to have received any measure of acceptance until 1954 when, in the Annual Report of the Council of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom (J. Mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 33 : 771) the following statement appeared :—“ Mr. Corbin has been re-examining Saville- Kent’s long overlooked notice of a fourth species of sucker fish, Lepadogaster couchit, in the British fauna. His account was preliminary and incomplete, but it leaves no doubt that he referred to the species which occurs in much the same region of the shore as the commoner Cornish sucker, L. gouani, but in the rather different habitat afforded by the cover of bushy weeds, particularly the Cystoseira spp., in preference to the underside of stones where Lepadogaster gouani is commonly found breeding early in the year. Although the species resembles the off-shore L. bimaculatus with which it was earlier confused, it has several readily distinguishing characters in addition to an entirely different habit and habitat”. 3. Without further ado the third edition of the Plymouth Marine Fauna (1957 : 409) added Lepadogaster couchi Kent to the three species of Lepadogaster listed in earlier editions, noting also Guitel’s (1904) reference to it under the Bull. zool. Nomencel., Vol. 18, Part 1. December 1960. 80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature name L. microcephalus. 4. The present applicant contends that, while there is undoubtedly a British species of Lepadogaster sensu lato unrecognised at the time when Kent wrote, the account which he published is not adequate to establish L. couchii as a valid species. Accordingly it seems desirable to call for the suppression of this name and to establish beyond dispute Lepadogaster microcephalus Brook, 1889, in its stead. 5. In criticism of Kent’s description it must be observed that his reference to fishes lacking lateral ocelli could apply equally well to females of Lepado- gaster bimaculatus (Bonnaterre), and that the ‘ dark-coloured streak ’ mentioned is of little taxonomic value in face of the extreme variability of coloration displayed by the Clingfishes. (See coloured figures given by Guitel, 1904, Arch. Zool. exp. gén. (4)2 : pl. XV). The difficulties are intensified in the case of museum material and of non-British material. The standard monograph on the group by Briggs (1955, Stanford Ichth. Bull. 6) implicitly supports this contention by including L. couchii Kent in the synonymy of Diplecogaster bimaculata bimaculata (Bonnaterre). The anatomical peculiarities of Kent's material, whatever they were, are not described. Even the habitat stated is not characteristic in the light of the quotations given in paras. 1 and 2 above. No type material is known to exist from which Kent’s species may be better established. 6. Lepadogaster microcephalus Brook, 1889 (Proc. roy. phys. Soc. Edinburgh 10 : 166, pl. 7, figs. 1-4) has been very adequately described and figured. Its author was aware of Kent’s account, comments on its inadequacies and includes L. couchii as a possible synonym of L. microcephalus. It has been generally accepted by subsequent workers, notably by Guitel and by Briggs (op. cit.), by Jenkins (1925, 1936, The Fishes of the British Isles, London) and by Norman (1935, List of British Vertebrates, Fishes, London (B.M.(N.H.)). It is the type-species by monotypy, of the genus Apletodon Briggs, 1955 (op. cit. : 25). 7. Accordingly I request the International Commission :— (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name couchii Kent, 1883, as published in the binomen Lepidogaster [sic] couchii, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the generic name Apletodon Briggs, 1955 (gender : masculine) type-species, by monotypy, Lepadogaster microcephalus Brook, 1889 ; on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name microcephalus Brook, 1889, as published in the binomen Lepadogaster microcephalus (type-species of Apletodon Briggs, 1955) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the generic name Lepidogaster Kent, 1883 (an erroneous subse- quent spelling of Lepadogaster Gouan, 1770) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (5) to place the specific name couchii Kent, 1883, as published in the binomen Lepidogaster [sic] couchii (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 81 WOEHRMANNIA BOEHM, 1895 (GASTROPODA) ; DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1346 By L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London) This application relates to a case in which, owing to a misidentification, the species upon which the definition of a new genus was mainly based was not one of the nominal species cited when the genus was founded. The genus is included in Part I of the T'reatise on Invertebrate Paleontology (1960). 2. The genus Woehrmannia (originally spelt Wohrmannia) was founded by J. Boehm in 1895 (Palaeontographica 42 : 227), as a subgenus of Huomphalus J. Sowerby, in a monograph on Triassic Gastropoda from the southern Alps. No type-species was designated or indicated, but three species, Huomphalus fenestralis Whidborne [Devonian], Zuomphalus [originally Helicites] arietinus (Schlotheim) [Middle Trias], and (: 228, pl. 9, fig. 22) a form misidentified as Euomphalus cirridioides Kittl, were referred to the new subgenus, only the misidentified form being actually described in Boehm’s monograph. 3. This form, LZ. cirridioides Boehm non Kittl, was given the name Woehrmannia boehmi by Kittl in 1899 (Ann. naturhist. Hofmus. (Wien) 14:19), the true EZ. cirridioides Kittl, 1894 (Jb. geol. Reichsanst. 44 : 117, pl. 1, fig. 22) being transferred at the same time to the subgenus Schizostoma Bronn, 1834. Cossmann, in 1916 (Hssais de paléoconchologie comparée 10 : 131) designated W. boehmi as type-species of Woehrmannia, and this designation has been accepted by Wenz (1938, Handbuch der Paldtozoologie, Gastropoda : 193). No other species has been cited as type of the genus. 4. W. boehmi was not, however, one of the three nominal species included in Woehrmannia when this genus was founded, and could only be accepted “as type-species by exercise of the plenary powers. The alternative course of designating one of the three included nominal species as type-species is considered by the applicant to be undesirable because (a) Huomphalus fenestralis and E. cirridioides have not been considered to belong to Woehrmannia by any author subsequent to Boehm, and the acceptance of either as type-species of Woehrmannia would probably result in the disappearance of that name as a subjective synonym, and in any case would necessitate the erection of a new genus for the group (that of W. boehmi) for which it was Boehm’s intention to found the taxon Woehrmannia ; (b) Helicites arietinus, the third originally included nominal species, has not yet been satisfactorily illustrated and appears to be known only by imperfect specimens. 5. The genus Woehrmannia is currently placed in the family EUOMPHALIDAE. So far as is known no family group name has ever been based upon it. 6. In order to preserve the established interpretation of the genus Woehrmannia and so avoid unnecessary changes in nomenclature, the International Commission is now asked :— (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Woehrmannia Boehm, 1895, made prior to the Ruling now asked for, and having done so, to designate Woehrmannia boehmi Kittl, 1899, to be the type-species of that genus ; Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 1. December 1960. 82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2) to place the generic name Woehrmannia Boehm, 1895 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Woehrmannia boehmi Kittl, 1899, 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) boehmi Kitt], 1899, as published in the binomen Woehrmannia boehmi (type-species of Woehrmannia Boehm, 1895) ; (b) cirridioides Kittl, 1894, as published in the binomen Euomphalus cirridioides. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE A TYPE-SPECIES FOR THE NOMINAL GENUS TAN YTARSUS VAN DER WULDP, 1874. Z.N.(S.) 1245 (See Volume 17, pages 241-243.) By W. Wiilker (Universitat Freiburg, Switzerland) I would like to support very much the application of Dr. P. Freeman, not only by reason of the historical arguments given in his paper but also according to the fact that the use of the name Tanytarsus in the paper by Townes is standing apart in the literature on Chironomidae. Not only the European authors but also some American colleagues differ from the opinion of Townes in this point, as I noticed during the International Limnological Congress, 1959, in Vienna. It would be very helpful to accept the taxonomic opinion of Freeman and to contribute in this way to reduce the taxonomic confusion in the family of Chironomidae. By J. B. Stahl (Thiel College, Greenville, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) This letter is to inform you that I fully support Dr. Paul Freeman’s recommendation for the retention of the name Tanytarsus in place of Calopsectra. By 8S. S. Roback (Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) I would hereby like to go on record in support of the proposal of Dr. Paul Freeman to retain the name Tanytarsus in its familiar usage. The application of the name Tanytarsus to two different genera in two different tribes, unfortunately causes a great deal of confusion. The proposal by Dr. Freeman would clarify and resolve this situation and is, I feel, definitely worthy of enactment. By E. J. Fittkau (Hydrobiologische Anstalt, Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Plén, Germany) Als Schiller und Assistent von Herrn Professor Dr. A. Thienemann (gestorben am 22.4.60) arbeite ich seit 6 Jahren systematisch, 6kologisch und morphologisch mit Chironomiden. Ich habe den Vorschlag von Dr. P. Freeman zur Kenntnis genommen und befiirworte ihn mit allem Nachdruck. In diesem Zusammenhang miéchte ich auf die Stellungnahme zu dem gleichen nomenclator- ischen Problem von Herrn Professor Thienemann, der einer der besten Kenner der Chironomiden war, verweisen. Die findet sich auf Seite 2 in seinem Band “ Chironomus ”, Stuttgart 1954 und schliesst mit folgender Bemerkung: “Man kann wirklich auf eine Monographie der “ Calopsectrini” aus der Feder Townes gespannt sein! Wenn man so vorgeht, wie es hier geschehen ist, dann wird nicht nur die ganze Chironomiden-Literatur der letzten 50 Jahre unver- sténdlich. Das gleiche gilt ebenso fiir das limnologische, fischereibiologische und abwasser- biologische Schrifttum ! Das ist—man verzeihe mir das harte Wort !—grober Unfug, und den mache ich nicht mit ”’. By H. E. Sublette (Department of Biological Sciences, Texas Western College of the University of Texas, El Paso, Texas, U.S.A.) I wish to support the application by Dr. Paul Freeman, British Museum (Natural History), in which he has proposed the suppression of Chironomus punctipes Wiedemann and the designa- tion of Chironomus signatus van der Wulp as the type-species of Tanytarsus. While it is true that a small amount of name shifting will occur by recognizing signatus van der Wulp rather than punctipes Wiedemann as the type-species, the changes will be minor compared to those which would be necessary through following Coquillett’s designation rather than Edwards’s subsequent interpretation of the genus. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 83 EUCERAPHIS WALKER, 1870 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA) ; DESIGNA- TION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1363 By D. Hille Ris Lambers (Bladluisonderzoek, T.N.O., Bennekom, Netherlands) and H. L. G. Stroyan (Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Plant Pathology Laboratory, Harpenden, Herts., England.) The present case is concerned with a genus which is clearly based upon a misidentified type-species and the International Commission is asked to use its plenary powers in order that the existing usage of the name may be validated. 2. Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 452) listed but did not describe Aphis betulae, with the indication “ Habitat in Betula alba”’ and a reference © Fa: Suee. 717°”: 3. Linnaeus, 1746 and 1761, in Fauna Suecica (: 261 of 1761 edition) described Aphis betulae as follows : “ Habitat in Betula rarius. Corpus pallide virens ; puncta 4 nigricantia in margine singulae incisurae utrinque. Minima est ; caret alis et appendiculis ”’. 4. Zetterstedt, 1828 (Ins. Lapp. Pt. 1 : 559) described Aphis punctipennis, material of which is still in existence. Von Heyden, 1837 (Mus. Senckenb. Abh. 2 : 299) described Aphis nigritarsis from birch. 5. Walker, 1848 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2)1 : 255) described Aphis betulae and gave an introductory synonymy in which he included Aphis betulae L., A. nigritarsis Heyden and A. punctipennis ? Zetterstedt. His description of betulae was followed by those of Aphis comes Walker and Aphis oblonga Heyden, which were described as similar to A. betulae. All three species were of rather large size. 6. C. L. Koch, 1855 (Die Pflanzenliéuse : 217) described Callipterus betulae Koch, a species possessing siphunculi (appendicula of Linnaeus, vide para. 3), and of which Koch said “ Vollstandig entwickelte Thierchen sind alsdann alle gefliigelt ’’. 7. Walker, 1870 (Zoologist (2) 5 : 2001) erected a genus Euceraphis. His diagnosis was as follows :—“‘ Euceraphis Walk. Type A. Betulae, Linn.—Aphis punctipennis (Zetterstedt, Ins. Lapp. i.2.311) belongs to this genus. It feeds on the birch and on the alder, and inhabits Lapland and Greenland. I have found it on the alder at Chamouni ”’. 8. At least two species of aphids are involved in the above series of descrip- tions. (a) Aphis betulae L., 1758, 1761, a small green species, known to Linnaeus only from the apterous forms, and described as being without siphunculi. The description is nowadays, by some authors, regarded as perhaps applying to a species of Glyphina Koch, in which the siphunculi, though present, are very small, and alatae are only produced during a limited period in summer. (b) Aphis punctipennis Zetterstedt, 1828, with synonyms A. nigritarsis Heyden, 1837 and Callipterus betulae Koch, 1855, a large species of which the viviparous forms when mature are always winged, and in which Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 1. December 1960. 84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the siphunculi, though not large, are quite conspicuous. The references to alder as host plant by Walker probably refer to the very similar Aphis comes Walker. 9. Walker’s 1848 description of Aphis betulae agrees perfectly with Koch’s description of Callipterus betulae (=punctipennis Zetterstedt), and there can be no doubt that this insect was what he had before him. Walker’s 1870 type fixation for Huceraphis has consistently been interpreted as if he had designated Aphis punctipennis Zetterstedt as type-species. That this usage is what Walker intended is clear from the fact that he placed punctipennis in Euceraphis, which he could not reasonably have done had he had before him the true betulae L. 10. Walker’s intention has almost certainly been correctly interpreted by subsequent workers who have used Huceraphis as if its type-species were Aphis punctipennis Zetterstedt. It is clearly in the interests of nomenclatorial stability that the application of Zuceraphis Walker, 1870, should not now be changed by strict application of the Rules and adherence to the nominal species designated. 11. There are no family-group names based on Huceraphis which is com- monly placed in the family CALLAPHIDIDAE. 12. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked :— (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Huceraphis Walker, 1870, prior to the Ruling now requested and having done so to designate the nominal species Aphis punctipennis Zetterstedt, 1828, originally included in the genus by Walker, to be the type-species of that genus ; (2) to place the generic name Euceraphis Walker, 1870 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Aphis punctipennis Zetterstedt, 1828, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the following specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— punctipennis Zetterstedt, 1828, as published in the bomen Aphis punctipennis (type-species of Huceraphis Walker, 1870) ; COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAME PROMECOPSIS DUMERIL, 1806. Z.N.(S.) 483 (See Volume 17, pages 191-192.) By Frej Ossiannilsson (Kungl. Lantbrukshégskolan, Institutionen for Vaxtsjukdomslara, Uppsala, Sweden) The existence of the generic name Promecopsis Duméril, published without a type-species clearly represents a danger to the stability of generic nomenclature within the Typhlocybinae. Therefore I do not hesitate to inform you that I quite agree with Dr. Wagner in this case and that I wish to support his request. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 85 COLUBER ATRATUS GMELIN, 1788 (REPTILIA); APPLICATION FOR SUPPRESSION. Z.N.(8.) 1371 By James A. Peters (San Fernando Valley State College, Northridge, California, U.S.A.) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to suppress a name which is a nomen dubium, in order to validate its junior homonym which has been universally used for over 100 years. 2. Burger and Werler (1954 : 649) have shown that Coluber atratus Hallowell, 1845 (: 245), a specific name currently applied to a species of South American colubrid snakes, is a primary homonym of Coluber atratus Gmelin, 1788 (: 1103). Acting as first revisers, they selected Streptophorus lansbergi Dumeéril, Bibron, and Duméril, 1854 (: 518) as the name to replace Coluber atratus Hallowell. It should be noted that Streptophorus drozit Duméril, Bibron, and Duméril, 1854 (: 518) was described in the same publication as lansbergi, and both of these names have been considered synonymous with Coluber atratus Hallowell (=Ninia atrata Hallowell). 3. The name Coluber atratus Hallowell has been applied to the same species with great consistency since its original description. It was transferred to the genus Ninia by Cope, in 1875, and has remained in that genus since, although occasionally called Streptophorus atratus. The name has been used, in its various combinations, by practically every author writing on the snakes of northwestern South America since the time of its description. The following list includes only a single citation for each authority, although some of these authors used the name many times : Cope, E. D., Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadel- phia, 1861 : 76 ; Bocourt, F., Miss. Sci. au Mexique .. . Reptiles, (9), 1883 : 548 ; Boulenger, G. A., Cat. Snakes Brit. Mus. 1, 1893 : 294; Giinther, A.C.L.G., Biologia Cent.-Amer., Reptilia and Batrachia, 1885-1902: 1011 ; Werner, F., Mitt. naturh. Mus. Hamburg 26, 1910:217; do Amaral, A., Mem. Inst. Butantan 4, 1929:151; Dunn, E.R., Proc. nat. Acad. Sci., 1935, 21:11; Brongersma, L.D., Studies on the Fauna of Curagao, Aruba, Bonaire and the Venezuelan Ishindds, 1940, 2(8) : 118; Parker, H.W., Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., a 11(5) : 290 ; Rendahl, H. and Vestargren, G., Ark. fir. Zool., 1941, 38a(6) : Shreve, B. = ., Bull. Mus. comp. Zool., Heenan 1947, 99(5) : 529; Daniel, = Univ. Antioquia, 1950, 24(96) : 414 ; Marcuzzi, G., Nov. Cient. Mus. Hist. nat. La Salle, Caracas (Ser. zool.), 1950, 3 : 4 ; Taylor, E.H., Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull. 1951, 34(1) : 50; Beebe, W., Zoologica, 1953, 37 : 175 ; Aleman, G. C., Mem. Soc. Cienc. nat. La Salle, 1952, 12(31) : 16; Toze, J.A., Bol. Soc. Venezolana Cienc. Nat., 1952, 14(79) : 206 4. Coluber atratus Gmelin, 1788, on the other hand, has not been satis- factorily used as a valid name since its description. It was based in part on two plates in Seba (1735) ; Pl. 1, fig. 9 and Pl. 9, fig.2. Gmelin also mentioned a plate in Gronovius (1756, pl. 262). Not all of the figures cited appear to be representations of animals belonging tothe same species. Boulenger (1896 : 634) showed that Gmelin’s name was based at least in part on a specimen belonging "Bull. zool. Nomencl., vol. 18, Part 1. December 1960... 2 86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature to Lygophis lineatus, which was described as Coluber lineatus by Linnaeus (1758 : 221). This was based upon Boulenger’s identification of the species seen in one of the cited plates. The plate references utilized by Gmelin in his description are mentioned in a footnote on page 227 in Linnaeus (1758), as snakes described by Gronovius, but not seen by Linnaeus. The segmental counts given there are 163 ventrals and 77 subcaudals, within the expected range of Lygophis lineatus. 5. The genus Coluber was used by both Linnaeus and Gmelin to include practically all of the non-poisonous snakes known to them. The generic name has been restricted in its usage for many years, however, to snakes not particularly closely related to either of the genera to which the homonyms here discussed belong. As a consequence, neither of them currently is known in the combination that gave rise to the primary homonymy, nor is there any likelihood that either will ever again be used in the genus Ooluber, under any circumstances. 6. In view of the fact that Ninia atrata (Hallowell, 1845) has been in con- tinuous use for over 100 years, and has never entered the synonymy of another species since its description, while Coluber atratus Gmelin, 1788, has been in part unidentifiable and in part synonymous with an original Linnean species, it is proposed that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy the specific name atratus Gmelin, 1788, as published in the binomen Coluber atratus ; (2) place the specific name atratus Hallowell, 1845, as published in the binomen Coluber atratus, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (3) place the specific name atratus Gmelin, 1788, as published in the binomen Coluber atratus (as suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1) above), on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. LITERATURE CITED Boulenger, G. A., 1896, Catalogue of the snakes in the British Museum (Natural History), London, 3 : i-xiv, 1-721 Burger, W. L., and Werler, J. E., 1954, The subspecies of the ring-necked coffee snake, Ninia diademata, and a short biological and taxonomic account of the genus, Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull. 836(2) : 643-672 Cope, E. D., 1875, On the Batrachia and Reptilia of Costa Rica, J. Acad. Sci. Philad. (2) 8 : 93-154 Duméril, A. M. C., Bibron, G., and Duméril, A., 1854, Erpétologie générale ou histoire naturelle compléte des reptiles, 7 : 1-1001 Gmelin, J. F., 1788, Systema Naturae (ed. 13) 1 Gronovius, L. T., 1756, Amphibiorum animalium historia zoologica, in Musei ichthyologici 2 Hallowell, E., 1845, Descriptions of reptiles from South America, supposed to be new, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 2 : 241-247 Linnaeus, C., 1758, Systema Naturae (ed. 10) 1 Seba, A., 1735, Locupletissimi rerum naturalium thesauri, 2. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 87 PERLA GEOFFROY, 1762 (INSECTA, PLECOPTERA) ; PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1451. By D. E. Kimmins (British Museum (Natural History), London) In the present application the use of the plenary powers is sought in order to validate the generic name Perla in the sense in which it has been used for over 100 years. Perla was first used as a generic name (after 1757) by Geoffroy, 1762 (Hist. abrég. 2: 229). This work was declared unavailable, because non-binominal, in Opinion 228. 2. Geoffroy included four species in his genus Perla. All four had vernacular names only but two of them had references to Linnean species (Phryganea bicaudata and Phryganea nebulosa). Subsequent to Geoffroy, 1762, the first author to place species in the genus Perla was De Geer, 1773 (Mém. Hist. Ins. 3 : 567), who described two species, Perla fusca (: 567), with a reference to Hemerobius testaceus Linnaeus, 1767, and Perla nasuta (: 568), with a reference to Hemerobius marginalis Linnaeus, 1767. Both of these specific names of De Geer’s are currently accepted as junior objective synonyms of those Linnean species in the order Isoptera. In 1783, Retzius (in De Geer, Gen. Spec. Ins. : 60) listed four species, Perla cinerea Retzius, 1783; Perla fusca De Geer, 1773; Perla nasuta De Geer, 1773 ; and Perla cylindrica De Geer, 1778 (Mém. Hist. Ins. 7 : 559). 3. In 1785 Geoffroy again used the generic name Perla in a work edited by Fourcroy (Ent. Paris 2 ; 348) and included the same four species as in his invalid 1762 work, but this time gave them the following binominal names, Perla bicaudata, P. flavipes, P. nebulosa and P. flava. No authors’ names or references are given, but as the vernacular names and the Latin diagnoses agree word for word with those of 1762, it is obvious that the Phryganea bicaudata and Phryganea nebulosa of Linnaeus are intended. 4. De Geer’s 1773 work has been overlooked as a definition of the genus Perla since, prior to Opinion 228, most workers dated the genus from Geoffroy, 1762. Thus Latreille, 1810 (Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arachn. Ins. : 435) selected as the type-species of Perla Geoffroy, Phryganea bicaudata Linnaeus, 1758, a selection which is valid, whichever date is accepted for Perla Geoffroy. If the 1785 date is accepted, Perla Geoffroy is a junior homonym of Perla De Geer, 1773, and takes the name of the first available synonym which is Diura Billberg, 1820 (Hnum. Ins. Mus. Billberg : 96), type-species, by monotypy, Phryganea bicaudata Linnaeus, 1758. 5. For over a hundred years, following the lead given by Pictet in his monograph in 1841 (Hist. nat. Ins. Névr., Perlides, : 141, 181), the generic name Perla has been applied to a group of species in the Order Plecoptera associated with Perla bipunctata Pictet, 1833. This species is, in fact, generically distinct from the valid type-species Perla bicaudata (Linnaeus, 1758), which is currently placed in a different family. Pictet himself selected P. bipunctata Pictet and P. marginata (Panzer, 1799) as “‘ types” of the genus Perla. From Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 1. December 1960. 88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature these two species, Klapalek, 1923 (Coll. Zool. Sélys 4(2) : 35) selected Perla bipunctata Pictet, 1833, as type-species of what he termed the genus “ Perla Geoffroy (sensu emend.) ”’. 6. As stated in paragraph 2, the original two species placed in the genus Perla by De Geer, 1773, Perla fusca and Perla nasuta, are currently placed as junior synonyms of species in the order Isoptera. Strict application of the Rules in the case of Perla De Geer, 1773, would involve the transfer of this generic name from the Plecoptera to the Isoptera, would necessitate a change in the name of the generic taxon known for over a hundred years as Perla and a change in the family-group name based upon it and might also involve the change of an equally well-established generic name in the order Isoptera. If, on the other hand, the generic name Perla Geoffroy, 1762, were validated with type-species Phryganea bicaudata Linnaeus, 1758 (by designa- tion of Latreille, 1810) Diwra Billberg, 1820, which has the same species as type, becomes a junior objective synonym of Perla Geoffroy. The name Perla will thus be transferred from the group of species with which it has been associated for over a hundred years. Since Perla is the type-genus of the family PERLIDAE, this family-group name will have to replace the family- group name PERLODIDAE (to which the genus Diwra belongs) and the names of the family and genus currently known as PERLIDAE and Perla will have to be re-named. A situation thus exists in which the strict application of the Rules would lead to greater confusion than uniformity. It is therefore highly desirable to validate the current usage of the generic name Perla in its meaning of Perla bipunctata Pictet, 1833 (Ann. Sci. nat. 28(109) : 55) and its congeners having regard to the fact that the name Perla has been almost universally applied to these species since the publication of Pictet’s monograph in 1841. In view of the wide use of the generic name Perla, and the number of references to it between Geoffroy, 1762, and Pictet, 1841, there would appear to be a good case for rendering the generic name Perla Geoffroy, 1762 available (by declara- tion under the plenary powers, as permitted by paragraph 5(2) of Opinion 228) and for designating for it (under the plenary powers) a type-species in conformity with current usage. 7. At the family-group level, the genus Perla is currently referred to the family PERLIDAE (published’as PERLIDES) in the sense of Pictet, 1841. Action under the plenary powers to make available the generic name Perla Geoffroy, 1762 (with type-species Perla bipunctata Pictet, 1833) would enable the family- group name to be dated from PERLIDAE (as family PERLARIAE) Latreille, [1802-1803] (Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 292), type-genus Perla ~ Geoffroy, 1762. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked :— (1) to use its plenary powers : (a) to validate the generic name Perla Geoffroy, 1762 ; (b) to set aside all designation of type-species for the genus Perla Geoffroy, 1762, made prior to the Ruling now requested and, having done so to designate Perla bipunctata Pictet, 1833, to be the type-species of that genus ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 89 (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Perla Geoffroy, 1762 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designa- tion under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Perla bipunctata Pictet, 1833 ; (b) Diura Billberg, 1820 (gender : feminine), type-species, by mono- typy, Phryganea bicaudata Linnaeus, 1758 ; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) bipunctata Pictet, 1833, as published in the binomen Perla bipunctata (type-species of Perla Geoffroy, 1762) ; (b) bicaudata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Phryganea bicaudata (type-species of Diura Billberg, 1820) ; (4) to place the following junior homonyms of Perla Geoffroy, 1762, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Perla De Geer, 1773 ; (b) Perla Retzius, 1783 ; (5) to place the family name PERLIDAE (correction of PERLARIAE) Latreille, [1802-1803] (type-genus Perla Geoffroy, 1762) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ; (6) to place the family name PERLARIAE Latreille, [1802-1803] (type-genus Perla Geoffroy, 1762) (an invalid original spelling for PERLIDAE) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE A TYPE-SPECIES FOR THE NOMINAL GENUS MACROPSIS LEWIS, 1834. Z.N.(8.) 567. (See Volume 17, pages 185-188.) By Frej Ossiannilsson (Kungl. Lantbrukshégskolan, Institutionen for Vaxtsjukdomslara, Uppsala, Sweden) The generic nomenclature within the family Macropsidae has been very unstable during the past 50-60 years, unfortunately. The new complications presented by Wagner as affecting the status of the generic name Macropsis make it highly important to get these matters definitely fixed. Also the transferring of the generic name Macropsis to the generic concept Elymana would cause much and unnecessary confusion. Therefore I fully agree with Dr. Wagner in his views in this case, and wish to support his proposals. 90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSAL TO PLACE THE GENERIC NAME GARI SCHUMACHER, 1817 (MOLLUSCA : BIVALVIA) ON THE OFFICIAL LIST UNEMENDED, ALTHOUGH IT IS THE GENITIVE FORM OF A LATIN NOUN. Z.N.(S.) 1461. By L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London) At the Copenhagen Congress in 1953 it was decided that a Latin noun introduced as a generic name in any form except that of the nominative case should be corrected automatically to the nominative but should, nevertheless, be attributed to its original author and date from its publication by that author. The applicant has decided to submit to the Commission the case of the generic name Gari Schumacher, 1817 (Mollusca : Bivalvia), as it is considered that its automatic emendation to Garum would create unnecessary confusion, while its complete suppression, advocated by some workers, would now be undesirable in view of its considerable currency in the literature. 2. The genus Gari was erected by C. F. Schumacher (1817, Ess. nowv. Syst. Vers test.: 44, 131), who assigned to it the two nominal species Gari vulgaris Schumacher and Gari papyracea (=Tellina papyracea Spengler). In the synonymy of G. vulgaris Schumacher cited “‘ Tellina Gari Lin. Spengler l.c. 4, H. 2. pag. 70. No. 1 ”’, so that the type-species of Gari must, by tautonymy, be Tellina gari Linnaeus (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 674), irrespective of any possible misidentification of Tellina gari by Spengler, although, as argued below, it is probable that he interpreted the Linnean species correctly. In illustration of the hinge-structure of Gari vulgaris Schumacher published figures of the interiors of two valves of a shell which some authorities have considered to have belonged to the species Tellina fervensis Gmelin. This fact, however, does not affect the conclusion that the type-species of Gari must be T'ellina gari Linnaeus. 3. The origin of the specific name gari can be traced if we consult the original Linnean description of Tellina gari, where we find the reference “ Rumph. mus. t. 45. f. D. Tellina gari”’, and if we then turn to the work of G. E. Rumphius (1705, D’Amboinsche Rariteitkamer), who described a species to which the name Tellina gari was assigned on p. 146 and illustrated it in pl. XLV, fig. D. Following this original description of the species is a long account, in Dutch, of the use of this mollusc by the natives of Amboina for the preparation of a spicy sauce which Rumphius compared with the sauce termed “garum” by the Romans. It is thus evident that the specific name gari, of which the generic name Gari is a tautonym, was in origin the genitive form of the Latin noun garwm. 4. Many leading authorities on Mollusca, including Stoliczka (1870), Bertin (1880), Cossmann (1886), Lamy (1918), together with a probable majority of present-day workers, have used Gari as a generic name, considering the objection that it is the genitive form of a Latin noun to be of little import- Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, part 1. December 1960. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 91 ance. Stewart (1930, Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. Spec. Publ. 3 : 281) suggested that this objection might be removed by regarding it as an arbitrary combination of letters, but this doubtful expedient seems unnecessary in view of the fact that it may perhaps be considered to have acquired the status of the nominative form of a noun by its treatment as such by a succession of authors. So far as the present applicant knows, no author has automatically corrected the generic name Gari Schumacher to Garwm Schumacher. The name Garum has, in fact, been proposed for a distinct taxon referred to the same family as Gari. 5. At the same time, however, it should be mentioned that many authors have deliberately rejected the name Gari in favour of a junior subjective synonym, Psammobia Lamarck, 1818 (Hist. nat. Anim. s. Vert. 5: 511). Lamarck assigned to this genus 18 nominal species, of which the first to be chosen as type-species was Psammobia feroensis Lamarck, selected by J. G. Children (1823, Quart. J. Sci. 14 : 304). This was the species described by Gmelin (1791, Syst. Nat. ed. 13 : 3235) as Tellina fervensis, and its specific name is the subject of a subordinate application now submitted to the Commission (§9, below). Lamarck did not apply the specific name gari Linnaeus to any species described under Psammobia. A reference to two figures of Chemnitz (1782, Conch. Cab. 6 : pl. 10, figs. 92, 93) which Schumacher had cited under Gari vulgaris appeared under Psammobia coerulescens Lamarck. Even at the present day it is probable that every taxonomist would include the type-species of Psammobia and the species (actually two distinct forms) represented by these figures of Chemnitz! in the same zoological genus, namely, Gari Schumacher, 1817, or its junior synonym Psammobia Lamarck, 1818. 6. A reason given by some authorities for the rejection of the generic name Gari Schumacher has been the existence of some doubt as to the identity of its type-species, T'ellina gari Linnaeus. When describing this species in 1758 Linnaeus gave a short and wholly inadequate diagnosis, and also referred to two figures, that of Rumphius already cited, and “Argenv.[ille] conch. t. 25, f. I.”. The syntypes of Tellina gari were thus any specimens that Linnaeus then had before him, together with the originals of the figures of Rumphius and Argenville. No specimens identified as Tellina gari are, however, preserved in the Linnean Collection (Hanley, 1855, Ipsa Linn. Conch. : 34), while it is not known where the specimens figured by Rumphius and Argenville are now to be found. The figures which Linnaeus cited are very crude and there has been much uncertainty as to the identity of the species represented. Hanley (op. cit. : 34) thought that Rumphius’s figure was intended to represent Psam- mobia serotina Lamarck. Mrs. W. S. S. van der Feen van Benthem Jutting states (in litt.), “In my opinion Tellina gari Rumphius is Psammotaea violacea (Lamarck), a common species in estuaries and mud flats in the Malay Archi- pelago. This was already suggested by Martens (1897, Ergebn. Reise Nied. Ost Indien 4 : 239, and 1902, Rumphius Gedenkboek :127).” The present applicant is of opinion that the only satisfactory way to stabilize the interpreta- tion of Tellina gari Linnaeus is to ignore the species described by Rumphius 1 The name now accepted for the species represented by fig. 93 of Chemnitz, which is not involved in the present discussion, is Gari amethystus (Wood). See Prashad, 1932, Siboga- Exped. Mon. 58c : 303. 92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and to select a neotype belonging to the species which (in the applicant’s opinion) the balance of evidence suggests that Linnaeus had before him in 1758 when describing the species. The evidence bearing on this question is summarized and a neotype selected and illustrated in the appendix to the present application. 7. W.H. Dall (1900, Trans. Wagner Inst. Sci. Philad. 3), who (: 970) rejected Gari as “‘ plainly inadmissible for a generic name”’ and adopted instead its subjective synonym Psammobia Lamarck, considered (: 975) that four species from the Eocene of the Paris Basin which Cossmann (1886, Ann. Soc. malac. Belg. 21:91) had referred to Gari Schumacher should constitute a taxon which he (Dall) regarded as a section of Psammobia and to which he assigned the new name Garum. The type-species of Garum Dall, by original designation, is Psammobia dutemplei Deshayes (1857, Descr. Anim. s. Vert. Bassin de Paris 1 : 374). Cossmann and Pissarro (1904, Iconographie coquilles foss. Hoc. environs de Paris: pl. 8) have regarded Garum Dall as a distinct genus. No alternative name is available for this taxon, and if it is decided to accept the name Gari Schumacher unaltered there will be no necessity to re-name Garum Dall. 8. A family PSAMMOBIADAE, based on the nominal genus Psammobia Lamarck, was erected by Fleming in 1828 (Hist. Brit. Anim. : 437) and has been adopted (as PSAMMOBIIDAE) by many workers. A subfamily GARINAE, based on the nominal genus Gari Schumacher, and elevated to family rank as GARIDAE by a number of authors, was proposed by Stoliczka in 1870 (Cretaceous Fauna 8. India, Pelecypoda: 113). The families PPAMMOBIIDAE and GARIDAE, like their respective type-genera, are generally regarded as subjectively synonymous, and, in consequence of a Copenhagen decision upheld at the London Congress in 1958, whereby a family name is not invalidated by reason of the name of its type-genus being a junior synonym, the earlier proposed name, PSAMMOBIIDAE, must be accepted as the valid one. It is, therefore, recommended that this name should be placed on the appropriate Official List. 9. When publishing the binomen Tellina fervensis, Gmelin (1791, Syst. Nat. ed. 13: 3235) gave no direct indication of its derivation, the habitat cited by him being “in oceano septentrionale””. He referred, however, to a figure of Chemnitz, “ Conch. 6. t. 10. f. 91”, which represents a species to which this non-binominal author assigned the name Tellina ferréensis, giving its locality (p. 100) as the “‘ Ferréischen Eylande ”’, i.e. the Faeroe Islands. The majority of subsequent authors have, therefore, assumed that Gmelin’s published specific name was a misprint, and have emended it. Réding (1798, Mus. Boltenianum : 186), the first binominal author after Gmelin to deal with the species, gave its name (following Chemnitz) as Tellina ferrdensis. Lamarck, as already seen, corrected the specific name in 1818 to feroensis. Subsequent authors, until fairly recent years, have used either ferroensis (without the Umlaut), following Fleming, 1813 (Brewster’s Edinb. Ency. 7 : 90), or feroensis, to an almost equal extent. Winckworth (1932, J. Conch. 19 : 245), however, reverted to Gmelin’s spelling fervensis, and he has been followed by several other workers, including van Regteren Altena in Holland. Dodge (1952, Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 100 : 42) has maintained that the name should Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 93 be corrected to faerocensis. In the hope of obtaining a definite ruling from the Commission on this matter, the present applicant submits that the specific name fervensis should not be treated as an invalid original spelling, but should be placed on the Official List of Valid Specific Names in Zoology. If, however, the Commission decides to rule that the name fervensis must be emended, it is asked to decide which of the emendations mentioned above is to be adopted. 10. Summary. Application is hereby made to the Commission (1) to use its plenary powers to suspend in the present case the rule by which automatic correction of the generic name Gari Schumacher, 1817 (the genitive form of a Latin noun) to the nominative form Garum would be required, and to declare that Gari shall be treated as a noun in the nominative singular ; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Gari Schumacher, 1817 (gender : neuter), type-species, by absolute tautonymy, Tellina gari Linnaeus, 1758 ; (b) Garum Dall, 1900 (gender: neuter), type-species, by original designation, Psammobia dutemplei Deshayes, 1857 ; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) gari Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Tellina gart, and as interpreted by the neotype designated in the Appendix to the present application (type-species of Gari Schumacher, 1817) ; (b) fervensis Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Tellina fervensis ; (c) dutemplet Deshayes, 1857, as published in the binomen Psammobia dutemplet (type-species of Garuwm Dall, 1900) ; (4) to place the following specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology : (a) ferréensis Roding, 1798, as published in the binomen Tellina ferréensis (an invalid emendation of fervensis Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Tellina fervensis) ; (b) ferroensis Fleming, 1813, as published in the binomen Tellina ferroensis (an invalid emendation of fervensis Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Tellina fervensis) ; (c) feroensis Lamarck, 1818, as published in the binomen Psammobia feroensis (an invalid emendation of fervensis Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Tellina fervensis) ; (d) faeroeensis Dodge, 1952, as published in the binomen Gari faeroeensis (an invalid emendation of fervensis Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Tellina fervensis) ; (5) to place the following family-group name on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology : PSAMMOBIIDAE Fleming, 1828 (a justified emendation of PsAMMoO- BIADAE) (type-genus Psammobia Lamarck, 1818) ; 94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (6) to place the family-group name PSAMMOBIADAE Fleming, 1828 (an invalid original spelling of PsaMMOBIIDAE) (type-genus Psammobia Lamarck, 1818) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family- Group Names in Zoology. APPENDIX Designation of a Neotype for the Nominal Species Tellina gari Linnaeus, 1758 When establishing the species Tellina gari in 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 674) Linnaeus referred to the two poor figures, neither identifiable with certainty, in earlier literature cited above, and gave the following short diagnosis : “T. testa ovali: striis transversis recurvatis ; dentibus lateralibus obsoletis.” The habitat was stated to be ‘‘ O. Indico”. Nosyntypes survive. The figures cited do not agree with the diagnosis, but the latter is too brief to enable the species Linnaeus had in mind to be identified. Subsequent evidence as to its identity must, therefore, be taken into account. 2. Linnaeus gave a more complete description of Tellina gart in 1764 when cataloguing the collection of Queen Ulrica (Mus. Ludov. Ulric. Reginae : 478). The following extract from this may be noted: “Striae transversae retrorsum subimbricatae, inter has strias aliae striae anomalae in medio laterum, distantes, secant oblique ad angulum acutum strias ordinarias confertiores, quae nota huic specialis.” From this description it seems evident that the species was characterized by subimbricate striations on the posterior part of the shell and oblique striations on the median part, where they cross the ordinary growth-lines at an acute angle. 3. Chemnitz (1782, Conch. Cab. 6: 100, pl. 10, fig. 92) figured a shell which he accepted as an authentic example of Tellina gari Linnaeus. This shell came from the collection of his friend, the Danish conchologist Spengler, and Chemnitz evidently considered that this fact vouched for the authenticity of its identification. He records having himself made the journey from Copenhagen to Stockholm to examine the collection of Linnaeus, and it seems probable that Spengler also maintained a connection with Linnaeus, perhaps visiting him on a number of occasions. The shell figured by Chemnitz had the combination of characters mentioned above. Chemnitz subjectively referred to 7’. gari a second specimen, represented in his fig. 93, but he did not claim for this the authenticity of the first specimen. 4. Spengler (1798, Skrivt. naturhist. Selsk. 4(2) : 70) referred to the fig. 92 of Chemnitz as representing the typical Tellina gari, but at the same time described several other forms which he regarded as varieties of that species. 5. The most satisfactory course appears, therefore, to accept the interpreta- tion of T'ellina gari adopted by these immediate successors of Linnaeus, who not improbably had first-hand information as to its identity. This course has already been followed by Bertin (1880, Nouv. Arch. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris (2)8 : 112), who, in his revision of the “‘ Garidés ’’, applied the name Gari gart (Linnaeus) to the well-characterized Indian Ocean species which Chemnitz’s fig. 92 unmistakably represents. 6. The proposed neotype is designated and described below, and is illustrated Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 95 in Plate 1, figs. 1 a-e. Its description is preceded by a specific synonymy consequent upon its designation. Gari gari (Linnaeus) Plate 1. 1758. Tellina gari Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 674. 1764. Tellina gari Linnaeus, Mus. Ludov. U. lric. Reginae : 478. 1767. Tellina truncata Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) : 1118. 1782. Tellina gari Chemnitz, Conch. Cab. 6 : 100 (partim), pl. 10, fig. 92 only. 1798. Tellina gari Spengler, Skrivt. naturhist. Selsk. 4(2) : 70 (partim). 1817. Gari vulgaris Schumacher, Ess. nouv. Syst. Vers test. : 131 ( partim). 1818. Psammobia pulchella Lamarck, Syst. nat. Anim. s. Vert. 5 +515. 1849. Psammobia bipartita Philippi, Zeits. Malak. 5 : 166. 1855. Tellina truncata Hanley, Ipsa Linn. Conch. : 40. 1857. Psammobia caerulescens Reeve, Conch. Icon. 10 : Psammobia, pl. 8, fig. 60 (non Lamarck). 1880. Gari gari Bertin, Nouv. Arch. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris (2) 3 : 112. 1914. Psammobia pulchella Lamy, Bull. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris 20 : 60. Neotype.—In the Department of Zoology of the British Museum (Natural History), registration number 1960963 (ex Cuming Coll.). Locality of Neotype—Ceylon. Description of N eotype.—Length 57.8 mm., height 29.0 mm. Elongate-ovate, compressed, subequilateral, truncated slightly obliquely at its posterior end, where the two valves have a narrow gape. Umbones broad, depressed, not incurved. Postero-dorsal margin straight, sloping gently, and meeting the straight posterior margin in an obtuse angle. Antero-dorsal margin very feebly convex, sloping gently, and meeting the strongly and evenly convex anterior margin in an even curve. Ventral margin feebly convex mesially, rather strongly upcurved at each end, meeting the anterior margin in an even curve, but slightly flattened in front of its angular junction with the posterior margin. In both valves a very obtuse angulation runs from the umbo to the postero-ventral corner, and on the anterior side of this angulation a low radial step divides the surface into two discrepantly ornamented areas. In the right valve this step diverges from the posterior angulation at a greater angle than in the left. On the posterior side of the step each valve is ornamented with thin, subimbricate laminae which coincide with growth-stages of the shell and are fairly regularly spaced in earlier stages but are later more closely and irregularly arranged. On the anterior side of the step each valve bears a series of oblique grooves which have a slightly irregular curvature and cut across the growth-lines or meet the ventral margin at an acute angle. The Spacing of these grooves, which divide the surface into a series of oblique flattened riblets, is slightly more distant than that of the laminae on the posterior part of the surface. Internally, the two valves have a rather broad pallial sinus reaching to the middle of the length of the shell. The right valve has two short, subequal and almost equally inclined, bifid cardinal teeth, and elongate posterior and 96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature anterior laterals. The left valve has a bifid median cardinal tooth and a very thin posterior cardinal ; lateral teeth, the anterior of which is obscure, are formed by projections of the dorsal margin and are received in the recesses between the lateral teeth and the margin in the right valve. The ligamental nymphs are prominent. Remarks.—The neotype now designated (Plate 1, figs. 1 a—-e) clearly belongs to the species represented in fig. 92 of Chemnitz, which distinctly shows the division of the valve into two discrepantly ornamented areas. It is the identical specimen figured by Reeve (1857, loc. cit.) as Psammobia caerulescens Lamarck, now known to be a misidentification. As interpreted by the neotype, 7’. gart belongs to the same species as was later described by Linnaeus as Tellina truncata, if Hanley was correct in recognizing the specimen in the Linnean Collection now illustrated in Plate 1, figs. 2 a-d as the holotype of that species. Later synonyms are Psammobia pulchella Lamarck, the holotype of which, examined by Bertin (1880, loc. cit.), was found to be a young shell belonging to the species represented by the fig. 92 of Chemnitz. In founding his species Psammobia bipartita Philippi cited this same figure but ignored all other relevant literature. Not one of the three other available names for the present species (truncata Linnaeus, pulchella Lamarck, and bipartita Philippi) has ever gained general currency, so that acceptance of the specific name gari will not mean the dis- placement of a more familiar name. EXPLANATION OF THE PLATE (All the figures are of natural size.) Figs. 1 ae. Tellina gari Linnaeus. Neotype (British Museum (Natural History), Department of Zoology, reg. no. 1960963). Original also of Reeve, 1857, Conch. Icon., vol. 10, Psammobia, pl. 8, fig. 60 (as Psammobia caerulescens Lamarck). Figs. 2a-d. Tellina truncata Linnaeus. Holotype (Linnean Society of London). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18. Plate For explanation see p. 96. RUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE \. The Officers of the Trust ;; Hon. THE Lorp Hurcoms, G.C.B., K.B.E. : Francis J. Grirrin, A.L.A. : W. E. Cuma, C.B.E., D.Sc. The Members of the Trust ’. D. Riley, C.B.E. Dr. R. Sparck . R. Stoll _W. Wright . F. de Witte CONTENTS mmtinued from front wrapper) New Applications Page ‘ss under the plenary powers eleven specific ibia and Reptilia and to validate thirteen original author and date. (Robert Mertens, jabrosky’s proposal for the suppression under vers of the pamphlet entitled “ Nouvelle Mouches a Deux Ailes”’ by J. Meigen, 1800 ed validation of the generic name Encrinus sense (M. Spillane) ... eae pt: a 65 1878 ; Proposed validation under the ag ina) wa wee 69 rech, 1897 : ee acceptance of emenda- CERATIDAE (A. K. ee W. M. i, *) , 73 1864 ; es, for a dices on leetoty M. Smith, W.I. Follett) —... 75 Kent, 1883 ; Proposed eee mio es under the Jenys W. Tucker) Er ie 79 1895 ; Designation of a hss date isa 's (L. R. Cox}e <<: 81 70 ; Designation of a type- species under the ), Hille Ris Lambers, H. L. G. Stroyan) ... 83 , 1788 ; Application for eee under the ‘ames A. Peters) : 85 et validation under the plenary Boy 17; a eee to 0 place on Official List un- ox) be -+ 90 INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Trust Chairman : The Rt. Hon. Taz Lorp Hurcomes, G.C.B., K.B.E. Managing Director : Francis J. Grirrin, A.L. A. Scientific Controller: W. E. Cutna, C.B. E., DSc. B. The Members of the Trust Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. Prof. Dr. R. Sparck Dr. N. R. Stoll Mr. C. W. Wright Dr. G. F. CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) New Applications Page Application to suppress under the plenary powers eleven specific names of Amphibia and Reptilia and to validate thirteen names with their eens author and date. eins, Mertens, Heinz Wermuth) ... : ‘ 3 Report on Mr. C. W. Enis 8 aad for the suppression under the plenary powers of the pamphlet entitled “Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a Deux Ailes ” Ba J. bio sis 1800 (R. V. Melville)... . 9 Report on the proposed validation of the ahaa name Encrinus in its accustomed sense (M. Spillane)... 65 Myelophilus Eichhoff, 1878 ; eae validation under the cplenary powers (W. E. China) a 69 GEPHYROCERATIDAE Frech, 1897 : acccd J acceptance of emenda- tion to GEPHUROCERATIDAE (A. K. Miller, W. M. Furnish, Brian F. Glenister) Z F 73 Anolis nannodes Cope, 1864 ; aint for a Peking on letotyp selection (Hobart M. Smith, W. I. Follett) be 75 couchit (Lepidogaster) Kent, 1883 ; Proposed web penn under the plenary powers (Denys W. Tucker) mM 79 Woehrmannia Boehm, 1895 ; Designation of a & fyPe: ee under the plenary powers (L. R. Coxe... 81 Euceraphis Walker, 1870 ; Designation of a Ase -species under the plenary powers (D. Hille Ris Lambers, H. L. G. Stroyan) ... 83 Coluber atratus Gmelin, 1788 ; Application for peaereon under the plenary powers (Je ames A. Peters) Z 85 Perla eee 1762 ; es gs validation under the plenary ee (D. E . Kimmins) 87 Gari Schumacher, 1817 ; Proposal & to o place on Official List un- emended (L. R . Cox) es - 90 CONTENTS (continued from inside back wrapper) Comments Comment on the proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the generic name Southernia Filipjev, 1927 (W. G. Inglis) Comment on the proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name IJdotea Fabricius, 1798, and matters connected therewith (H. Lemche) Comment on the use of the plenary powers to stabilize the names of the North European species belonging to.the Tipula oleracea group (R. Laughlin) eS eon cas ee dee Comments on the proposed addition of certain generic and specific names in the family PHASMATIDAE to the Official Lists and Indexes (H. F. Lower ; L. R. Clark ; D. R. Ragge) Comments on the proposed use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species for the nominal genus J'anytarsus van der Wulp, 1874 (W. Wiilker ; J. B. Stahl; S. S. Roback ; E. J. Fittkau ; J. E. Sublette) me ea me bo ar ab oFe Comment on the proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the generic name Promecopsis Dumeril, 1806 (F. Ossiannilsson) ... - Comment on the proposed use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species for the nominal genus Macropsis Lewis, 1834 (F. Ossiannilsson) a ae as vi oe, PE 2A op SS eee SSE reli. ot eee Bae se © 1960. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by MeTCALFe & Cooper LimiTeD. 10-24 Scrutton St., London E.C.2 Page 72 78 82 98 Volume 18. Part 2 14th April, 1961 pp. 97-160, 1 pl. THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ATEN MU 11. MAY tor (x o i arg oU fs 4 a ren PURCHASED CoNTENTS Page Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ... oF sa ina 97 Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 97 (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 1961 Price Three Pounds (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Professor James Chester BrapLEy (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. Ritey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) Assistant Secretary: Dr. W. E. Carna (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 Amanat (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12 August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. Dymonp (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12 August 1953) Professor J. Chester Braptey (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. Srout (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) Dr. L. B. Houtuurs (Rijksmuseum van Natwurlijke 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. MutEr (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 Kiinnetr (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6 November 1954) Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard Coll+ge, 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. Brryox (Lunds Universitets, Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958) Dr. Max Pott (Musée Royal del’ Afrique Centrale, Tervuren, Belgium) (12 July 1958) Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (23 July 1958) Mr. Francis Hemmuye (London, England) (23 July 1958) Dr. Henning Lemoux (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Mr. Norman Denbigh Ritey (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 Hmrrxe (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (23 July 1958) Dr. D. V. OsrucnEy (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-71, USSR) (5 November 1958) ; Professor Tohru Uocuta (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March 1959) Professor Dr. Rafael Atvarapo (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) (31 May 1960) Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), London) (31 May 1960) BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Be eee rag OL OO eo) very i ts eeu Volume 18, Part 2 (pp. 97-160) 14th April, 1961 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 Enhydrus Castelnau, 1834 (Insecta, Coleoptera). Z.N.(S.) 398. (2) Validation of the specific name akamushi (Trombidium) Brumpt, 1910 (Acarina). Z.N.(S.) 400. (3) Suppression of the generic name Doralis Leach, 1827 (Insecta, Hemi- ptera). Z.N.(S.) 583. (4) Suppression of the specific name lustrica (Paludina) Say, 1821 (Gastro- poda). Z.N.(S.) 730. (5) Validation of emendations of certain Graptolite names. Z.N.(S.) 983. (6) Designation of a type-species for Nemoura Latreille, 1796 (Insecta, Plecoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1452. (7) Validation of the generic name Silo Curtis, 1833 (Insecta, Trichoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1455. (8) Validation of the generic name Mesidotea Richardson, 1905 (Crustacea, Decapoda). Z.N.(S.) 412. c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on 22 February 1960. Zoological Nomenclature 98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME IDOTEA FABRICIUS, 1798. Z.N.(S.) 412 (See Volume 17, pages 178-184) By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) It is my personal belief that the name Mesidotea is not such a well-known name that its replace- ment by Saduria will cause undesirable confusion ; and I do not think that an action under the plenary powers is justified here. The other Commissioners may be of a different opinion. I have to point out, however, that in order to save the name Mesidotea Richardson, 1905, it is not sufficient to suppress the name Saduria Adams, 1852, since another name older than Mestdotea is available for the genus. This name is Idotoega Lockington, 1877, Proc. Calif. Acad. nat. Sci.7 : 44 (type-species, by monotypy, Idotaega longicauda Lockington, 1877, Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. 7 :451). Gender: feminine. The species [dotaega longicauda is currently considered a subjective synonym of Oniscus entomon Linnaeus, 1758, and even was mentioned by Richardson (1905, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 54 : 348) in the synonymy of Mesidotea entomon in the very paper in which she proposed the new genus Mesidotea. Dr. Lemche should make clear whether he wants Idotaega to be suppressed also, or that he wishes to see it placed on the Official List with the indication that the name is to be used only by authors who consider Idotaega and Mesidotea different genera. The emendation Idotaega Lockington, 1877, Proc. Calif. Acad. nat. Sct. '7 : 183 also should be considered if action on Idotoega is taken. I may once more express my belief that all these complicated actions only are warranted in cases where a serious disturbance threatens, which certainly is not the case here. In the end the strict application of the Law of Priority will simplify matters considerably here. By Torben Wolff (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) I am in full agreement with Drs. P. E. Heegaard’s and L. B. Holthuis’ proposals for placing the generic names Emerita, Hippa, Idotea and Jaera (but not Saduria) and the proposed specific names on the Official List. I also support them in suppressing the other generic and specific names mentioned, except Mesidotea Richardson, 1905. It is quite true that Mesidotea is a junior synonym not only of Saduria Adams, 1852 (Sutherland’s J. Voy. Baffin Bay Barrow Strait 2 :CCVII) but also of Idotaega Lockington, 1877 (Proc. Calif. Acad. Nat. Sci. 7 : 44) (on pp. 44-45 spelt Idotoega with a diphthong, but in the list of Errata corrected to Idotaega). When in 1905 Miss Richardson in her well-known monograph on the isopods of North America proposed the generic name Mesidotea (Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 54) for the two species Oniscus entomon L. and Jdotea sabini Kroyer she listed in her synonymy of the former species (p. 348) both Saduria entomon Adams and Idotaega longicauda Lockington. Nevertheless, the generic name Mesidotea was at once adopted by other workers and has been in current use ever since. I have found no reference whatsoever to Saduria and Idotaega in the Zoological Records of this century, while Mesidotea has been referred to at least 25 times, especially by Gurjanova Segerstrale, and Stephensen. In such a recent and widespread book as ‘‘ Treatise on Marine Ecology and Paleoecology ”’ (Geol. Soc. America, 67) Mesidotea was referred to many times by several authors while Saduria was not mentioned at all. The same applies to Ekman’s “ Zoogeography of the Sea’ (German ed. 1935, English ed. 1953). Moreover, the status of Mesidotea entomon (L.) as a glacial relict in the Baltic and certain large Swedish and Russian lakes has involved the species in a considerable réle in the discussion of glacial relicts. This is especially true of Scandinavia and Finland where in several cases it has been referred to even in text books in high schools. Thus, at any rate in this part of the world the generic name Mesidotea is in such general use that the introduction of Saduria would cause undesirable confusion. By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) I am as convinced as before on the justification for practical reasons of my plea for preserving Mesidotea as the generic name for Oniscus entomon Linnaeus. The only place in which the name Saduria has been introduced in more general text books, is the one published in 1960 by the very scientist who made the change in the first place. In the Treatise on Marine Ecology and Paleo- ecology I (1957) the name Mesidotea is used throughout (Geol. Soc. Amer., Mem. 67). I propose that the name Idotaega Lockington, 1877, should be placed on the Official List with an endorsement under the plenary powers that it is to be used only by those authors who consider that Oniscus entomon and Idotaega longicauda belong to different genera or subgenera. On the basis of the list of errata in Lockington, 1877, Idotoega should be placed on the Official Index as a printer’s error. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 99 OPINION 585 DICTYOCONUS BLANCKENHORN, 1900 (RHIZOPODA, FORAMINI- FERA) ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY RULING.—(1) The generic name Dictyoconus Blanckenhorn, 1900 (gender : masculine), type-species, by subsequent designation by Woodring, 1924, Patellina egyptiensis Chapman, 1900, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1399. (2) The specific name egyptiensis Chapman, 1900, as published in the binomen Patellina egyptiensis (type-species of Dictyoconus Blanckenhorn, 1900) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1710. (3) The generic name Dictyoconos Blanckenhorn, 1900 (an invalid original spelling for Dictyoconus Blanckenhorn, 1900) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1329. (4) The specific name aegyptiensis Airaghi, 1904, as published in the binomen Conulites aegyptiensis (an invalid emendation of egyptiensis Chapman, 1900, as published in the binomen Patellina egyptiensis) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 615. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 316) On 21 September 1947, Dr. D. L. Frizzell applied for the use of the Commission’s plenary powers to validate the generic name Dictyoconus in that spelling, the name having also, in the original publication, been spelt Dictyoconos. Dr. Frizzell’s application was overlooked for a considerable time and in the meantime the action of the Copenhagen Congress in adopting the First Reviser principle in such cases made the use of the plenary powers unnecessary in the present case. A redrafted application was therefore sent to the printer on 27 February 1959 and was published on 1 October 1959 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 30-31. Support for Dr. Frizzell’s proposals was received from Dr. A. N. Dusenbury, whose letter was published on 8 April 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 184. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 7 April 1960 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (60)1 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 30-31 and 184. At the close of the Voting Period on 7 July 1960 the state of the voting was as follows :— Affirmative Votes—twenty-two (22), received in the following order: Mayr, Vokes, Boschma, Holthuis, Hering, Riley, Lemche, Dymond, Uchida, do Amaral, Obruchev, Jaczewski, Stoll, Key, Prantl, Mertens, Brinck, Cabrera, Miller, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Tortonese. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 2. April 1961. 100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Negative Votes—one (1): Poll. On Leave of Absence—one (1): Bradley. A late affirmative vote was returned by Commissioner Hemming. In returning his negative vote Dr. M. Poll wrote : “‘ Le terme ‘ Dictyoconos Blanckenhorn ’ a réellement été utilisé pour la description originale et répété 6 fois dans la mémé publication, indiquant clairement l’intention de l’auteur concernant le choix de l’orthographe. Le fait que le méme foraminifére a été cité avec la terminaison -us (sans la moindre description) sur une page précédant la description originale établie sous le nom Dictyoconos, ne change rien 4 l’affaire. Je suis partisan du maintien d’un nom tel qu’il est écrit dans son orthographe originale (suivie de description). La commission internationale de nomenclature doit servir 4 corriger des erreurs graves, a éviter des confusions regrettables, aussi & faire respecter les lois de la nomenclature. Il n’y a 4 mon sens aucune raison valable de statuer dans le cas proposé concernant Dictyoconos dont l’application des Régles prévoit le maintien pur et simple.” Professor H. Boschma expressed the opinion that since the emendation to aegyptiensis of the specific name egyptiensis Chapman, 1900, does not cause any confusion there is no reason to place the former name on the Official Index. Dr. L. B. Holthuis and Dr. K. H. L. Key both correctly pointed out that the first type designation for the genus Dictyoconus was that by Woodring (1924, Geol. Republic Haiti, Geol. Surv. Rep. Haiti, Appendix 1 : 608-610) who indicated that Patellina egyptiensis Chapman, 1900, was the type-species. The fact that the grounds on which he based his statement were erroneous does not, however, invalidate his action. OricgINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the generic and specific names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : Dictyoconos Blanckenhorn, 1900, an Invalid Original Spelling for Dictyoconus Dictyoconus Blanckenhorn, 1900, Z. deutsch. geol. Ges. 52 : 419, 432, 434436 aegyptiensis, Conulites, Airaghi, 1904, Atti Soc. ital. Sci. nat. 43 : 160, 183 egyptiensis, Patellina, Chapman, 1900, Geol. Mag. (4)7 : 11-12, pl. 2, figs. 1-3 The following is the original reference for the selection of a type-species for the nominal genus concerned in the present Ruling : For Dictyoconus Blanckenhorn, 1900 Woodring, 1924, Geol. Surv. Rep. Haiti, Appendix 1 : 608 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (60)1 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 Present Opinion No. 585. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 21 September 1960 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 101 OPINION 586 APATANIA KOLENATI, 1847 (INSECTA, TRICHOPTERA) : DESIGNA- TION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF A TYPE-SPECIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCUSTOMED USAGE RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of a type-species for the nominal genus Apatania Kolenati, 1847, made prior to the present Ruling, are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Apatania wallengreni McLachlan, 1871, is hereby designated to be 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) Apatania Kolenati, 1847 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Apatania wallengreni McLachlan, 1871 (Name No. 1400) ; (b) Molanna Curtis, 1834 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Molanna angustata Curtis, 1834 (Name No. 1401). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified :— (a) wallengrent McLachlan, 1871, as published in the binomen Apatania wallengreni (type-species of Apatania Kolenati, 1847) (Name No. 1711); (b) angustata Curtis, 1834, as published in the binomen Molanna angustata (type-species of Molanna Curtis, 1834) (Name No. 1712). (4) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified :-— (a) APATANIIDAE Wallengren, 1891 (type-genus Apatania Kolenati, 1848) (Name No. 288) ; (b) MoLANNIDAE Wallengren, 1891 (type-genus Molanna Curtis, 1834) (Name No. 289). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 427) On 17 July 1947, Mr. D. E. Kimmins applied for the use of the Commission’s plenary powers to designate a type-species in harmony with accustomed usage for the nominal genus Apatania Kolenati, 1847—a genus based on a misidentified type-species. Mr. Kimmins’s application was sent to the printer on 27 Febru- ary 1959 and was published on 1 October 1959 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 37-38. 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) as well as to seven entomological serial publications. Support was received from Dr. L. Botosdneanu and Dr. D. C. Denning (published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 68) and from Mr. H. H. Ross (Illinois State Natural History Division, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) and Dr. G. B. Wiggins (Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada). No objection was received from any source. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 2. April 1961. 102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 7 April 1960, the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (60)4 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 37-38. At the close of the Voting Period on 7 July 1960 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-two (22), received in the following order: Mayr, Vokes, Boschma, Holthuis, Jaczewski, Hering, Riley, Lemche, Dymond, Uchida, do Amaral, Obruchev, Stoll, Key, Prantl, Mertens, Brinck, Cabrera, Kihnelt, Poll, Bonnet, Tortonese. Negative Votes—one (1): Miller. On Leave of Absence—one (1): Bradley. A late affirmative vote was returned by Commissioner Hemming. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the generic, specific and family- group names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : angustata, Molanna, Curtis, 1834, Lond. Edinb. phil. Mag. (3)4 : 214 Apatania Kolenati, 1847, Allgem. deutsch. Naturhist. Ztg. 2(5-6) : folio page appendix APATANIIDAE Wallengren, 1891, K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Handl. 24(10) : 85 Molanna Curtis, 1834, Lond. Edinb. phil. Mag. (3)4 : 214 MOLANNIDAE Wallengren, 1891, K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Handl. 24(10) : 116 wallengreni, Apatania, McLachlan, 1871, Ent. mon. Mag. 7 : 281 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (60)4 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. 586. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 21 September 1960 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 103 OPINION 587 CASERTANUM POLI, 1791, AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMEN CARDIUM CASERTANUM ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC NAMES (PELECYPODA) RULING.—The specific name casertanum Poli, 1791, as published in the binomen Cardium casertanum, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1713. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S8.) 500) On 9 November 1950, Mr. A. E. Ellis and Mr. H. B. Herrington jointly submitted an application to the Commission asking that the specific name casertanum Poli, 1791, (Cardium) be added to the Official List of Specific Names. This application was sent to the printer on 27 February 1959 and was published on 1 October 1959 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 43-44. No comments were received from any source. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 7 April 1960 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (60)5 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17: 44. At the close of the Voting Period on 7 July 1960 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order : Mayr, Vokes, Boschma, Holthuis, Hering, Riley, Lemche, Dymond, Uchida, do Amaral, Obruchev, Stoll, Key, Prantl, Mertens, Brinck, Cabrera, Jaczewski, Miller, Kiihnelt, Poll, Bonnet, Tortonese. Negative Votes—none (0). On Leave of Absence—one (1): Bradley. A late affirmative vote was returned by Commissioner Hemming. Dr. L. B. Holthuis, in a note on his voting paper, pointed out that para- graph 5(1) on page 44 is an unnecessary proposal since “ If Poli had a single specimen of his Cardium casertanum at his disposal when describing it, it is the holotype and no action of the Commission is needed to rule that the species is to be interpreted by reference to the figure of its holotype”. As a result of Dr. Holthuis’s remarks the point in question has been omitted from the Ruling in this case. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following is the original reference for the name added to the Official List by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : casertanum, Cardium, Poli, 1791, Testacea utriusque Siciliae 1, Bivalvia : 65, pl. 16, fig. 1. CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (60)5 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 Present Opinion No. 587. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 21 September 1960 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 2. April 1961. 104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 588 SPIRONTOCARIS BATE, 1888, ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA) RULING.—(1) The generic name Spirontocaris Bate, 1888 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Cancer spinus Sowerby, 1805, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1402. (2) The specific name spinus Sowerby, 1805, as published in the binomen Cancer spinus (type-species of Spirontocaris Bate, 1888) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1714. (3) The generic name Sowerbyus Hoek, 1887 (a nomen nudum) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1330. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 621) On 24 September 1951, Dr. L. B. Holthuis applied for the addition of the generic Spirontocaris Bate, 1888, to the Official List. Dr. Holthuis’s applica- tion was sent to the printer on 27 February 1959 and was published on 1 October 1959 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 45-46. No comment was received from any source. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 7 April 1960 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (60)6 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 45-46. At the close of the Voting Period on 7 July 1960 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order: Mayr, Vokes, Boschma, Holthuis, Jaczewski, Hering, Riley, Lemche, Dymond, Uchida, do Amaral, Obruchev, Stoll, Key, Prantl, Mertens, Brinck, Cabrera, Miller, Kiihnelt, Poll, Bonnet, Tortonese. Negative Votes—none (0). On Leave of Absence—one (1): Bradley. A late affirmative vote was returned by Commissioner Hemming. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the generic and specific names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in bai eee Opinion : Sowerbyus Hoek, 1887, Tijdschr. Nederl. dierk, Ver. (2)1 : spinus, Cancer, Sowerby, 1805, Brit. Miscell. 4 : 47 Spirontocaris Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy. Challenger (Zool.) 24 : 576, 595 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (60)6 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 Present Opinion No. 588. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 21 September 1960 Bull. zool. Nomenel., Vol. 18, Part 2. April 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 105 OPINION 589 BERAEA STEPHENS, 1833 (INSECTA, TRICHOPTERA) : DESIGNATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF A TYPE-SPECIES IN HARMONY WITH CURRENT USAGE RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers : (a) all designations of a type-species for the nominal genus Beraea Stephens, 1833, made prior to the present Ruling, are hereby set aside and the nominal species Thya maurus Curtis, 1834, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus ; (b) the specific name pygmaea Fabricius, 1798, as published in the binomen Phryganea pygmaea, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Beraea Stephens, 1833 (gender : feminine), type- species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above, Thya maurus Curtis, 1833, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1403. (3) The specific name maurus Curtis, 1833, as published in the binomen Thya maurus (type-species of Beraea Stephens, 1833), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1715. (4) The family name BERAEIDAE Wallengren, 1891 (type-genus Beraea Stephens, 1833) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 290. (5) The specific name pygmaea Fabricius, 1798, as published in the binomen Phryganea pygmaea (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 616. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 395) On 17 July 1949, Mr. D. E. Kimmins applied for the use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species in harmony with accustomed usage for the nominal genus Beraea Stephens, 1833, a genus based on a nomen dubium. Mr. Kimmins’s application was sent to the printer on 27 February 1959 and was published on 1 October 1959 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 32-34. Public Notice of the possible use of the 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 seven entomological serial publications. An alternative proposal was received from Professor Ernst Mayr on 10 October 1959 and was published in 15 December 1959 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 68 together with a provisional note by Mr. Kimmins. Support for Mr. Kimmins’s proposal was received from Dr. L. Botoséneanu and Dr. D. C. Denning (also published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 68) and from Dr. H. H. Ross (Illinois State Natural History Department, Urbana, Illinois, US.A.), Dr. G. B. Wiggins (Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada), and Dr. W. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 2. April 1961. 106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Dohler (Klingenberg a.M., Germany). The Commission was informed of further correspondence between Mr. Kimmins and the Secretary to the Commission in the following report which was sent to Members of the Commission on 7 April 1960 together with Voting Paper (60)2. “1. The object of this application (Bull. 17 : 32-4) is to give a sound basis to the species T'hya maurus Curtis, 1834, as type-species of Beraea by suppression of the doubtful name Phryganea pygmaea Fabricius, 1798. Professor Ernst Mayr has proposed (Bull. 17 : 68) that Mr. Kimmins designate the type- specimen of maurus to be the neotype of pygmaea. Acting upon this advice Mr. Kimmins borrowed the type-material of Thya maurus from the Melbourne Museum and has selected a lectotype for that species. The paper recording this selection is at present in press and will shortly be published in the Entomologists’ Gazette. Mr. Kimmins, however, in a letter to the Commission’s office dated 14 January objected to Professor Mayr’s proposal of a neotype designation for pygmaea in the following words :— “It certainly had not occurred to me that Ernst Mayr’s proposal involved the dropping of the well-known name maurus Curtis in favour of pygmaea Fabricius. I consider that this would be most undesirable and it was with the intention of safeguarding the current use of maurus Curtis that I made my original application to the Commission. “The more I consider the problem, the more I think that the name Phryganea pygmaea Fabricius should be suppressed in favour of Thya maurus Curtis. The Fabrician name has not been in general use for at least ninety years and the identity of pygmaea Fabricius has remained uncertain. McLachlan in 1879 considered it only a “ great probability ” that Fabricius had a species of Beraea before him when describing Phryganea pygmaea and, as stated in para. 2 of my application, he referred the name pygmaea doubtfully to pullata, not to maurus. ‘I do not know what other steps I could take to prove that the type of pygmaea is either lost or destroyed. There seems to be no point in enquiring from other known repositories of the Fabrician collection, since the specimen in question never was a part of that collection but of the Bose collection in Paris. “There is general agreement amongst Trichopterists as to what species Curtis’s maurus represents, and having examined his type-series, I shall be able to designate a lectotype in conformity with current usage of this name. I therefore do not propose to designate this lectotype as also the neotype of Phryganea pygmaea Fabricius and would prefer that the Commission should vote on my original proposal.’ “2. Mr. Kimmins’s application has been supported by L. Botosdneanu (Bull. 17 : 68), D. C. Denning (Bull. 17 : 68) and by H. H. Ross (Illinois State Natural History Department, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.), Dr. Walter Dohler (Frankfurt a.M., Germany) and G. B. Wiggins (Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada). ‘© 3. The Commission, therefore, has now to choose between Dr. Kimmins’s proposals as set out in Bull. 17 : 33-34, which will stabilise the nomenclature in its current usage, and Professor Mayr’s proposals which will have the opposite Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 107 effect. In order to adopt Professor Mayr’s proposal the Commission would have to take the following action :— (1) designate the lectotype of Thya maurus Curtis, 1834, to be the neotype of Phryganea pygmaea Fabricius, 1798 ; (2) place the generic name Beraea Stephens, 1833 (gender : feminine) type- species, by selection by Westwood, 1839, Phryganea pygmaea Fabricius, 1798 (as interpreted by the neotype designated in (1) above) on the Official List of Generic Names ; (3) place the specific name pygmaea Fabricius, 1798, as published in the binomen Phryganea pygmaea (type species of Beraea Stephens, 1834) on the Official List of Specific Names ; (4) place the specific name maurus Curtis, 1834, as published in the binomen Thya maurus (a junior objective synonym of Phryganea pygmaea Fabricius) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names ; (5) place the family name BERAEIDAE on the Official List of Family-Group Names. “4. The Voting Paper (60)2 therefore presents two alternatives. In part 1 Commissioners are asked to vote for or against the proposals made by Mr. Kimmins (involving the use of the plenary powers) and in part 2 Com- missioners are asked to vote either for or against the proposals made by Professor Mayr (not involving the use of the plenary powers).” DECISION OF THE COMMISSION Voting Paper (60)2 was circulated to Members of the Commission under the Three-Month Rule together with the above report on 7 April 1960. This Voting Paper was divided into two parts: Part 1 called for a vote either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 33-34; Part 2 called for an alternative vote for or against the proposals presented by Professor Mayr as set out in the above report. At the close of the Voting Period on 7 July 1960 the state of the voting was as follows : For Part 1—nineteen (19) votes, received in the following order: Mayr, Vokes, Boschma, Holthuis, Hering, Jaczewski, Riley, Lemche, Dymond, do Amaral, Obruchev, Uchida, Stoll, Key, Prantl, Kiihnelt, Poll, Bonnet, Tortonese ; For Part 2—two (2) votes : Mertens, Miller. Votes not returned—two (2): Brinck, Cabrera. Commissioner Hemming returned a late vote in favour of Part I. On Leave of Absence—one (1): Bradley. The following comments were sent by Commissioners with their votes : (a) Professor Ernst Mayr (19.iv.60).—After pointing out that he had added to his own proposals the qualifying phrase ‘‘ provided pygmaea had not become a nomen oblitum ”’, Professor Mayr wrote: ‘“‘ The original proposal by Kimmins was, of course, quite deficient because it gave the wrong reasons for the suppression of pygmaea Fabricius. It merely referred to it as a nomen dubium for reasons of the absence of the type (which is true of thousands of animals) but not that the name has not been used for 90 years or more. This should 108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature be made the key note of the suppression. If we suppress all names without type, a high percentage of the Linnean species would have to be suppressed ”’. (b) Dr. Per Brinck (23.iv.60)—‘“I have given no vote because of the following reasons : “T agree that it is not possible to identify with certainty the species Phryganea pygmaea Fabricius, 1798, on the basis of the description only. An examination of the typical material is necessary, as in many other similar cases. An official at the Paris Museum has been asked whether the type was still in existence, but has replied that ‘ it could not be traced ’. “From my own experience I know that such a reply does not say the whole truth. Such typical material should be sought for by a specialist of the group— or a specialist of Fabrician material. I refer to the fine detective work of Mrs. Ella Zimsen (Copenhagen) who for years has been gathering all data about the Fabrician collections and their contents. Amongst others, she visited Paris some time ago and found in the Bosc collection—specimens which had been said to be lost, e.g. Aphodius anachoreta. I am not ready to vote on this case until we know either that it is most probable that the typical material of Fabricius’s species is lost or destroyed or that this material has been refound and examined ”’. In reply to a letter from the Secretary of the Commission Mrs. Ella Zimsen informed us that she had not found any animal marked pygmaea in any collection of Fabrician material examined by her. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling in the present Opinion : Beraea Stephens, 1833, Nomen. Brit. Ins. (ed. 2) : 118 BERAEIDAE Wallengren, 1891, K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Handl. 24(10) : 111 maurus, Thya, Curtis, 1834, Lond. Edinb. phil. Mag. (3) & : 216 pygmaea, Phryganea, Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 202 The following is the original reference for the selection of a lectotype for a nominal species concerned in the present Ruling :— For Thya maurus Curtis, 1843 Kimmins, 1960, Entomologist’s Gazette 11(4) : 202-203 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (60)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. 589. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 21 September 1960 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 109 OPINION 590 APHROPHORA GERMAR, 1821 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA) : DESIGNA- TION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF A TYPE-SPECIES IN HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED USAGE RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of a type-species for the nominal genus Aphrophora Germar, 1821, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and the nominal species Cercopis alni Fallén, [1806], is hereby designated to be 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) Aphrophora Germar, 1821 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designa- tion under the plenary powers in (1) above Cercopis alni Fallén, [1806] (Name No. 1404) ; (b) Ptyelus Lepeletier & Serville, 1828 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation by China, 1951, Ptyelus ferrwmequinum Lepeletier & Serville, 1828 (Name No. 1405) ; (c) Philaenus Stal, 1864 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation by Van Duzee, 1917, Cicada spumaria Linnaeus, 1758 (Name No. 1406). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified :— (a) alni Fallén, [1806], as published in the binomen Cercopis alni (type- species of Aphrophora Germar, 1821) (Name No. 1716) ; (b) flavescens Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Tettigonia flavescens (Name No. 1717) ; (c) spumaria Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cicada spumaria, and as defined by the lectotype designated by Ossiannilsson, 1957 (type-species of Philaenus Stal, 1864) (Name No. 1718). (4) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified :— (a) APHROPHORIDAE (correction by Dohrn, 1859, of APHROPHORIDES) Amyot & Serville, 1843 (type-genus Aphrophora Germar, 1821) (Name No. 291) ; (b) PHILAENINI Metcalf, 1955 (type-genus Philaenus Stal, 1864) (Name No. 292) ; (c) PTYELINAE Fowler, 1897 (type-genus Ptyelus Lepeletier & Serville, 1828) (Name No. 293). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 478) On 14 September 1950, Dr. Frej Ossiannilsson applied for the use of the Commission’s plenary powers to designate a type-species for the genus Aphro- phora Germar, 1821, a genus based on a misidentified type-species. Dr. Ossiannilsson’s application was sent to the printer on 27 February 1959 and was published on 1 October 1959 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 39-42. Bull, zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 2. April 1961. 110 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 seven entomological serials. Dr. Ossiannilsson’s proposals were supported by Dr. W. Wagner and Mr. W. J. Le Quesne (published Bull. zool. Nomencel. 17 : 192) and by Dr. T. E. Moore (Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.) and Dr. Louise M. Russell (U.S. Dept. Agriculture, Washington, D.C.). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 31 May 1960 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (60)8 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 42. At the close of the Voting Period on 31 August 1960 the state of the voting was as follows :-— Affirmative Votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: Holthuis, Prantl, Mayr, Uchida, Brinck, Dymond, Hering, Riley, Obruchev, Lemche, Kihnelt, Bonnet, Miller, Vokes, Jaczewski, Stoll, Tortonese, do Amaral, Key, Mertens, Poll. Negative Votes—none (0). On leave of absence—one (1): Bradley. Votes not returned—two (2) : Boschma, Cabrera. A late affirmative vote was returned by Commissioner Hemming. Dr. K. H. L. Key, in a note on his voting paper, pointed out that it was unnecessary to use the plenary powers for the designation of a type-species for Ptyelus Lepeletier & Serville, since Dr. Ossiannilsson made a valid designation in his application to the Commission in 1959. Since Dr. Key wrote Dr. China has pointed out that the first valid designation of a type-species for Piyelus was his own designation (1951, Ent. mon. Mag. 87 : 279) of Ptyelus ferrumequinum Lepeletier & Serville. According to Sherborn and Woodward, 1906, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) 17 : 578, the date of publication of Volume 10 of the Encyclopédie Méthodique is 1828. The date of Ptyelus Lepeletier & Serville is therefore here given as 1828, not 1827 as in Dr. Ossiannilsson’s application. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— alni, Cercopis, Fallén, [1806], K. Vetensk.-Akad. nya Handl. 26(4) : 240-243 Aphrophora Germar, 1821, Mag. Ent. Germar. 4(1) : 48-50 APHROPHORIDAE (correction of APHROPHORIDES) Amyot & Serville, 1843, Hist. nat. Ins. Hémiptéres : 563 flavescens, Tettigonia, Fabricius, 1794, Ent. syst. 4 : 24 PHILAENINI Metcalf, 1955, J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 45 : 264 Philaenus Stal, 1864, Ent. Zig. Stettin 25 : 66 PTYELINAE Fowler, 1897, Biol. Cent.-Amer. (Homopt.) 2 : 174, 190-206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 111 Ptyelus Lepeletier & Serville, 1828, Ency. méth. (Ins.) 10 : 608 spumaria, Cicada, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 437. The following are the original references for the designation of a type-species for two of the nominal genera concerned in the present Ruling : For Ptyelus Lepeletier & Serville, 1828 China, 1951, Ent. mon. Mag. 87: 279 For Philaenus Stal, 1864 Van Duzee, 1917, Cat. Hempt. Amer. north of Mexico : 513 The following is the original reference for the designation of a lectotype for a nominal species concerned in the present Ruling : For Cicada spumaria Linnaeus, 1758 Ossiannilsson, 1957, Opuscula Entom. 22:1 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (60)8 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. 593. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 21 September 1960 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES FOR THE GENUS PHASIANELLA LAMARCK, 1804. Z.N.(S.) 1433 (See Volume 17, pages 341-343) By Robert Robertson (Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) I wish to record my support for the proposal by Dr. L. R. Cox that the International Commis- sion on Zoological Nomenclature use its “plenary powers to designate the nominal species Buccinum australe Gmelin, 1791, as type-species of the nominal genus Phasianella Lamarck, 1804 (Class Gastropoda).” I have already published a taxonomic study of the family Phasianellidae in the western Atlantic (May 1958, Johnsonia, vol. 3, no. 37, pp. 245-283, pls. 136-148) and I am presently engaged on a study of the Indo-Pacific species in the family. Adoption of Dr. Cox’s proposals would result in maintenance of usage. 112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 591 DEPRANELLA ULRICH, 1890 (CRUSTACEA, OSTRACODA) : EMENDED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS TO DREPANELLA RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the emendation to Drepanella of the generic name Depranella Ulrich, 1890, is hereby validated. (2) The generic name Drepanella (emend. of Depranella under the plenary powers) Ulrich, 1890 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation, Drepanella crassinoda (Ulrich), 1890, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1407. (3) The specific name crassinoda Ulrich, 1890, as published in the binomen Depranella crassinoda (type-species of Drepanella Ulrich, 1890) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1719. (4) The generic name Depranella Ulrich, 1890 (ruled under the plenary powers in (1) above to be an invalid original spelling for Drepanella) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1331. (5) The family-group name DREPANELLINAE Ulrich & Bassler, 1923 (type- genus Drepanella Ulrich, 1890) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 294. (6) The family-group name DEPRANELLINAE Howe, 1955 (type-genus Drepanella Ulrich, 1890) (an invalid spelling because the name of its type-genus has been emended under the plenary powers) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 327. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1112) The request for the emendation under the plenary powers of the generic name Depranella Ulrich was jointly submitted to the Commission on 28 April 1956 by Professor P. C. Sylvester-Bradley, Dr. H. W. Scott and Dr. J. N. Berdan. It was sent to the printer on 27 April 1959 and was published on 1 October 1959 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 47-48. Public Notice of the possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers in the present 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. No objection was received from any source. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 31 May 1960 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (60)9 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 48. At the close of the Voting Period on 31 August 1960 the state of the Voting was as follows :— Affirmative Votes—nineteen (19), received in the following order : Holthuis, Prantl, Mayr, Uchida, Brinck, Dymond, Hering, Riley, Obruchev, Jaczewski, Lemche, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Vokes, Stoll, Tortonese, do Amaral, Key, Mertens. Negative Votes—two (2): Miller, Poll. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 2. April 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 113 On Leave of Absence—one (1): Bradley. Voting Papers not returned—two (2) : Boschma, Cabrera. A late affirmative vote was returned by Commissioner Hemming. Dr. Poll gave reasons for his negative vote as follows : “1. Parce que les régles de priorité doivent étre respectées surtout pour des cas aussi clairs. 2. Parce qu’on ne peut donner tort 4 Howe d’avoir correctement interpréte ces régles. 3. Parce que je pense qu’il n’y a pas lieu de faire appel ici aux pleins pouvoirs de la Commission ”’. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : crassinoda, Depranella, Ulrich, 1890, J. Cincinnati Soc. nat. Hist. : Lis, Pi 8: figs. la, b, ¢. Depranella Ulrich, 1890 (an invalid original spelling for Drepanella) DEPRANELLIDAE Howe, 1955, Handbook of Ostracod Taxonomy : 61 Drepanella Ulrich, 1890, J. Cincinnati Soc. nat. Hist. : 117, 118. DREPANELLINAE Ulrich & Bassler, 1923, Maryland geol. Surv. Silurian Vol. : 308. CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (60)9 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. 591. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 21 September 1960 114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 592 REJECTION OF BERTRAND, 1763, DICTIONNAIRE UNIVERSEL DES FOSSILES PROPRES ET DES FOSSILES ACCIDENTELS RULING.—(A) It is hereby ruled that E. Bertrand in the work entitled “ Dictionnaire Universel des Fossiles Propres et des Fossiles Accidentels ”’, published at The Hague in 1763, did not adopt the principles of binominal nomenclature and therefore no name acquired the status of availability by reason of being published in that work. (B) The undermentioned entry is hereby made on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature with the Title No. 63:— Bertrand (E.), 1763, Dictionnaire Universel des Fossiles Propres et des Fossiles Accidentels (rejected for nomenclatorial purposes because the author did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature) ; (C) The following generic names, published in a work rejected for nomen- clatorial purposes, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified :— Acanthiodos Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 1) (Name No. 1332) ; Alcyonia Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 14) (Name No. 1333) ; Port Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 14) (Name No. 1334) ; Arquatula Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 53) (Name No. 1335) ; Astacopodium Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 60) (Name No. 1336) ; Corallium Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 60) (Name No. 1337) ; Astropodium Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 62) (Name No. 1338) ; Astrorrhisa Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 62) (Name No, 1339) ; Stellarum Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 62) (Name No. 1340) ; Auricularia Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 62) (Name No. 1341) ; Balenosteon Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 64) (Name No. 1342); Xylosteon Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 64) (Name No. 1343) ; Belemnites Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 65) (Name No. 1344) ; Soldat. [us] Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 89) (Name No. 1345) ; Bidentula Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 90) (Name No. 1346) ; Brissoides Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 104) (Name No. 1347) ; Brissus Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 104) (Name No. 1348) ; Bufonites Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 105) (Name No. 1349) ; Buglossa Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 106) (Name No. 1350) ; Calamus Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 111) (Names No. 1351) ; Calopodium Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 14) (Name No. 1352) ; Capsularia Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 115) (Name No. 1353) ; Carcinopodium Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 115) (Name No. 1354) ; Forficula Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 115) (Name No. 1355) ; Carina Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 115) (Name No. 1356) ; Carinula Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 115) (Name No. 1357); Ceramites Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 120) (Name No. 1358) ; Cidaris Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 131) (Name No. 1359) ; Cymbium Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 143) (Name No. 1360) ; Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 2. April 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Bulimus Bertrand, 1753 (1 : 143) (Name No. 1361) ; Coretus Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 143) (Name No. 1362) ; Pedipes Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 143) (Name No. 1363) ; Cochlea Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 143) (Name No. 1364) ; Yetus Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 143) (Name No. 1365) ; Terebra Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 143) (Name No. 1366) ; Porcellana Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 143) (Name No. 1367) ; Peribolus Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 143) (Name No. 1368) ; Purpura Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 143) (Name No. 1369) ; Cerithium Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 143) (Name No. 1370) ; Vermetus Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 143) (Name No. 1371) ; Natica Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 143) (Name No. 1372) ; Ostreum Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 143) (Name No. 1373) ; Jataronus Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 143) (Name No. 1374) ; Perna Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 143) (Name No. 1375) ; Petunculus Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 143) (Name No. 1376) ; Corticularia Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 162) (Name No. 1377) ; Crocodilus Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 183) (Name No. 1378) ; Ctenites Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 183) (Name No. 1379) ; Cultellaria Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 187) (Name No. 1380) ; Ophiodontes Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 192) (Name No. 1381) ; Epiphiaria Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 202) (Name No. 1382) ; Falcatula Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 210) (Name No. 1383) ; Galeatula Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 244) (Name No. 1384) ; Gammarolithus Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 244) (Name No. 1385) ; Gammarolites Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 244) (Name No. 1386) ; Glandularia Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 245) (Name No. 1387 ); Gobio Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 250) (Name No. 1388) ; Grazirrhinchus Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 253) (Name No. 1389) ; Haliotites Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 259) (Name No. 1390) ; Hamellus Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 259) (Name No. 1391); Haeratula Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 263) (Name No. 1392) ; Hippurites Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 263) (Name No. 1393) ; Iimaculum Bertrand, 1763 (1 : 280) (Name No. 1394) ; Malacostraca Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 3) (Name No. 1395) ; Porus Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 44) (Name No. 1396) ; Mytiloides Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 61) (Name No. 1397) ; Musica Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 66) (Name No. 1398) ; Onychites Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 80) (Name No. 1399) ; Unguis Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 80) (Name No. 1400) ; Ornitoglossum Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 87) (Name No. 1401) ; Ostracia Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 92) (Name No. 1402) ; Ostracites Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 92) (Name No. 1403) ; Ostreites Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 92) (Name No. 1404) ; Iithostreon Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 92) (Name No. 1405) ; Limnostracites Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 92) (Name No. 1406) ; istronites Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 92) (Name No. 1407) ; 115 116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Ovarium Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 100) (Name No. 1408) ; Carduus Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 100) (Name No. 1409) ; Aurantium Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 100) (Name No. 1410) ; Scolopendrites Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 100) (Name No. 1411) ; Ombrias Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 100) (Name No. 1412) ; Brontias Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 100) (Name No. 1413) ; Buffonita Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 100) (Name No. 1414) ; Pileus Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 100) (Name No. 1415) ; Galea Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 100) (Name No. 1416) ; Hystrix Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 100) (Name No. 1417) ; Echinites Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 102) (Name No. 1418) ; Latoclythus Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 103) (Name No. 1419) ; Conoideus Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 103) (Names No. 1420) ; Conulus Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 103) (Name No. 1421) ; Echinometrites Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 103) (Name No. 1422) ; Globulus Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 103) (Name No. 1423) ; Placenta Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 103) (Name No. 1424) ; Laganum Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 103) (Name No. 1425) ; Melita Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 103) (Name No. 1426) ; Rotula Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 103) (Name No. 1427) ; Scutum Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 104) (Name No. 1428) ; Cor Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 104) (Name No. 1429) ; Pleurocystus Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 104) (Name No. 1430) ; Patellites Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 107) (Name No. 1431) ; Pectonculites Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 108) (Name No. 1432) ; Pentacrinos Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 109) (Name No. 1483) ; Pentaphyllites Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 109) (Name No. 1434) ; Pholadites Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 117) (Name No. 1485) ; Pes Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 122) (Name No. 1436) ; Pinnularia Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 128) (Name No. 1437) ; Plagiostomos Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 128) (Name No. 1438) ; Platyrrhynchus Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 130) (Name No. 1439) ; Plectronites Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 130) (Name No. 1440) ; Plectronita Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 130) (Name No. 1441) ; Porpites Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 137) (Name No. 1442) ; Portellaria Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 137) (Name No. 1443) ; Psetites Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 147) (Name No. 1444) ; Pseudocorallium Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 147) (Name No. 1445) ; Ceration Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 147) (Name No. 1446) ; Quadrella Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 150) (Name No. 1447) ; Quinquevalvula Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 154) (Name No. 1448) ; Retepora Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 155) (Name No. 1449) ; Retes Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 155) (Name No. 1450) ; Rhombiscus Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 157) (Name No. 1451); Rhombites Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 157) (Name No. 1452) ; Ryncolithus Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 157) (Name No. 1453) ; Ricinus Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 157) (Name No. 1454) ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 117 Rostrago Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 159) (Name No. 1455) ; Plectorites Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 159) (Name No. 1456) ; Rutellum Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 160) (Name No. 1457) ; Sacculus Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 164) (Name No. 1458) ; Saponella Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 174) (Name No. 1459) ; Scalpellus Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 174) (Name No. 1460) ; Scapula Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 174) (Name No. 1461) ; Scapularia Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 174) (Name No. 1462) ; Scopula Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 176) (Name No. 1463) ; Scutulum Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 176) (Name No. 1464) ; Serratula Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 185) (Name No. 1465) ; Serrella Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 185) (Name No. 1466) ; Siliquastrum Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 185) (Name No. 1467) ; Solearia Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 186) (Name No. 1468) ; Spatagoides Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 190) (Name No. 1469) ; Spatangus Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 190) (Name No. 1470) ; Spongiolithes Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 198) (Name No. 1471) ; Strigosula Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 205) (Name No. 1472) ; Sulcatula Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 209) (Name No. 1473) ; Tridentula Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 229) (Name No. 1474) ; Trigonella Bertrand, 1763 (2 : 229) (Name No. 1475). (D) The following specific names, published in a work rejected for nomen- clatorial purposes, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified :— corallofungitae Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Alcyonia corallo- fungitae (1 : 14) (Name No. 617) ; lapidei Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Pori lapidei (1 : 14) (Name No. 618) ; Noachi Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Arca Noachi (1 : 42) (Name No. 619); punctata Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Arquatula punctata (1 : 53) (Name No. 620) ; columnares Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Asterias columnares (1 : 60) (Name No. 621) ; Stellatum Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Coralliwm Stellatum (1 : 60) (Name No. 622) ; modiolus Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Stellarum modiolus (1 : 62) (Name 623) ; lamellatum Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Xylosteon lamellatum (1 : 64) (Name No. 624) ; Cancellius Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Soldat.[us] Cancellius (1 : 89) (Name No. 625) ; Indicus Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Calamus Indicus (1 : 111) (Name No. 626) ; petrefactus Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Crocodilus petrefactus (1 : 183) (Name No. 627) ; 118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Melitenses Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Ophiodontes Melitenses (1 : 192) (Name No. 628) ; corallinus Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Hippurites corallinus (1 : 263) (Name No. 629) ; anguineus Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Porus anguineus (2 : 44) (Name No. 630) ; lapideus Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Mytilus lapideus (2 : 61) (Name No. 631) ; lapideus Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Unguis lapideus (2 : 80) (Name No. 632) ; marinus Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Carduus marinus (2 : 100) (Name No. 6383) ; marinum Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Awrantium marinum (2 : 100) (Name No. 634) ; mammillaris Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen LFchinites mammillaris (2 : 102) (Name No. 635) ; ovarius Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Echinites ovarius (2 : 102) (Name No. 636) ; . Rotularis Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Echinites Rotularis (2 : 102) (Name No. 637) ; Clypeatus Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Echinites Clypeatus (2 : 102) (Name No. 638) ; Histrix Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Echinites Histrix (2 : 102) (Name No. 639) ; mammillaris Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Cidaris mam- millaris (2 : 102) (Name No. 640) ; coronalis Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Echinites coronalis (2 : 102) (Name No. 641) ; miliaris Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Cidaris miliaris (2 : 102) (Name No. 642) ; variolata Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Cidaris variolata (2 : 102) (Name No. 648) ; mammillata Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Cidaris mam- millata (2 : 102) (Name No. 644) ; mauri Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Cidaris mauri (2 : 102) (Name No. 645) ; assulata Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Cidaris assulata (2 : 102) (Name No. 646) ; fibularis Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Echinites fibularis (2 : 103) (Name No. 647) ; galeatus Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Echinites galeatus (2 : 103) (Name No. 648) ; discoideus Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Echinites discoideus (2 : 103) (Name No. 649) ; spatagoideus Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Echinites spata- goideus (2 : 104) (Name No. 650) ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 119 cordatus Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Echinites cordatus (2 : 104) (Name No. 651) ; marinum Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Cor marinum (2 : 104) (Name No. 652) ; Lachmundi Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Pentacrinos Lachmundi (2 : 109) (Name No. 653) ; Aldrovandi Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Pentaphyllites Aldrovandi (2 : 109) (Name No. 654) ; asini Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Pes asini (2 : 122) (Name No. 655) ; depressus Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Echinites depressus (2 : 128) (Name No. 656) ; marina Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Retes marina (2 : 155) (Name No. 657) ; linteiformis Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Eschara linteiformis (2 : 155) (Name No. 658) ; vulgaris Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Scapula vulgaris (2 : 174) (Name No. 659) ; littoralis Bertrand, 1763, as published in the binomen Scopula littoralis (2 : 176) (Name No. 660). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(8.) 1185) Mr. R. V. Melville submitted the present proposals to the Commission’s office on 5 January 1957 after some preliminary correspondence with Mr. Hemming, then Secretary to the Commission. The application was sent to the printer on 2 February 1959 and was published on 1 October 1959 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 49-53. No comment was received from any source. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 31 May 1960 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (60)10 either for or against the proposals in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17:50. At the end of the prescribed Voting Period on 31 August 1960 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order : Holthuis, Prantl, Mayr, Uchida, Brinck, Dymond, Hering, Riley, Obruchev, Lemche, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Miller, Vokes, Jaczewski, Stoll, Tortonese, do Amaral, Key, Mertens, Poll. Negative Votes—none (0). Leave of Absence—one (1) : Bradley. Voting Papers not returned—two (2) : Boschma, Cabrera. A late affirmative vote was returned by Commissioner Hemming. With reference to paragraph 3 of Mr. Melville’s application, Dr. K. H. L. Key wrote on his Voting Paper : “I take the view that when a work is rejected for nomenclatorial purposes, no name or act included in it is available, no matter what its rank, unless specifically exempted under the plenary powers,” 120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ORIGINAL REFERENCES All the names placed on Official Indexes in the Ruling given in the present Opinion were published by Bertrand, 1763, Dictionnaire Universel des Fossiles Propres et de Fossiles Accidentels. The volume and page number for each name is given in the Ruling. CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (60)10 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 Present Opinion No. 592. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 21 September 1960 COMMENT ON REQUEST FOR A RULING AS TO WHETHER LICHAS ARANEA HOLZAPFEL, 1895, IS TO BE TREATED AS A HOMONYM OF LICHAS ARANEUS LINDSTROM, 1885. Z.N.(S.) 1155 (See Volume 17, pages 233-234) By J. T. Temple (Birkbeck College, London) I favour Alternative B in Mr. Tripp’s application for a ruling on Lichas aranea Holzapfel, 1895, and Lichas araneus Lindstrom, 1885. It is possible that the former specific name was intended as a noun in apposition and the latter as an adjective, but the case for their both being adjectival appears equally strong, and this uncertainty regarding the two authors’ intentions can never be resolved. In the absence of overwhelming evidence against the adjectival interpretation and since both names clearly refer to the same Latin word in one of its several grammatical forms, I am in favour of regarding them as homonyms. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 121 OPINION 593 WESTENOCERAS FOERSTE, 1924 (CEPHALOPODA): EMENDED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS TO WESTONOCERAS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby directed that of the two original spellings used by Foerste in 1924 for a generic name based upon the surname of T. C. Weston, the spelling Westonoceras be accepted as the valid original spelling. (2) The generic name Westonoceras (emend. under the plenary powers of Westenoceras) Foerste, 1924 (gender : neuter), type-species, by original designa- tion, Cyrtoceras manitobense Whiteaves, 1890, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1408. (3) The specific name manitobense Whiteaves, 1890, as published in the binomen Cyrtoceras manitobense (type-species of Westonoceras Foerste, 1924) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1720. (4) The generic name Westenoceras Foerste, 1924 (ruled under the plenary powers to be an invalid original spelling for Westonoceras) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1476. (5) The family name WESTONOCERATIDAE Teichert, 1933 (type-genus Westonoceras Foerste, 1924) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 295. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1226) The present case was submitted to the Commission on 15 May 1957 by Professor R. C. Moore on behalf of Dr. Rousseau H. Flower and Dr. Curt Teichert. After some amendment it was sent to the printer on 27 February 1959 and was published on 1 October 1959 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 54-55. Public Notice of the possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers in the present 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. No comment was received from any source. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 31 May 1960 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (60)11 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17:55. At the end of the prescribed Voting Period on 31 August 1960 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative votes—eighteen (18), received in the following order : Holthuis, Prantl, Mayr, Uchida, Brinck, Dymond, Hering, Riley, Obruchev, Lemche, Kihnelt, Bonnet, Vokes, Jaczewski, Stoll, Tortonese, do Amaral, Key. Negative vote—three (3) : Miller, Mertens, Poll. Bull, zool, Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 2, April 1961. 122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Votes not returned—two (2): Boschma, Cabrera. Leave of Absence—one (1) : Bradley. A late affirmative vote was returned by Commissioner Hemming. Dr. M. Poll, in a note on his voting paper, gave the reasons for his negative vote as follows: “1. parce que la description originale a été établie sous le nom de Westenoceras ; 2. parce que Foerste en 1926 a selectionné le méme nom ; 3. Foerste n’a pas explicitement dédié le nom a T. C. Weston.” ORIGINAL REFERENCES manitobense, Cyrtoceras, Whiteaves, 1890, Proc. Trans. roy. Soc. Canada 7(4) : 80 Westenoceras Foerste, 1924 (an invalid original spelling for Westonoceras) Westonoceras Foerste, 1924, Denison Univ. Bull. Sci. Lab. J. 20 : 196, 253-4 WESTONOCERATIDAE Teichert, 1933, Palaeontographica 78, Abt. A : 216 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (60)11 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. 593. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 21 September 1960 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES FOR THE GENUS NORELLA BITTNER, 1890. Z.N.(S.) 1445 (See Volume 17, pages 349-350) By Alan Wood (Department of Geology, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth) With regard to the proposal to use the plenary powers to designate Rhynchonella refractifrons as the type-species of Norella, I am in complete agreement with the action proposed by Dr. D. V. Ager. In this case strict adherence to the Rules of Nomenclature would create a very great degree of confusion. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 123 OPINION 594. SACCHARIVORA (PHALAENA) PETERKIN , 1790 (INSECTA, LEPI- DOPTERA) : SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name saccharivora Peterkin, 1790, as published in the binomen Phalaena saccharivora, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Diatraea Guilding, 1828 (gender : feminine), type- species, by monotypy, Diatraea sacchari Guilding, 1828, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1409. (3) The specific name saccharalis Fabricius, 1794, as published in the bi- nomen Phalaena saccharalis, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1721. (4) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Diatrea Guilding, 1828 (an incorrect original spelling for Diatraea) (Name No. 1477) ; (b) Diaraetria Grote, 1882 (an erroneous subsequent spelling for Diatraea Guilding, 1828) (Name No. 1478). (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) saccharivora Peterkin, 1790, as published in the binomen Phalaena saccharivora (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) (Name No. 651) ; (b) sacchari Fabricius, 1798, as published in the binomen Crambus sacchari (a junior objective synonym of Phalaena saccharalis Fabricius, 1794) (Name No. 652). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1315) The application to suppress under the plenary powers the specific name saccharivora Peterkin, 1790, was received from Mr. Harold E. Box on 3 March 1958. As a result of further correspondence with the Commission’s office it was considerably amended and was finally sent to the printer on 27 February 1959 and published on 1 October 1959 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 56-60. Public Notice of the possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers in the present 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 seven entomological serial publications. Support for Mr. Box’s proposals was received from T. W. Kirkpatrick (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 75); F. D. Bennett and F. H. Simmonds, C. E. Pemberton, J. R. Metcalfe, E. L. Martin (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 223) ; J. H. Kuchlein, L. C. Scaramuzza (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 230); M. H. Breese, R. H. Zwaluwenberg, F. Fernandez, P. Guiagliumi, W. Szumlowski, N. J. Angeles, C. J. Rosales and R. Lichy (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 240). Bull. zool, Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 2. April 1961. 124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 31 May 1960 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (60)12 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 60. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 31 August 1960 the state of the voting was as follows :— Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: Holthuis, Prantl, Mayr, Uchida, Brinck, Dymond, Hering, Riley, Obruchev, Jaczewski, Lemche, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Miller, Vokes, Stoll, Tortonese, do Amaral, Key, Mertens, Poll. Negative votes—none (0). Leave of Absence—one (1): Bradley. Votes not returned—two (2): Boschma, Cabrera. A late affirmative vote was returned by Commissioner Hemming. 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 : Diaraetria Grote, 1882, New Check List N. American Moths: 56 Diatraea Guilding, 1828, Trans. Soc. Encour. Arts 46 : 148-149, 1 pl. Diatrea Guilding, 1828 (an invalid original spelling for Diatraea) saccharalis, Phalaena, Fabricius, 1794, Ent. syst. 3(2) : 238 sacchari, Crambus, Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 469 saccharivora, Phalaena, Peterkin, 1790, A Treatise on Planting . . . (ed. 2) : 6-10 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (60)12 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. 594. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistani Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 21 September 1960 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 125 OPINION 595 INTERPRETATION OF THE NOMINAL SPECIES UNIO PHILLIPSII WILLIAMSON, 1836 (PELECYPODA) RULING.—(1) It is hereby directed that the nominal species Unio phillipsii Williamson, 1836, is to be interpreted by reference to specimen No. L10106 in the Geological Department of the Manchester Museum, England. (2) The generic name Anthraconauta Pruvost, 1930 (gender: masculine), type-species by original designation, Unio phillipsii Williamson, 1836, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1410. (3) The specific name phillipsii Williamson, 1836, as published in the binomen Unio phillipsii, and interpreted by reference to specimen L10106 in the Geological Department of the Manchester Museum, England (type- species of Anthroconauta Pruvost, 1930) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1722. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1398) The present case arose from a letter dated 12 January 1959, from D. J. Weir to the office of the Commission concerned with the status of the specific name Unio phillipsii. An application to the Commission was prepared and was sent to the printer on 27 February 1959 and was published on 1 October 1959 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 61-64. Dr. Weir’s proposals were supported by Dr. R. M. C. Eagar (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 64) ; Dr. M. A. Calver (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 75) ; Dr. L. R. Cox (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 162) ; Prof. P. Pruvost, Dr. A. Pastiels, Dr. E. Paproth, Dr. T. N. George (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 188). No adverse comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 31 May 1960 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (60)13 either for or against the proposals published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 64. At the end of the prescribed Voting Period on 31 August 1960 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: Holthuis, Prantl, Mayr, Uchida, Brinck, Dymond, Hering, Riley, Obruchev, Jaczewski, Lemche, Miller, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Vokes, Stoll, Tortonese, do Amaral, Key, Mertens, Poll. Negative Votes—none (0). Leave of Absence—one (1): Bradley. Votes not returned—two (2) : Boschma, Cabrera. A late affirmative vote was returned by Commissioner Hemming. The following comments were sent by Commissioners with their votes :— Dr. Per Brinck (16.vi.60). ‘I am voting for the proposal with some doubt, since I think the wording ‘ the . . . species . . . is to be interpreted by reference to specimen No. L10106’ means a type-selection de facto though not de jure and this is an unfortunate solution of the problem. The inter- pretation (by Mr. Weir) is certainly fully justified.” Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 2. April 1961. 126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Dr. K. H. L. Key (9.viii.60). “I consider that the ruling to be given in response to Dr. Weir’s request should be a ruling ‘ that the specimen No. L10106 in the Geological Department of the Manchester Museum, England, is to be deemed a syntype of the nominal species Unio phillipsii Williamson, 1836, and is hereby selected as the lectotype of that nominal species ’. “The difficulty arises only through the uncertainty as to whether the specimen generally treated as the single type can be accepted as a member of the type-series, and it is an affirmative ruling on that point that is primarily required. If the action of any earlier author can be held to qualify as a valid lectotype selection once the specimen L10106 has been ruled to be a syntype, then the selection of a lectotype by the Commission may not be necessary. Similarly, it would be possible to leave the lectotype selection to Dr. Weir once the Commission had ruled on the syntype situation. However, the problem would perhaps be most simply and directly resolved by a ruling on both points, as suggested above.””? ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists in the Ruling given in the present Opinion : Anthraconauta Pruvost, 1930, Mém. Mus. Hist. nat. Belg. 44 : 247 phillipsii, Unio, Williamson, 1836, Phil. Mag. (3)9 : 350-351 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (60)13 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 Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 595. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 21 September 1960 1J7t seems to me desirable here to put on record my reason for not inviting Commissioners to take action along the lines suggested by Dr. Per Brink or Dr. Key. Clearly the Commission has the power to take such action. It is my belief, however, that it would prefer to leave the task of selecting lectotypes or neotypes in any group to specialists in that group, rather than to usurp a competence which I feel sure it would not wish to claim. N. D. Ritry. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 127 OPINION 596 CHAETOPTERYX STEPHENS, 1829 (INSECTA, TRICHOPTERA) : ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY RULING.—(1) The generic name Chaetopteryx Stephens, 1829 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Phryganea villosa Fabricius, 1798, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1411. (2) The following specific names are hereby added to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified :— (a) villosa Fabricius, 1798, as published in the binomen Phryganea villosa (type-species of Chaetopteryx Stephens, 1829) (Name No. 1723) ; (b) brevipennis Curtis, 1834, as published in the binomen Limnephilus brevipennis (Name No. 1724) ; HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 426) On 17 July 1949, Mr. D. E. Kimmins sent to the Secretary of the Commission a statement, for submission to the Commission, on Chaetopteryx Stephens, 1837, a genus based on a misidentified type-species. Mr. Kimmins later amended his application as he discovered that Stephens first published the name Chaeto- pteryx in 1829, and that this genus was based on a single species which was correctly identified. Mr. Kimmins application was sent to the printer on 27 February 1959 and was published on 1 October 1959 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 35-36. Support for Mr. Kimmins’s proposals was received from Dr. L. Botoséneanu and Dr. D. C. Denning (published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 68) and from Dr. H. H. Ross (Illinois State Natural History Division, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) and Dr. G. B. Wiggins (Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada). No objection was received from any source. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 7 April 1960, the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (60)3 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 36. At the close of the Voting Period on 7 July 1960 the state of the voting was as follows :— Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order : Mayr, Vokes, Boschma, Holthuis, Hering, Jaczewski, Riley, Lemche, Dymond, Uchida, do Amaral, Obruchev, Stoll, Key, Prantl, Mertens, Brinck, Cabrera, Miller, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Tortonese, Poll. Negative Votes—none (0). On Leave of Absence—one (1): Bradley. A late affirmative vote was returned by Commissioner Hemming. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 2. April 1961. 128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature During the preparation of this Opinion it was discovered that the generic name Phacopteryx Kolenati, 1848, placed on the Official List by the vote given on Voting Paper (60)3, is now generally considered to be a junior subjective synonym of Anabolia Stephens, 1837. The Members of the Commission were informed of this fact in a letter from the Secretary dated 12 September 1960. The Secretary proposed that all reference to the generic name Phacopteryx should be omitted from the Ruling of the Opinion and asked any Commissioner who objected to this procedure to communicate with the Secretary of the Commission before 12 October 1960. No such objection was received. Phacopteryx remains available for use by those taxonomists who do not consider it to be a synonym of Anabolia Stephens. 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 : brevipennis, Limnephilus, Curtis, 1834, Lond. Edinb. phil. Mag. (3) 4(2) : 125 Chaetopteryx Stephens, 1828, Nomen. brit. Ins. : 28 villosa, Phryganea, Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 200 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (60)3 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 present Opinion No. 596. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 17 October 1960 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 129 COMMENTS ON PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE NAMES OF THE SPECIES OF THE TIPULA OLERACEA GROUP. Z.N.(S.) 896 (See Vol. 17, pages 209-213) By Ake Borg (Statens vdxtskyddsanstalt, Skara, Sweden) The proposals by 7'jeder (1953) and by Hemmingsen and Lemche (1960) to bring order and system in the confusion about the nomenclature of the North European species belonging to the Tipula oleracea group will be received with satisfaction. Tjeder, and Hemmingsen and Lemche have, however, come to different results on the nomenclature problem. Here I am interested only in the question: which species was meant by Linné by Tipula oleracea? Is the interpretation by Tjeder or that by Hemmingsen and Lemche the most robable ? Since Linné (1758, 1761) stated that the larvae of Tipula oleracea occur as pests it is proper to investigate the discussed question also from the biological and applied entomological point of view. The three species will be designated in the same manner as in the proposal by Hemmingsen and Lemche, as follows : according to: Tjeder Hemmingsen and Lemche (1960) Sp. A ... see T. submendosa Tj. T. oleracea L. Sp. B ... ey T. oleracea L. T. paludosa Meig. Sp. Go... oe T. subcunctans Alex. T. czizeki de Jong The known distribution of the three species in Sweden: sp. A is recorded only from a few places in Skane (the southernmost province of Sweden) ; sp. B is very common in the Southern and Central Sweden whereas sp. C is a rare species known from isolated places spread throughout almost the whole of Sweden. Sp. B is the most common and the quite predominant species of those belonging to the Tipula oleracea group in Sweden. Its larvae are common pests on organic soils but also on other soilsrichin humus. Both agricultural and garden crops are damaged. The attacks are common in pastures, spring grain, cruciferous crops, etc. The other two species within the group, species A and C, have not yet been recorded as pests in Sweden with certainty. In the nineteen-fifties severe attacks by leatherjackets occurred in Sweden (Borg, 1951, 1952). Larvae were collected during a couple of years from different places for emergences. Serious infestations occurred in the years 1950-53 and 1957. Among the species of the Tipula oleracea group only sp. B was found during these years. Heavy attacks by leatherjackets occurred in 1951-52 also in Denmark. These attacks were caused by sp. B (Tipula paludosa Meig.) here too. (Manedsovers. over plantesygdomme, Statens Plantepat. forseg; nr 317-318, 1951; nr 323-324, 1952.) Forsslund (1854) reported damage by leatherjackets on coniferous plants in Sweden in 1953. These infestations were, however, caused not by any of the species of the Tipula oleracea group but by Nephrotoma cornicina. Within that part of Sweden which comprises my working area (Vastergétland, Dalsland and Bohuslin= Western Sweden) only sp. B and C of the Tipula oleracea group have been recorded as yet. Sp. C. was seen for the first time in this part of the country in 1953 when I caught one specimen (female) at Skara in a light trap, which had been put up for catching Tipulids. The second time the species was recorded from Vastergétland was in October 1959 when a large flight and oviposition of sp. C was observed. The eggs or the newly emerged larvae cannot, however, have developed normally. No larvae at all were found in the limited area where the oe took place the autumn before in spite of investigations during the spring and summer 1 In earlier Swedish reports about infestations by crane flies it is, as also happens in the international literature, difficult to get sure information about which species of the pest was in fact observed. Notini (1946) mentioned, in his investigations about the crow (Corvus cornizx L.), the behaviour of the bird to the leatherjackets. The infestations, which had been observed by Notini, were caused foremost by the species B, but Notini mentioned observations also of sp. A, sometimes in large numbers (p. 66). The investigations of Notini were carried out especially in Halland and Bohuslin. At the time of his investigations Notini was attached to the Swedish State Plant Protection Institute in Stockholm, but in the Tipulid-collection of the Institute sp. A is not represented. The reports of Notini that sp. A was found during the infestations have not been confirmed later. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 2, April 1961. 130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Among crane flies of the Tipula oleracea group Tullgren (1929) includes only “ 7’. oleracea L.”’. According to Tullgren 7’. paludosa Meig. is a synonym of 7. cleracea L. In a footnote (p. 597) he refers to de Jong (1925) and states that according to the nomenclature of the latter the Swedish economic species is 7’. paludosa Meig. = sp. B. This is also confirmed by the figure of 7’. oleracea L., published by Tullgren (p. 596). In early references the well-known Swedish entomologist Lampa (1900) described infestations by leatherjackets in 1899. Lampa received larvae from Skane and the species which emerged was named “‘ Tipula oleracea L.”’. Lampa also studied the habits of the species. From collected larvae the Tipulids emerged between August 8 and 20. The oviposition began immediately after the emergence. Eggs, which were laid on August 17 hatched on September 5. The larvae hibernated and Lampa suggested that they pupated in July. The species studied by Lampa belonged indubitably to the Tipula oleracea group and his description both of the insect (and also the figure) and its biology shows that it must have been sp. B, which Lampa called Tipula oleracea L. Of species belonging to the Tipula oleracea group only sp. B has been recorded with certainty in Sweden as a pest, as shown above, though several entomologists have made special studies of the problem at different times and in different parts of Sweden. If it is assumed that by Tipula oleracea Linné meant one of the species A, B, C, and that their distribution and abundance in Sweden was the same in the time of Linné as in, e.g. the period 1900-1960, it must be clear that Tipula oleracea L., whose larva lived in vegetable gardens, was in fact sp. B. If by Tipula oleracea Linné meant sp. A or sp. C, the Tipulid-fauna of Sweden must have changed, which possibility, naturally, cannot be left out of account. Are there then any probabilities, which would indicate that the species within the Tipula oleracea group had another distribution and abundance in the time of Linné than in our time ? As mentioned by Tjeder the Tipulid collection of Prof. J. W. Zetterstedt from the middle of the nineteenth century is to be found in the University Museum of Lund. Among Tipulids of the Tipula oleracea group ten are labelled ‘“‘ 7’. oleracea” and two “ T. paludosa”. These twelve specimens are all sp. B. Of other Tipulids of the group there is only one (in one specimen), which, according to Tjeder represents sp. A. The last-named specimen was collected in Skane, June 1853 and is without a species-label. In the latter half of the eighteenth century a priest named Clas Bierkander worked in Vastergétland (Borg, 1958). He had been a pupil of Linné and published nearly 50 papers about, inter alia, applied entomology (Kungl. Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar 1773-95). Appropriately Bierkander has been named the real pioneer of applied entomology in Sweden. Among other things Bierkander (1779) showed the occurrence of Tipulid larvae as important pests in Vastergétland. He reported that fields of wheat, rye and barley often were attacked seriously. Bierkander named the species “‘ Tipula oleracea (Fauna Svecica 1740)”. He wrote : “ Masken gick 1777 d. 5 Augusti til puppa, utur hvilken d. 16: de i samma manad, Tipula framkom ...” (That is: “‘ the larva pupated on August 5 in 1777, on the 16th in the same month the Tipula emerged ”’). During the years 1951-53 I collected Tipulid larvae from attacked fields in Vastergétland for emerging and determination. Among Tipulids of the Tipula oleracea group sp. B only was found. Bierkanders’ reports of the development of “‘ Tipula oleracea’ agree completely with the normal time of pupation and emerging (imagines) of sp. B in this part of Sweden to-day. The biological reports of Bierkander about his Tipula are, of course, no conclusive proof that it was sp. B. His reports are, however, of interest in this connection and support the presumption that it really was sp. B. According to Charles de Geer (1776), contemporary with Linné, ‘‘ Tipula oleracea L.” was very common in Sweden and was seen in flight especially during the autumn. As pointed out by Tjeder (1953) one specimen of “ 7’. oleracea ”’ is still to be seen in de Geer’s collection in the Natural History Museum of Stockholm. It has proved to be a male representing sp. B. Among the excellent figures in de Geer’s work there are also figures of “‘ Tipula oleracea” (pl. 18). The drawings of imagines (the female, as it is the most specific) agree with sp. B in the most important outlines. From the reports above I conclude that Tipula oleracea L. is species B. Summing up it may be said: 1. Linné meant by Tipula oleracea a species occurring in Sweden, among others in the province of Uppland. The larva was a pest (Linné 1746, 1758, 1761 ; Tjeder 1953). 2. Infestations by Tipulid larvae have been well known in Sweden for a long time. Sp. B, according to the designation above, is and has been a serious pest during the last 60 years and more in large parts of Sweden. Among the species of the Tipula oleracea group sp. B only has been found as a pest in Sweden with certainty. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 131 3. In earlier records about occurrences of Tipulids of the Tipula oleracea group in Sweden no information indicating that the species of the group had a distribution or degree of abundance one or two centuries ago different from those of today. On the contrary, records about sp. A, B or C in early Swedish reports (Zetterstedt, de Geer, Bierkander, Lampa), or founded upon early collections (Zetterstedt’s and de Geer’s), all support the suggestion that the distribution and abundance of the sp. A, B, C were the same in Linné’s time as in our days. 4, If Linné by Tipula oleracea meant sp. A, B or C, all argument indicates that sp. B is identical with Tipula oleracea L. No real reasons tending to show that Tipula oleracea L. should be identical with sp. A or C are to be found in Swedish reports. 5. If the name Tipula oleracea L. is to be maintained in entomology it must mean sp. B. The proposal, that 7’. oleracea L. is sp. A is from the Swedish entomological view unwarrantable and is based on earlier international mistakes in insect taxonomy. REFERENCES Bierkander, C. 1779. Rén om Rotmasken. Kongl. Vetenskapsakad. Handl. 40 Borg, A. 1951. Massharjningar av harkrankar 1951. Vdzxtskyddsnotiser 15 1952. Harkranksharjningarna 1952. Ibid. 16 — 1958. Om Clas Bierkander och vaxtskydd i Vastergétland pa 1700—talet. Ibid. 22 1960. Tre harkrankar av slaktet Tipula tillh6rande Tipula oleracea-gruppen. Ibid. 24 Forsslund, K. H. 1954. Harkrankslarver som skadegérare i plantskolor. Sv. Skogsvardsfér. T de Geer, Ch. 1776. Mémoires pour servir 4 |’Histoire des Insectes. VI. Stockholm. Hemmingsen, A. M. and Lemche, H. 1960. 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.(S.) 896. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 de Jong, W. H. 1925. Een studie over emelten en hare bestrijding. Versl. Mededeel. Plantenz. dienst. Wageningen. 42 Lampa,S. 1900. Berattelse till Kung]. Landtbruksstyrelsen... 1899. Upps. i prakt. entom.10 Linné, C. 1746,1761. Fauna Suecica. Stockholm — 1758. Systema Naturae. Notini, G. 1946. Den gra krakan (Corvus corniz L.) naringsekologiska studier. Sv. Jdgar- forbundets Meddel. 7, 1943. Uppsala. Tjeder, B. 1953. The identity of Tipula oleracea L. Opusc. Ent. 18 Tullgren, A. 1929. Kulturvdxterna och djurvérlden. Stockholm. Zetterstedt, J. W. 1851. Diptera Scandinaviae. Lund (1842-60). By Bo Tjeder (Falun, Sweden) Drs. A. M. Hemmingsen and Henning Lemche have dealt with three species of the genus Tipula, indicated as species A, species B, and species C. They have elucidated them by figures of details of the ¢ genitalia, their figs. 1, 2, and 3 respectively, and by a short key. They have proposed the usage of the following names for these three species : species A—Tipula oleracea Linnaeus. species B—Tipula paludosa Meigen. species C—Tipula czizeki De Jong. The species A of Hemmingsen and Lemche It is in my opinion incorrect to apply the name oleracea Linnaeus to this species. The following reasons are urged : 1. The species does not agree with the taxonomic characteristics given by Linnaeus (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 585, 1758). The description runs thus: “ T. alis hyalinis costa marginalis fusca ”. The species A has, contrary to the species B and C, three-coloured wings. The costal space is fuscous ; behind it there is a quite hyaline, almost whitish, stripe from root to apex of wing, behind which stripe the wing is greyish hyaline. 2. The species does not agree with the statements of geographical distribution, given by Linnaeus. Linnaeus stated “ Habitat in Europa ” but fortunately gave the important informa- tion that the species is the same one which he had previously described in Fauna Svecica : 1124 (1746). Its “locus typicus ” must consequently be considered as situated in Sweden. In the 132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature description in Fauna Svecica Linnaeus furthermore stated that he had dealt with the species in Acta upsaliensis, 1736: 31. In that paper we read among other things: “‘ Upsaliae degens ab anno 1724 ad 1734 horas vacuas hicce animalibus indagantis, contemplandis, describiendis impendi”’. Uppsala is therefore to be considered as being the type locality of Tipula oleracea of Linnaeus. The species A does not occur as far north as Uppsala. It has in Sweden only been captured in the southernmost province, Skane (cf., map, fig. b). 3. The species A does not agree with the ecological distribution given by Linnaeus, who stated: “ad radices plantarum, oleribus et plantis cultis infesta”’. According to Mannheims (Syllego- mena biologica, Festschrift Kleinschmidt : 238, 1950) the species A lives “‘an Fussufern usw ”. The specimens of species A, captured in Skane, Sweden, were either taken at light or on the banks of small rivers or brooks. According to information from Dr. Ake Borg the species A has never been observed as an enemy of crops in Sweden. In consequence of the above statements under the paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 the species A cannot be dealt with as being the true oleracea of Linnaeus. The present author has therefore applied to the species A the name Tipula submendosa (Opuscula Entom. 6 : 62, 1941). The species B of Hemmingsen and Lemche 4, The species B has bicoloured wings, the costal space being fuscous and the rest of the wing ish hyaline. The species agrees thus with the taxonomic description given by Linnaeus in 1758. “ T. alis hyalinis costa marginali fusca ”’. 5. The species B is common all over southern and central Sweden (cf. map fig. a). It is also common in Uppsala. The species B agrees thus with the geographical distribution as stated by Linnaeus. 6. The species B is common in vegetable gardens in Sweden and it is, according to information from Dr. Ake Borg, known to injure crops in Sweden. It thus agrees with the ecological distribution stated by Linnaeus. In consequence of the above statements under paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, I consider that the species B of Hemmingsen and Lemche is doubtless the true oleracea of Linnaeus. As neotype I designate one female specimen from Sweden : Uppland, Uppsala, captured by the late Prof. N. A. Kemner, 20.viii.1937, and deposited in the collections of the Zoological Institute of Lund University, Lund. This species has been dealt with by Meigen in 1818 as 7. fimbriata and in 1830 as 7’. paludosa. The species C of Hemmingsen and Lemche 7. The species C has a wing-colour identical with that of species B and thus agrees with the taxonomic description of Linnaeus, 1758. 8. The species C is known from scattered places in Sweden from Skane to Lycksele Lappmark (cf. map, fig. c). It has, however, relatively seldom been collected, certainly owing to its very late appearance as imago: in southern and central Sweden in October ; in northern Sweden in September. It has also been captured in Uppsala. The species C agrees thus with the geo- graphical distribution as stated by Linnaeus. 9. The species C has in Sweden never been observed in cabbage plots or vegetable gardens. The imago has generally been captured at light or on lawns. According to information from Dr. Ake Borg the species C has never been observed as an enemy of crops in Sweden. It seems therefore that it does not agree with the ecological distribution stated by Linnaeus for oleracea. In consequence of the above statement under paragraph 9 the species C of Hemmingsen and Lemche may scarcely be considered as being the same as 7’. oleracea of Linnaeus. The oldest available name given to this species is 7’. fusca Staeger (Kroyer, Naturh. Tidskr. 3 : 14, 1840). Later it was dealt with by Alexander as: 7’. subcunctans (Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 14 : 127 1921) and by de Jong as C. czizeki (Een Studie over Emelten, Diss. Wageningen : 14, 1925). It is proposed, therefore, that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) set aside the proposals by Drs. Hemmingsen and Lemche given in Bull. zool. Nomencel. 17 : 209-213 ; (2) 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 as interpreted by the neotype mentioned above from Sweden, Uppsala ; (b) submendosa Tjeder, 1941, as published in the binomen Tipula submendosa ; (c) fusca Staeger, 1840, as published in the binomen Tipula fusca. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 133 Suecia Explanation of Figure Maps showing the distribution in Sweden of : a. Tipula oleracea Linnaeus (distribution area indicated by streaking) ; b. Tipula submendosa (localities indicated by points) ; c. Tipula fusca Staeger (localities indicated by points). By A. M. Hemmingsen and H. Lemche Apparently, Drs. Tjeder and Borg have failed to understand the aim of our application. It is exactly because we agree with these two gentlemen in their view on the true identity of Tipula oleracea Linnaeus that we have put ourselves to all the trouble of preparing an application. The whole argument, therefore, turns upon the old problem : Are we to accept strict priority even at the cost of a devastating confusion in applied entomology as advocated by Drs. Tjeder and Borg, or may we vary the Rules in the present case in order to obtain stability, as proposed us. In the discussions of Drs. Tjeder and Borg, no single word is found about the consequences in applied entomology if their view is accepted. Therefore, the reasons for our application stand unaffected, and we maintain that our proposals contain the only sensible solution of the case. 134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature This much about the main problem but it seems necessary to protest formally against the neotype selection proposed by Dr. Tjeder in his letter. An acceptance of this neotype means that once and for all strict priority is bound to rule the case, and we cannot accept such a solution as suitable. By Per Brinck (Zoological Institute, University, Lund, Sweden) The case for the stabilisation of the names of the North and Central European species belonging to the Tipula oleracea-group is dealt with by Drs. Hemmingsen and Lemche in Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17 : 209 sqq. 2. The species A, B and C of the European Tipula oleracea-group have been widely confused up to the year 1926, though complete nomenclatorial confusion was never explicitly introduced into the early Scandinavian literature, because the early Scandinavian authors did not dispose of species A for their publications and since only species B is a pest on cabbage in this part of the world. 3. According to Dr. Tjeder, the leading specialist of the Tipulidae of northern Europe, species A is definitely not the oleracea of Linnaeus, as evidenced by the original description. The well-known Scandinavian leatherjacket, damaging crops (amongst others, cabbage), intended to be named by Linnaeus, was species B, according to details presented by Borg (above) and Tjeder (1953 and above). After the publication of their application in the Bulletin Drs. Hemmingsen and Lemche apparently admit, in a letter to the Secretary of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (13.12.1960), that Dr. Tjeder is right in his interpretation of the three species. 4. Following paragraph 3 it is now agreed that :— species A = J. submendosa Tjeder, species B = 1. oleracea Linnaeus, speciesC = YT. fusca Staeger. 5. In the application and in their letter of 13 December 1960, Drs. Hemmingsen and Lemche advocate that a strict priority should not be applied since it would mean confusion in economic entomology. Their proposal is that species A should be dealt with as 7’. oleracea (auct. cert.) species B as T. paludosa Meigen species C as T. czizeki de Jong 6. It is a regrettable fact, however, that the above proposal has met with some opposition in circles of applied entomology in Sweden, because it would mean destruction of present nomen- clatorial stability, a stability which has, from their point of view, subsisted practically since Linnaeus (cf. Borg above). It is argued that :— (a) There can be no doubt any more about the identity of 7’. oleracea Linnaeus. (b) 7. oleracea is a well-known, common pest on agricultural and garden crops in Sweden. (c) As a common pest it has been referred to as 7’. oleracea (7'. paludosa Meigen) and a change of name (or even a transference of the name 7’. oleracea to another species) would mean inevitable confusion and be incompatable with the meaning of the Rules. 7. It is, I think, evident that there must be serious reasons for a transference of the name oleracea, as proposed in the application. The reason for the application is the need of nomen- clatorial stability for the species in question, because of their being principal enemies of crops Since no details are available as regards the distribution of the species as pests in Central Europe in relation to the names used, such data should be presented. In this connection it should be noted that the fact that the species are common in certain areas does not mean that they are all pests of crops. The larvae cannot be identified (vide Theowald, Tijdschr. v. Entomol. 100 : 233) ; they have to be reared. Larvae attacking crops in Sweden were reared and were all found to belong to species B (7’. oleracea Linnaeus, 7’. paludosa Meigen). 8. I am doubtful as regards the proposal to suppress 7’. subcunctans Alexander, described from northern Japan. Although this name has been connected with species C, there is no thorough comparison between Central European and Japanese specimens. It might be that they are (at least racially) different. If the old name 7’. fusca Staeger is accepted the nomenclatorial difficulties are overcome. It should be noted that 7’. fusca has been used for species C in the Tipula section (by Mannheims) of Lindner’s well-known and widespread series Die Fliegen der Paldarktischen Region (1952). 9. In Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 43, it is stated that a neotype of Tipula oleracea has been designated and a reference is given to Drs. Hemmingsen and Lemche’s application. I should prefer to regard the latter as a proposal, also in that item, thus pending the decision of the Commission. It should be remembered that the specimen chosen does not agree with the original description but belongs to another species. From a formal point of view, Dr. Tjeder’s sen ey of a specimen of species B from Upsala (Sweden) seems to be correct until otherwise ed, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 135 10. As far as I can see there are various ways out of the dilemma, as follows :— (a) According to Drs. Hemmingsen & Lemche, contrary to the Law of Priority but to the benefit of nomenclatorial stability in Central Europe (cf. above) :— species A = 1’. oleracea (nec Linnaeus), species B = 1. paludosa Meigen, speciesC = T'.czizekide Jong (or 7’. fusca Staeger ; cf. Mannheims, 1952, in Lindner; Die Fliegen d. Pal. Reg.) (b) For the purposes of the Law of Priority and to the benefit of nomenclatorial stability in Northern Europe (cf. above) :— species A = J’. submendosa Tjeder, species B = TY. oleracea Linnaeus, speciesC = T. fusca Staeger (or czizeki de Jong; vide below: c) (c) If there is no other way out of the controversy the critical name 7’. oleracea might be dropped, as follows :— species A = JT’. submendosa Tjeder, species B = T. paludosa Meigen, speciesC = T. fusca Staeger (or czizeki de Jong though this means that 7. sub- cunctans Alexander will be involved; cf. Mannheims (1952, in Lindner: Die Fliegen d. Pal. Reg.). The consequences in each case are seen from Drs. Hemmingsen & Lemche’s application. It would be interesting to know the specialists’ opinion about (c) as set out above. COMMENTS ON PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES FOR THE GENUS TANYTARSUS VAN DER WULP, 1874. Z.N.(S.) 1245 (See Volume 17, pages 241-243) By J. H. Mundie (Freshwater Biological Association, Windermere Laboratory, England) I have been sent a separate of a paper by Dr. Paul Freeman of the British Museum, on the proposed use of the plenary powers of the International Commission to validate the familiar usage of the generic name T'anytarus van der Wulp, 1874. As a limnologist I have been working with this genus for ten years and am familiar with its associated literature. I would like to give my complete support to Dr. Freeman’s proposal. I consider it to be important and the reasons advanced for it entirely acceptable. By N. C. Morgan (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, Freshwater Fisheries Laboratory, Pitlochry, Perthshire) I am completely in favour of the recommendation set out by Freeman as the usage which he suggests is in common use by most workers on CHIRONOMIDAE. The other uses of the genus Tanytarsus, which he sets out, only lead to confusion, particularly that of Townes (1945) in transferring it to another tribe. 136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PERLA GEOFFROY, 1762 (INSECTA, PLECOPTERA); PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1451 (see this volume, pages 87-89) SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT By D. E. Kimmins (British Museum (Natural History), London) Following the publication of the above application, Dr. Per Brinck, Lund, has drawn my attention to his paper (1949, Opusc. ent., Suppl. 11 : 69), in which there is mention of a reference by Linnaeus, 1767, to the name Perla which I had overlooked. This reference, whilst not in any way affecting the desirability of validating the current usage of the generic name Perla, makes necessary certain alterations in my application. Paragraph 2, line 4. Delete all after the words “‘ the genus Perla was ” and replace with the following :—“ Linnaeus, 1767, (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) : 908), treating Perla, as a subdivision of Phryganea Linnaeus, included three species, two of which (Phryganea bicaudata Linnaeus and P. nebulosa Linnaeus) are referred to in Geoffroy’s original description of the genus Perla, and the third species is not a Plecopteron ”’. Paragraph 4. Replace by the following :—“ Latreille, 1810 (Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arachn. Ins. : 435) selected as type-species of the genus Perla Geoffroy, Semblis bicaudata Fabricius, 1775. The latter species is not conspecific with Phryganea bicaudata Linnaeus, nor is it one of the species originally included by Geoffroy or Linnaeus and is therefore an invalid type-selection. Curtis, 1827 (Brit. Entomology : text to pl. 190) and Westwood, 1839 (Introd. mod. Classif. Ins., Gen. Synops. : 47) both designated Phryganea bicaudata Linnaeus, 1758, as type-species of the genus Perla Geoffroy, a selection which is nomenclatorially valid ”. Paragraph 5, last line, p. 87. Delete “‘ From these two species’, and insert ‘“ Klapélek, 1909 (Zool. Anz. 34 : 389), in a key to the genera of the PERLIDAE, quoted under Perla Geoffroy, 1762, Typus: P. maxima (Scop.). Later, however,”. Line 3, p. 88. After “‘ Geoffroy (sensu emend.).” add “‘ Needham and Claassen, 1925 (Mon. Plecopt. Amer. N. of Mex. : 74) and Claassen, rt (Cornet Univ. agric. Exp. Stat. Mem. 232 : 131) both gave as type-species, Perla maxima copoli) ”. Paragraph 6. Delete lines 1-11, up to and including the words “ Latreille, 1810” and replace by the following :—“ If therefore the type-selections of Curtis, 1827, and Westwood, 1839, be accepted, the generic name .. .”’ Add to the end of paragraph 6 :—‘‘ Perla maxima (Scopoli, 1763), selected as type by Enderlein in 1909, belongs to the same species group as Perla bipunctata Pictet, 1833, but in view of the fact that Pictet was doubtful as to the exact identity of Scopoli’s species, it seems preferable to adopt Perla bipunctata Pictet, 1833, as type of the genus Perla Geoffroy.” Page 89. Delete paragraph (4). COMMENT By W. E. Ricker (Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Biological Station Nanaimo, B.C., ) Canada I have received from Mr. D. E. Kimmins a copy of his proposal to validate the name Perla Geoffroy, 1762. I am wholly in sympathy with the intention of this proposal, and without being fully conversant with the necessary procedure, have confidence that the six steps outlined in Mr. Kimmin’s point 8 are the appropriate ones for securing this result. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 137 ENHYDRUS CASTELNAU, 1834 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): PRO- POSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 398 By J. Balfour-Browne (British Museum (Natural History), London) and Per Brinck (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Sweden) Enhydrus Castelnau (1834, Etud. Ent. (2): 110) is currently in use for a genus of GyRmnmDAzE. It also forms the basis for a family-group name, first published as a tribe, ENHYDRINI, by Régimbart (1882, Ann. Soc. ent. France (6)2 : 391). The late Dr. F. Guignot (1954, Bull. Ann. Soc. ent. Belg. 90 : 45) claimed that Hnhydrus Castelnau, being a junior homonym of Hnhydrus Dahl (1823, Col. wu. Lepid. : 34), was to be rejected and proposed the new name Prothydrus for the genus, also changing the family-group name to PROTHYDRINAE. Guignot’s proposal has not been accepted by current students of the family, perhaps principally on the grounds of conservation of a name in use for 120 years. An investigation has, however, shown a complicated situation with regard to the name Hnhydrus and a ruling by the Commission is required. 2. According to Neave (1939, Nomencl. 2 : 234) Enhydrus, so spelt, first appeared in Rafinesque (1815, Analyse : 77) asa name in Reptilia. Miss A. G.C. Grandison, of the Zoological Department, British Museum (Nat. Hist.), informs us that a spelling Enhydris was first proposed for a reptile by Latreille (1802, Hist. nat. Rept. : 200). Rafinesque (loc. cit.) accords a paragraph to sea snakes, and one such snake genus is listed as Enhydrus Daud. Daudin (1803, Hist. nat. Rept. : 232), however, used the spelling Hnhydris. It therefore appears to be either an error on Rafinesque’s part, or a typographical error, and not a deliberate intention to emend the spelling of the name. Hnhydrus Rafinesque has never subsequently been used in Reptilia. We therefore propose that the name Enhydrus Rafinesque, 1815, be considered to be an erroneous subsequent spelling of the name Enhydris Latreille, 1802. 3. Enhydrus Dahl, 1823 (loc. cit.) appeared next in order of date and is attributed by Dahl to [Megerle] v. M.[uehlfeld]. It was never described or published by Megerle. Dahl used the name in the family HyYDROPHILIDAE of modern authors, and included a number of valid species now distributed over at least seven genera. Dahl’s work, though “ published ” in the normal sense and though bearing a subsidiary title “‘ Ein Systematisches Verzeichniss ”’ is, in effect, no more than a price list (see Pl. 2) and as such should be rejected by the Commission and declared not available. 4. MacLeay (1825, Annul. Jav. 1 : 35) described a new species, pallens, which he placed in a genus Enhydrus attributed to Megerle. The species described by MacLeay is known and is currently regarded as belonging to the genus Helochares Mulsant, 1844, in the HyDROPHILIDAE. MacLeay’s action, however, could be accepted as providing an indication to validate his publica- tion of the generic name Enhydrus which should be attributed to him. This would, however, be undesirable, since the name Hnhydrus has never been subsequently attached to this generic concept which has been known for 115 years by the name Helochares Mulsant (1844, Palp. Errata). In conformity Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 2. April 1961. 138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature with the principle of conservation it is desirable that the name Hnhydrus MacLeay, 1825, should be suppressed. 5. Mulsant (1844, Palp. : 132) proposed a new genus Helophilus to include two species, Dytiscus lividus, Forster, 1771, and Helophilus melanophthalmus Mulsant. In an “ Errata et Addenda ”’ slip following the plate in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.) copy of this work the following appears :—“ p. 132 au lieu de Genre Helophilus, Helophile ; Nob. ce nom générique ayant deja été employé pour désigner certaines syrephies, lisez : Genre Helochares, Helochare ; Nob.” This change of name seems necessary in view of the existence of an Helophilus Leach, 1817, reputed to be an emendation of Elophila Meigen, 1803, and an Helophilus Meigen, 1822. Thomson, 1859 (Skand. Col.1 : 18) designated D. lividus as type of Helochares. Another replacement name, Helophygas, for Helophilus Mulsant, 1844, was published by Motschoulsky (1853, Hydrocan. Russ. : 11). 6. Dejean (1833, Cat. Coléopt. (ed. 2): 48) proposed a generic name Epinectus, ascribed to Eschscholtz, for a single species listed as sulcatus Dejean. There is no published description of a sulcatus by Dejean although it is, very probably, as asserted by Aubé (1836, Icon. Col. 5 : 379), the species previously described as Gyrinus sulcatus Wiedemann (1821, in Germar, Mag. Ent. 4 : 119). The name Epinectus Dejean, 1833, must be rejected as a nomen nudum. 7. Laporte de Castelnau (1834, Htud. Ent. (2): 110) proposed the name Enhydrus in the GyRINIDAE for the single species, Gyrinus sulcatus Wiedemann, which is the type-species by monotypy. 8. Régimbart (1877, Ann. Soc. ent. France (5) 7: 105) referred to Aubé (1838, Spec. Col. 6 : 652) who stated that “the genus Hnhydrus was created by Laporte de Castelnau for Gyrinus sulcatus of Wiedemann. Eschscholtz, in an unpublished work had already indicated the same generic concept under the name Epinectus”” (transl.). Unfortunately Régimbart then elected to adopt the name Enhydrus Castelnau with two subgenera : Enhydrus (s. str.) for the Australian species now placed in Macrogyrus Régimbart, 1882, and Epinectes for the South American species, now placed in Enhydrus Castelnau. Régimbart wrote that he wished to conserve ‘‘ Hpinectes Eschscholtz ” which was based on Gyrinus sulcatus Wiedemann, so E'pinectes Régimbart, 1877, is an objective synonym of Enhydrus Castelnau, 1834, having the same type- species. 9. Régimbart (1882, Ann. Soc. ent. France (6) 2 : 430) recognized that Epinectes Régimbart, 1877, was a simple synonym of Hnhydrus Castelnau, 1834 and (loc. cit. : 432) created the new genus Macrogyrus for the Australian species (and South American species now placed in Andogyrus Ochs (1924, Ent. Blatt. 20 : 236)). 10. We therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature : (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Enhydrus MacLeay, 1825, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the work entitled Coleoptera und Lepidoptera. Ein Systematisches Verzeichniss, published in 1823 by Georg Dahl, on the Official Index of ‘ean eee pty Seas * ON pare a" Plate 2 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18 OCHTHEBIUS. Germ. Parra. Neer poem | ELOPHORUS. F. Minima. ANerases: 9. A. | Minutissima Gyll. (Suec.) | Elegans. Ka. (Austr.) Y ss | Sigritta. Mull. (Gerin.) j Fennicus. Gyll. ? Flavipes. (id) pa oe . SPERCHAEUS. | a ay Gd.) Fa Emarginatus. (Germ.) pat Si Griseus. B11. (id) leg HYDROPHILUS. Minutus. Opatr. Bipunetatus. (Austr.) I 4 . Nitidus. v. M. / Caraboides. (id) a 6 Nubilus. v M. (Austr.) '—!10 | Dentipennis. v. M. (Hung.) —|1s Semiaeneus. v. M. Fuscipes Lina. (id) —1ss Tuberculatus. ©. M. / Geminato-lineatus. v- M i heste) ie 10 Luridus. tid.) eS 8 HYDROCHUS. Gersa. Pallipes. v. M. — (Hung.) 45 (E:orwoacs. F.) | Piceus. (id) | —/ $0 Bicolor. Dabl. (Ban.) —\1¢ | Picipes. (Austr.) eS 15 Brevis. Hbst. (Here.) — |g | Scarabaeoides. (id.) - 4 Crenatus. (Ben.) \~ |" Scrobiculatus. Pz. j Filiformis. v. M. (Hung.) — (15 Signaticollis. v- M (Austr.) & 12 Gemeilus. Hl. (Herc.) a Striatss. (id.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 179 7. On 8 August 1955 the Commission received a draft application from Mr. H. L. G. Stroyan, aphidologist, of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Plant Pathology Laboratory, Milton Road, Harpenden, Herts. (Z.N.(S.) 1003) entitled “‘ The Family-group name of the Plant-lice : APHIDIDAE versus APHIDAE’’. Stroyan had been in correspondence with Dr. Hille Ris Lambers on this question. Stroyan’s application was largely concerned with the linguistic evidence in favour of APHIDIDAE. He wrote: “ Disagreement has arisen between workers who believe that the stem to be used in forming such family-group names should be Aphid-, on the grounds that Linnaeus indicated a plural Aphides at the time when he erected the genus Aphis, and workers who believe that the only correct stem is Aphi-, on the grounds that the only traceable genitive form of the mediaeval Greek word Aphis is an Ionic form Aphios, and that Linnaeus’s plural Aphides was therefore wrongly formed ”’. There is no need to go into the details of the linguistic arguments here. 8. Owing to pressure of work in the office of the Commission, nothing further was done with the case in spite of various letters to Hemming from Hottes, requesting action. Stroyan also wrote to the Secretary in March 1958 asking what had become of his application. Hemming in his letter of explanation replied : ‘‘ There are really two quite distinct problems involved, namely :— (1) What from the language point of view is the correct spelling for this family name ? “* (2) Which of the various spellings that have been employed is the one most generally used, either by specialists or in general textbooks, if the practice between the two is not the same ? “Up to a few years ago the first of these questions would have been con- sidered to the almost complete exclusion of the second. Today, however, the first of these questions is one which would be regarded in most groups as of importance chiefly as indicating the nature of the action, if any, needed to be taken by the Commission under question 2 ”’. ‘ 9. On 5 January 1960, Professor Hottes wrote to the Assistant Secretary as follows :—“‘ It is now ten or more years since I sent Mr. Hemming a paper on the type of Aphis Linnaeus, 1758. If there is little chance of this paper being published soon, please return it to me.”” The present paper is submitted in the hope of making amends for the long delay. 10. As the case consists of two separate applications, one of which was submitted by both Hottes and Stroyan, it has been thought better to summarize the applications than to publish them in full. Actually the case is relatively simple and there is little disagreement. It needs only (i) the designation, under the Plenary Powers, of Aphis sambuci Linnaeus as the type-species of the genus Aphis Linnaeus, which species, although not the valid type according to the Rules, has been generally considered by aphidologists to be the type- species. Great confusion would result if any other species were to be designated as type. (ii) Since the family-group name in most common use is unquestion- ably APHIDIDAE (published as apHrpm) Latreille [1802-3] (Hist. nat. gén. partic. Anim. Crust. Ins. 3 : 263), it is only necessary to place this name, so spelt, on the Official List of Family-Group Names and other forms of spelling on the Official Index. 180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 11. The action which the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is therefore asked to take is as follows :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers to set aside all designations of a type-species for the nominal genus Aphis Linnaeus, 1758, made prior to the Ruling now asked for and, having done so to designate Aphis sambuci Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type-species of that genus; _ (2) to place the generic name Aphis Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation under the Plenary Powers in (1) above, Aphis sambuci Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name sambuci Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Aphis sambuci (type-species of Aphis Linnaeus, 1758) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the family-group name APHIDIDAE (correction of APHIDI1) Latreille, [1802-1803] (type-genus Aphis Linnaeus, 1758) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ; (5) to place the following family-group names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :— (a) APHID Latreille, [1802-1803] (type-genus Aphis Linnaeus, 1758) (an invalid original spelling for APHIDIDAE) ; (b) apHIDAE [Leach, 1815] (Edinb. Ency. 9 : 125-6) (type-genus Aphis Linnaeus, 1758) (an invalid spelling of APHIDIDAE) ; (c) APHIIDAE Baker, 1921 (Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 23: 101) (type- genus Aphis Linnaeus, 1758) (an invalid spelling of APHIDIDAE) ; (d) aPHIDINA Burmeister, 1835 (Handb. Entom. 2 : 85) (type-genus Aphis Linnaeus, 1758) (an invalid spelling of APHIDIDAE). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 18] ANILIUS OKEN, 1816 (REPTILIA, SQUAMATA) : PROPOSED VALIDA- TION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. (Z.N.(S.) 1046) By Dr. Jay M. Savage (Dept. of Biology, University of Southern California, University Park, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.) In Opinion 417 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl., 1956) it was ruled that no name published in volume 3 (Zoology) of Lorenz Oken’s work Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte 1815-1816 acquired the status of availability by reason of being published in that work, since it was ruled that Oken did not apply therein the principles of binominal nomenclature. The work was formally placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature with the Title No. 33. Specialists were invited, however, to submit to the Commission applications for validation under the plenary powers of any name published in it, the invalidation of which would in their opinion lead to confusion in the nomen- clature of the group concerned. In consequence the Committee on Zoological Nomenclature of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists (Chairman, Dr. W. I. Follett) requested me to prepare a report on the status of the herpetological names published in Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte. 2. Below is given a list of the names of various amphibians and reptiles first proposed by Oken in the invalidated work. None of these names was in general use prior to 1900 because most authors rejected Oken’s work as not being consistently binominal in nomenclature. Several herpetologists, most notably Dr. Leonhard H. Stejneger, revived some of Oken’s names for amphi- bians and reptiles in the early 1900’s. These workers seemed to be of the opinion that Oken’s Lehrbuch conformed with the requirements of Article 25 of the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature with regard to provisions of section b (binominal nomenclature). Examination of Oken’s book reveals that in the herpetological portion, at least, he is almost consistently binominal. Most of the apparent confusion in this section stems from his practice of listing tm seriatum the major synonyms of each name immediately after the name accepted by him. The accepted names and the synonyms are given without indication of author and are separated from one another only by commas. This procedure doubtless accounts for the impression held by some workers that Oken’s names are polynomials. 3. New genera of amphibians and reptiles proposed in Oken’s 1816 Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte. Amyda a .. 348 Anilius om .. 284, type genus of a family-group taxon. Berus 8 Sen oe Bombina As wot OT Discosomus .. Ae | AO. Draco sae .. 273, a homonym of Draco Linnaeus, 1758. Bull. zool. Nomencel., Vol. 18, pt. 3. June 1961. 182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Herpeton et .- 282 Propus at te Pterodacytylus .. 312, spelled Petrodactylus in index ; homonym of Pterodactylus Rafinesque, 1815. Scinct as .. 300, spelled Scincorwm in index Sirene a .. 187, homonym of Sirene Link, 1794 Tapaja dig .. 295, spelled T'apaia in index Zygnis as 284 4. New specific and subspecific names of amphibians and reptiles pro- posed in Oken’s 1816 Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichie. cruciger, Bufo .. 209 galliwasp, Scincus .. 299 graecus, Stellio .. 202 grisea, Lacerta .. 3803 italicus, Stellio .. 204 lancifer, Trigonocephalus 270 lepidopus, Bipes oe) ee ocellatus, Draco joe tae oryzicola, Berus .. 248 pelamys, Hydrophis .. 279 trimeresurus, Coluber dipsas meer 5. Fortunately, only three of Oken’s generic names and none of the specific or subspecific names have been utilized in herpetology since 1900. The generic names are: ’ Amyda Anilius Bombina (placed on the Official List in Opinion 453). The names Amyda (: 514) and Bombina (: 50) were revived in Stejneger’s (1907) Herpetology of Japan and adjacent territory (Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. no. 58). The family name ANILUDAE is also mentioned (: 255) indicating that Stejneger recognized the generic name Anilius. All three generic names have been frequently used since that date. In view of these facts there seem to be three possible recommendations that might logically be presented to the Commission : (1) Recommend that all Oken’s new names be accepted as meeting the requirements of Article 25b. This would necessitate that a consider- able number of Oken’s names be given priority over many long established and familiar names. All but three of Oken’s names have never been used and there seems to be little advantage in reviving his long-rejected names. (2) Recommend that the entire herpetological section be ruled unavailable as not complying with Article 25b. This would invalidate without question all of Oken’s names and little confusion would result in that it would be known that all Oken names in herpetology were unavail- able. In addition it would prevent any appeal to precedent by subsequent workers who might wish to revive individual names in Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 183 Oken with the argument that some names had already been conserved. In the event that this procedure was followed, the two generic names generally utilized since 1907 (and still unavailable) would be replaced as follows :— Amyda = Trionyx Geoffroy St. Hilaire, 1809 or Aspidonectes Wagler, 1830. Anilius = Ilysia Hemprich, 1820 There is at present much confusion concerning the application of the names T'rionyx, Aspidonectes and Amyda and this problem will ultimately have to be decided by the International Commission. An application (Z.N.(S.) 229) has already been submitted. The nomenclatural status of the name is in such a state of flux that it would be even less confusing to suppress the name than to conserve it. (3) Recommend that the two generic names Amyda and Anilius in general use since 1907, be validated and all other Oken names be rejected. 6. None of the three alternatives listed above seems to me to solve com- pletely the problem of the status of Oken’s herpetological names. It has seemed proper, however, to acquaint the Commission with the possible ways in which this problem might to handled so that Commissioners might have full data for their decisions. It is recommended that the Oken herpetological names made unavailable by Opinion 417 should all be placed on the Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names with the exception of Anilius Oken, 1816, which, inasmuch as it is the type genus of a family-group taxon, should be validated by use of the plenary powers, and Amyda, which must be dealt with separately. 7. This report has been accepted by the Committee on Nomenclature of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists who hereby request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature— (1) to use its plenary powers to validate Anilius Oken, 1816. (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Anilius Oken, 1816 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Anguis scytale Linnaeus, 1758 (validated by the plenary powers in (1) above). (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name scytale Linnaeus, 1758 as published in the binomen Anguis scytale (type-species of Anilius Oken, 1816, validated in (1) above). (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the é family-group name ANILUDAE Stejneger, 1907 (type genus Anilius Oken, 1816) ; (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology all the names listed in paragraph 3 (above), except Anilius, Amyda and Bombina, which were made unavailable by the invalidation of Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte 1816 in Opinion 417 ; (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology all the names listed in paragraph 4 (above) which were made unavailable by the invalidation of Oken’s Lehrbuch der Natur- geschichte 1816 in Opinion 417. 184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSAL TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME PANOPEA MENARD DE LA GROYE, 1807 (MOLLUSCA : BIVALVIA) UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, TOGETHER WITH CERTAIN RELATED PROPOSALS. Z.N.(S.) 1049 By H. E. Vokes (Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) and L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London) The main object of the present application is the stabilization of the form of the generic name which has hitherto been known by the alternative render- ings Panopea, Panopaea, and Panope. The opportunity is taken to suggest the addition of certain names mentioned in the discussion to the appropriate Official Lists or Indexes. 2. The taxonomic genus to which the names just mentioned have been applied was originally described by Lamarck (1799, Mém. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris : 83) under the name Glycimeris, the type-species by monotypy being Mya glycimeris Born. Since 1898, when Dall revived the neglected name Glycymeris Da Costa (1778, Hist. nat. Test. Brit. : 168) for the genus of Bivalvia which up to then had usually been known by the name Pectunculus Lamarck, 1799 (Mém. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris : 87) (a homonym of Pectunculus Da Costa, 1778), Glycimeris Lamarck has been rejected as a virtual homonym of Glycymeris Da Costa. At the Copenhagen Congress in 1953, however, the decision was reached that generic names were to be treated as distinct even when differing by only one letter. Glycymeris Da Costa is in current use by almost all workers, and to avoid the confusion that would undoubtedly exist if an attempt were made to revive the name Glycimeris Lamarck, 1799, for a genus belonging to the same molluscan class, the Commission is now asked to suppress this Lamarckian name, by use of the plenary powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. 3. The genus Glycymeris Da Costa, which it is now suggested should be placed on the Official List, was established with a single included nominal species named as Glycymeris orbicularis, in the synonymy of which was cited Arca glycymeris Linnaeus (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 695) (the reference given was to the 12th edition, 1767). Arca glycymeris is therefore the type-species of Glycymeris by absolute tautonymy. 4. The generic name Panopea was first published by Ménard de la Groye in April 1807 (Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris 9 : 135) with two included species, P. Aldrovandi Ménard and P. Faujas [sic] Ménard. The earliest publication of the name Panope in a scientific periodical was by the same author in July, 1807 (J. Physique 65 : 114), with the same two included species. Dall (1912, Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 10 : 34), however, called attention to the existence of a pamphlet by Ménard bearing the date January, 1807, and consisting of a longer version of the second of the two papers just cited. In this pamphlet the generic name is spelt “ Panope”’, and Dall therefore concluded that this should be adopted in preference to ‘‘ Panopea’’. 5. Two questions arise concerning this pamphlet. Was Dall justified in accepting it as a publication, and can any reliance be placed on the date “ Janvier, 1807” printed on it ? There is no copy in any library in Great Britain, so that its existence was overlooked by Sherborn and Neave. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, pt. 3. June 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 185 Madame 8. Freneix, who has very kindly made enquiries in France, informs us that there is a single copy in the Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris, but none in any of the other libraries (Bibliothéque Nationale, Sorbonne, Ecole des Mines, Société Géologique de France) where she has enquired. Madame Freneix has also ascertained that a copy passed through the hands of a Paris bookseller in 1954, but there is no record of its purchaser. The Museum copy has annotations in the handwriting of Ménard which include a page reference to the paper published in the Museum Annales in April 1807. Dall stated that his copy was annotated by Ménard with a reference to the same published paper, but did not mention if the exact pagination was given. It thus appears that, of the three copies of the pamphlet which have been traced, one and probably two did not leave Ménard’s hands until after the publication of his paper in the Annales in April 1807, while no information is available about the third. The pamphlet is not recorded in the Journal typographique et biblio- graphique, an entry in which would have justified its acceptance as a publication and have indicated the date when it was circulated. 6. The applicants consider that the date and circumstances of issue of the pamphlet are so uncertain that there is little justification for accepting the name “‘ Panope”’ in preference to the much more widely used rendering “ Panopea”’. The Commission is therefore asked to rule that the name Panope with the included nominal species P. Aldrovandi and P. Faujas were not validly published in January, 1807, and to place the name Panopea on the Official List of Generic Names. The type-species, designated by Children (1823, Quart. J. Sci. 14 : 84), who spelt the name Panopaea, is P. aldrovandi Ménard (a junior objective synonym of Mya glycimeris Born, 1778 (Index Mus. Caes. Vind.:10)). The invalid emendation Panopaea, first introduced by Lamarck (1818, Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vertébr. 5 : 456) should, like Panope, be placed on the Official Index of Rejected Generic Names. 7. A further reason for the rejection of Glycimeris Lamarck, 1799, is that Lamarck did not adhere to its original usage, but in 1801 (Syst. Anim. sans Vertébr. : 126) transferred the name to the taxonomic genus of Bivalvia typified by the species Mya siliqua “‘ Chemnitz ”’, more properly attributed to Spengler (1793, Skrivt. naturhist. Selskabet 3 : 48). This later usage of the name Glycimeris became at one time fairly widespread, but at present the generic name Cyrtodaria, usually attributed to Daudin, is applied by the great majority of authors to the genus typified by Mya siliqua. It is, therefore, recommended that Glycimeris Lamarck, 1801, a homonym of Glycimeris Lamarck, 1799, should also be placed on the Official Index of Rejected Generic Names. 8. The authorship and type-species of Cyrtodaria require discussion. Daudin is usually cited as its author, but he published only the vernacular name “ Cyrtodaire ”’ in the short note (1799, Bull. Soc. philomat. Paris 22 : 170) in which the genus was described. He gave a short diagnosis of the genus and cited three species which he included in it by the names under which they had been described by their original authors. Reuss (1801, Repertoriwm Com- mentationum : 351) listed the genus under the Latin name Cyrtodaria and gave a reference to Daudin’s paper of 1799 which serves as an “ indication ” of the characters of the genus and establishes Reuss as its author. Reuss did not, 186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature however, cite any species under the genus from which a type-species could be selected, and it is not permissible (in view of Declaration 15 of the Commission) to regard the three species which Daudin had included in “ Cyrtodaire ” as being included in Cyrtodaria by Reuss. To determine the type-species of Cyrtodaria it is, therefore, necessary to ascertain when a nominal species was first assigned to this genus, attributed to its correct author (i.e. to Reuss rather than to Daudin). Gray (1847, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. : 190) cited Mya siliqgua as type-species of Cyrtodaria Daudin, but this must be ignored. Grant and Gale (1931, Mem. San Diego Soc. nat. Hist. 1 : 429) cited “ Cyrtodaria siliqua Daudin”’ as the type of Cyrtodaria Reuss, but Daudin described no such species. As no valid type-designation for Cyrtodaria Reuss seems to exist, we hereby designate Mya siliqua Spengler, 1793 as the type-species of this nominal genus. 9. Glycymeris Da Costa is type-genus of the family GLYCYMERIDAE Stewart, 1930 (Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. spec. Publ. 3:70). Prior names for the same family-group taxon, based, however, on nominal genera subjectively synony- mous with Glycymeris were AXINAEINAE H. & A. Adams, 1858 (type-genus, Axinaea Poli, 1791, Test. Sicil. 1 : Introd. 32, type-species, by subsequent designation by Gray, 1847, Arca pilosa Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12): 1143) and PECTUNCULINAE Dall, 1898 (Trans. Wagner Free Inst. Sct. 3 : 607) (type-genus Pectunculus Lamarck, 1799, non Da Costa, 1778). It is now recommended that GLYCYMERIDAE should be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names and that PECTUNCULINAE should be placed on the Official Index of Invalid Family-Group Names. The name AXINAEINAE, as the oldest available name for the family, will have to be suppressed under the plenary powers if GLYCYMERIDAE is to be preserved. The generic name Tuceta Roding, 1798, Mus. Bolten. 2 : 172 (type-species, designated by Dall, 1909, Arca pilosa Linnaeus) is an objective synonym of Azinaea and should be placed on the appropriate Official Index of Rejected Names. Panopea was made the type-genus of a family PANOPEIDAE by Stewart (1930, Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. spec. Publ. 3 : 294), but is included by the great majority of authors in the family HIaTELLIDAE Winckworth, formerly known as SAXICAVIDAE Swainson. Cyrtodaria is also currently included in the HIATELLIDAE and has never been the type-genus of a family. 10. It has been mentioned above that Pectunculus Da Costa, 1778, is a senior homonym of Pectunculus Lamarck, 1799. Jukes-Brown (1911, Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 9 : 250) designated Pectunculus capillaceus Da Costa (a junior subjective synonym of Venus exoleta Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 688) as the type-species of Da Costa’s genus, which is now considered to be a sub- genus of Dosinia Scopoli, 1777, belonging to the family VENERIDAE. It is recommended that Pectunculus Da Costa and Venus exoleta should be placed on the appropriate Official Lists. 11. Application is hereby made for the Commission : (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy : (a) the generic name Glycimeris Lamarck, 1799, and (b) the family-group name AXINAEINAE H. & A. Adams, 1858 ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 187 (2) to rule that the pamphlet Mémoire sur un nouveau genre de coquille bivalve-équivalve, de la famille des Solénoides intermédiére aux Solens et aux Myas (etc.) issued by Ménard de la Groye and dated January 1807, is to be regarded as not having been published until after April 1807 ; (3) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Panopea Ménard de la Groye, April 1807 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation by Children, 1823, Panopea aldrovandi Ménard de la Groye, 1807 ; (b) Cyrtodaria Reuss, 1801 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designa- tion in the present application, Mya siliqua Spengler, 1793 ; (c) Glycymeris Da Costa, 1778 (gender : feminine), type-species, by absolute tautonymy, Arca glycymeris Linnaeus, 1758 ; (d) Pectunculus Da Costa, 1778 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation by Jukes-Brown, 1911, Pectunculus capillaceus Da Costa, 1778 ; (e) Axinaea Poli, 1791 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designa- tion by Gray, 1847, Arca pilosa Linnaeus, 1758 ; (4) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) glycimeris Born, 1778, as published in the binomen VM ya glycimeris (the oldest available name for the type-species of Panopea Ménard de la Groye, 1807) ; (b) stqua Spengler, 1793, as published in the binomen M ya siliqua (type-species of Cyrtodaria Reuss, 1801) ; (c) glycymeris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Arca glycymeris (type-species of Glycymeris Da Costa, 1778) ; (d) exoleta Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Venus exoleta (the oldest available name for the type-species of Pectunculus Da Costa, 1778) ; (e) pilosa Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Arca pilosa (type-species of Axinaea Poli, 1791) ; (5) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Glycimeris Lamarck, 1799, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above ; (b) Glycimeris Lamarck, 1801, a junior homonym of Glycimeris Lamarck, 1799 ; (c) Panope Ménard de la Groye [after April] 1807, an incorrect spelling for Panopea Ménard de la Groye, April 1807 ; (d) Pectunculus Lamarck, 1799, a junior homonym of Pectunculus Da Costa, 1778 ; (e) Tuceta Roding, 1798, a junior objective synonym of Axinaea Poli, 1791 ; 188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (f) Panopaea Lamarck, 1818, an unjustified emendation of Panopea Ménard de la Groye, 1807 ; (6) to place the specific name orbicularis da Costa, 1778, as published in the binomen Glycymeris orbicularis (a junior objective synonym of glycymeris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Arca glycymeris) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ; (7) to place the name GLYCYMERIDAE Stewart, 1930 (type-genus Glycymeris Da Costa, 1778) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ; (8) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology : (a) AXINAEINAE H. & A. Adams, 1858 (type-genus Azinaea Poli, 1791), as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above ; (b) PECTUNCULINAE Dall, 1898 (type-genus Pectunculus Lamarck, 1799), invalid because the name of its type-genus is a junior homonym. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 189 DASIOPS RONDANI, 1856 (INSECTA, DIPTERA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1240 By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) History of the Case This case was first submitted to the Commission by Dr. Giinter Morge (Institut fiir Forstzoologie der Humboldt-Universitat, Eberswalde bei Berlin) on the 7th July 1957. 2. The genus Dasiops was introduced by A. E. Rondani in 1856 (Diptero- logiae Italicae Prodromus 1 : 120). The genus was described in a key to the group Loncheina Rondani. Under Dasiops Rondani were the following words :— bed: Dasiops loncheus mihi. spite lt Lonchea dasiops Mgn.”’ According to Dr. Morge, Dasiops loncheus Rondani is a new species without description and is usually considered as a nomen nudum, so that in effect Dasiops Rondani, 1856 is monobasic with the sole species Lonchea dasiops Meigen as the indication validating the genus. But Rondani misspelled both generic and trivial names of Meigen’s species which is properly Lonchaea dasyops. In spite of the error in spelling there is no doubt that Rondani was referring to Meigen’s species. According to a strict application of the Rules Lonchaea dasyops Meigen is the type-species of Dasiops Rondani, 1856 on two counts, monotypy and tautonymy. Morge, however, argued that the spelling dasiops is an erroneous subsequent spelling of dasyops and therefore has no separate status in nomenclature. In this case the valid spelling of the trivial name is dasyops which is not exactly tautonymous with Dasiops Rondani. This is immaterial since Dasiops loncheus Rondani is a nomen nudum making “ Lonchea dasiops’’ Meigen the type-species of Dasiops by monotypy. 3. Dr. Morge stated that Lonchaea dasyops Meigen is the type-species of Chaetolonchaea Czerny, 1934 (in Lindner’s Flieg. palaearkt. Reg. 48 : 26) by original designation so that Chaetolonchaea Czerny is an objective junior synonym of Dasiops Rondani, 1856. If, therefore, Lonchaea dasyops Meigen is accepted under the Rules as the type-species of Dasiops Rondani, that generic name will have to be used for an entirely different concept from that now associated with it in current usage. Dr. Morge, however, was confident that Rondani, in 1856, had wrongly identified Lonchaea dasyops Meigen. He con- sidered that Rondani had not based Dasiops on two species but on one, his own Dasiops loncheus, giving “‘Lonchea dasiops’’ Meigen only as a synonym of it. In 1874 Rondani (Dipterologiae Italicae Prodromus (8); Bull. Soc. ent. Ital. 6 : 272) wrote “sp. 1. D. loncheus Rndn. 1856 (exclus sinon.)”. He did not then include Lonchaea dasyops Meigen among the other synonyms of that species. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, pt. 3. ,_ June 1961. 190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 4. In 1956 and 1957, Morge studied Rondani’s collection in Florence and Bologna (Italy), both the private and the, so-called, official collection.* He found no specimens labelled “‘ Lonchea dasiops Mgn.,” and none representing the true Lonchaca dasyops Meigen. All the specimens in Rondani’s collections labelled Dasiops loncheus were found to be identical with Lonchaea latifrons Meigen and to represent a group entirely different from Chaetolonchaea Czerny and its type-species Lonchaea dasyops Meigen. 5. Dr. Morge considered that the type-species of Dasiops Rondani should be that species mentioned by Rondani in 1856 and fully described by him as Dasiops loncheus in 1874 when he became aware that it was not synonymous with Lonchaea dasyops Meigen as he had thought it was in 1856 when it was known to Rondani only from the description. Morge was convinced that Lonchaea dasyops Meigen could be considered as having been wrongly synony- mized, by Rondani, with Dasiops loncheus Rondani, owing to the statement in his 1874 work “ exclus sinon. ”’. 6. Dr. Morge also pointed out that Coquillett in 1910 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 37 : 531) had designated Chortophila lasiophthalma Macquart as the type-species of Dasiops Rondani, 1856. Unfortunately there is a compositor’s error in Coquillett’s designation, Dasiops being spelt Dasiopa. Morge believed that this would affect the validity of the type-species designation for Dasiops. He also thought that because Chortophila lasiophthalma was not an original species of Dasiops it could not be the valid type-species. But Coquillett wrote in brackets ‘‘(as loncheus new species) ”’ thereby virtually citing Dasiops loncheus Rondani, 1856 as the type-species of Dasiops Rondani and sinking it at the same time as a synonym of Chortophila lasiophthalma Macquart, 1835 (Roret’s Suite d Buffon, Diptéres 2 : 329). Dr. Morge, however, believed that Coquillett’s designation was invalid and asked the Commission to use the plenary powers :— (a) to reject Lonchaea dasyops Meigen, 1826 (Syst. Beschr. Zweifl. Insekt. 5 : 308), misspelled by Rondani “ Lonchea dasiops Mgn.”’, as the type-species of the genus Dasiops Rondani, 1856, and (b) to validate Dasiops loncheus Rondani, 1874 (=Lonchaea latifrons Meigen, 1826) as type-species of the genus Dasiops Rondani, in harmony with accustomed usage for the genus. 7. Mr. Francis Hemming acknowledged Dr. Morge’s application on the 19th July 1957 and asked for fuller references and fuller information on details of taxonomy and current usage. On 3rd August 1957 the Secretary of the Commission received in duplicate from Dr. Morge a revised and enlarged application. Additional points made were : (a) that if the Rules were strictly followed and Lonchaea dasyops regarded as the type-species of Dasiops then the generic name Dasiops Rondani must be used for a genus (currently known as Chaetolonchaea Czerny, 1934), which is clearly and entirely different from that known in current literature as Dasiops Rondani, 1856. * In recent years Dr. Morge has also visited other Italian Museums where Rondani types might be expected to exist, except the Naples Museum, but has found only extra-palaearctic species. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 191 (b) The genus known in current literature as Dasiops Rondani, 1856, would have to be called Arctobiella Coquillett, 1902 (type-species Arctobiella obscura Coquillett, 1902), a name previously used only by Coquillett (J. New York Ent. Soc. 10 : 188)*. Morge gave a list of authors using the name Dasiops Rondani to exemplify current usage. All of these had spelt the name erroneously as Dasyops. 8. Hemming acknowledged the receipt of Morge’s fresh application on the 14th August 1957, and on the 19th August received a letter from Morge requesting him to alter the gender of Dasiops Rondani from masculine to feminine because it was clear from the original description of the genus that the termination -ops must be an abridgement of -opsis and therefore should be regarded as feminine. Hemming replied that although under one of the decisions taken by the Copenhagen Congress in 1953, names ending in -ops and -opsis are to be treated as being feminine, this rule had given rise to considerable difficulty since it was found that names with such terminations had always been treated as masculine. Hemming wrote :—“ In these cases the Commission I think has used, or is likely shortly to use, its plenary powers to direct that the gender to be used for generic names in question shall be the gender normally attributed to them by specialists in the groups in question. This action is considered necessary in order to prevent a disturbance of an unnecessary and pedantic character in existing nomenclatorial usage.” He asked Morge to let him know what gender of Dasiops was predominant and received the reply (19th September 1957) that the name Dasiops had been predominantly treated as feminine in gender but that Rondani had orginally regarded it as masculine. Hemming acknowledged this letter and promised to investigate the position and to inform Morge as soon as the position was a little clearer. He referred this question to Canon L. W. Grensted who promised to investigate the question. On the 10th October 1957 the Commission received a long report from Canon Grensted, in which the conclusion he reached was that words ending in -ops were masculine not feminine. 9. On the 14th March 1958 the Commission received a letter from Dr. Morge reporting that his Monograph of Palaearctic Lonchaeids (Diptera) was nearly finished and asking if his application could be dealt with before the Colloquium in July. Secretary Hemming acknowledged this and pointed out that pressure of work involved in preparations for the Colloquium in connexion with the XVth International Congress of Zoology prevented progress being made with Morge’s case. On the 28th March the Commission received from Dr. Morge a duplicate copy of the Dasiops case together with an application for a Declaration to be made by the Commission as to what is the correct spelling of a generic name in a case of absolute tautonymy which involves a misspelling of the specific name, that is to say should Rondani’s generic name based on dasyops Meigen be spelt Dasyops and not Dasiops and should * Dr. Morge has recently informed me that since this case was written up he has found that the earliest available name for this taxon is Lasiophtalma (sic) Lioy (1864 Atti Inst. Veneto (3) 9 : 1037), type-species nigrovirescens Lioy which therefore replaces Arctobiella Coquillett, 1902. This fact was published in Morge’s Monographie der palaearctischen Lonchaeidae, 1959. Lasio- phtalma has only been used by Lioy and by Bezzi (1891). 192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature “Tonchea dasiops Mgn”’ so spelt by Rondani be considered as an erroneous subsequent spelling of Lonchaea dasyops Meigen. Hemming acknowledged the receipt of these documents and stated that he proposed to hand over the case to Mr. Melville. 10. On the 20th May 1958, Melville wrote to Morge reaffirming the masculine gender of Dasiops and suggesting that Rondani only proposed the specific name loncheus in order to avoid the tautonymous binomen Dasyops dasyops or as he would have incorrectly spelt it, Dasiops dasiops. Melville wrote :— “In the meantime, there has grown up a practice whereby the nominal species Lonchaea dasyops Meigen, 1826 (which is by strict application of the Régles, the type-species of Dasiops) has come to be regarded as taxonomically distinct from the taxonomic species Dasiops loncheus Rondani, 1856, which is currently treated as the type-species of Dasiops. Indeed according to your application, Rondani misidentified his material in the first place.” Melville wanted more information on whether the specific name loncheus Rondani was in fact the oldest available name for the taxon to which it is applied and also whether Dasiops loncheus Rondani, 1874 was a subjective or an objective junior synonym of Lonchaea latifrons Meigen, 1826. He also wanted details of the family group name Lonchaeidae and of any family group names that might have been based on the name Dasiops or Dasyops. 11. On the 8th July, the Commission received Morge’s reply to Melville’s letter. He agreed that the gender of Dasiops was masculine ; pointed out that everywhere in Rondani’s works Rondani considered loncheus Rondani and dasyops Meigen to be synonymous ; declared latifrons Meigen to be the oldest available name for loncheus Rondani on the basis of comparison of type- specimens (subjective synonymy) ; indicated that the type-genus of the family group Lonchaeidae was Lonchaea Fallén, 1820; and declared that there were no family group names based on the generic name Dasiops or Dasyops. 12. Pressing affairs of the Colloquium and the Zoological Congress held in London and the illness of Mr. Francis Hemming prevented anything more being done, although Dr. Morge was himself present at the Colloquium. On the 26th August, Dr. Morge wrote expressing the hope that his case would be dealt with soon. Mr. Melville replied that the case was held up owing to full time work being done on editing the new International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 13. In March, 1959, there appeared in Beitrage zur Entomologie 9 : 1-92, Dr. Giinter Morge’s “ Monographie der palaearktischen Lonchaeidae”’. On pages 12-16, Morge, in a note on Nomenclature and synonymy, gave a survey of his case which as he said had not yet been published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. He expected that the International Commission would use its plenary powers to reject dasyops Meigen as the type-species of Dasiops Rondani and to declare that the type-species was latifrons Meigen (=loncheus Rondani). He listed a number of subjective synonyms of Dasiops Rondani. 14. The publication of Morge’s Monograph means that students of the Lonchaeidae will use this valuable work and it is therefore very desirable to validate Morge’s action, officially, in order to avoid further confusion. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 193 The Present Situation 15. It is obvious from the above history that, according to a strict inter- pretation of the Rules, the type-species of Dasiops Rondani must be “ Lonchea dasiops Mgn” (=Lonchaea dasyops Meigen) by monotypy since Dasiops loncheus Rondani, 1856, is a nomen nudum. As will be seen above, however, Morge believes that Rondani misidentified Lonchaea dasyops Meigen which he knew only from Meigen’s description. The absence of any specimens of the true Lonchaea dasyops Meigen in Rondani’s collections at Florence and Bologna supports this view. Morge considered that the wrongly identified Lonchaea dasyops Meigen was only given by Rondani as a synonym of his Dasiops loncheus and he regarded the described species Dasiops loncheus Rondani, 1874 (Dipt. Ital. Prodromus 8, Bull. Soc. ent. Ital. 6 : 272) as the type-species of Dasiops Rondani, 1856. Rejecting subjective reasoning the type-species of Dasiops Rondani must be “ Lonchea dasiops Meigen ’’, that is Lonchaea dasyops Meigen. If as Morge submits this nominal species was wrongly identified by Rondani, then the only means by which the species currently considered to be the type of the genus Dasiops (in place of Lonchaea dasyops Meigen) can be designated is by the use of the plenary powers of the Commission. Rondani’s misspelling of dasyops and questions of tautonymy are immaterial in this case. 16. Also if Lonchaea dasyops Meigen were to be regarded as the type-species of Dasiops Rondani then Chaetolonchaea Czerny, 1934 (Lindner’s Flieg. palaearkt. Reg. 43 : 26) would become an objective junior synonym of Dasiops Rondani, and the latter name would have to be used for an entirely different generic concept from that now associated with it in current usage. A strict application of the rules would in fact give rise to greater confusion than uniformity. The name Dasiops Rondani has been in general use by Dipterists since Scudder, 1882, who was the first to use the spelling Dasyops, presumably tautonymous with dasyops Meigen, but for a genus different from that typified by Lonchaea dasyops Meigen, which is the type-species of Chaetolonchaea Czerny, 1934. The subjective synonyms given by Morge in his paper need not be considered in this application to the Commission. __ 17. The action which the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is therefore asked to take is as follows :— (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of a type-species for the nominal genus Dasiops Rondani, 1856, made prior to the ruling now requested and, having done so, to designate Lonchaea latifrons Meigen, 1826 (=Dasiops loncheus Rondani, 1874) 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) Dasiops Rondani, 1856 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Lonchaea latifrons Meigen, 1826 ; (b) Chaetolonchaea Czerny, 1934 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation, Lonchaea dasyops Meigen, 1826 ; 194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (c) Lonchaea Fallén, 1820 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation by Westwood, 1840, Musca chorea Fabricius, 1781 ; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) latifrons Meigen, 1826, as published in the binomen Lonchaea latifrons (type-species of Dasiops Rondani, 1856) ; (b) dasyops Meigen, 1826, as published in the binomen Lonchaea dasyops (type-species of Chaetolonchaea Czerny, 1934) ; (c) chorea Fabricius, 1781, (Sp. Ins. 2 : 444) as published in the binomen Musca chorea (type-species of Lonchaea Fallén, 1820) ; (4) to place the family-group name LONCHAEIDAE Becker (type-genus, Lonchaea Fallén, 1820) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ; (5) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Dasiopa Coquillet, 1910 (an erroneous subsequent spelling for Dasiops Rondani, 1856) ; (b) Dasyops Scudder, 1882 (an erroneous subsequent spelling for Dasiops Rondani, 1856) ; (c) Lonchea Rondani, 1856 (an erroneous subsequent spelling for Lonchaea Fallen, 1820) ; (6) to place the specific name dasiops Rondani, 1856, as published in the binomen Lonchea [sic] dasiops (an erroneous subsequent spelling for dasyops (Lonchaea) Meigen, 1826) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE A TYPE-SPECIES FOR EUCERAPHIS WALKER, 1870. Z.N.(S.) 1363. (see this volume, pages 83-84) By Frej Ossiannilsson (Kungl. Lantbrukshégskolan Institutionen for Vaatsjukdomslara, Uppsala, Sweden) I have received a reprint from the Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 18, Part 1, Dec. 1960, Z.N.(S.) 1363, published by D. Hille Ris Lambers and H. L. G. Stroyan. I would like to comment upon this application as follows :— This case is quite clear. The only obscure point is the real identity of Aphis betulae Linnaeus, which is however certainly not the species for which Walker used this name. Therefore, I quite agree with the two authors of the application in question and wish to support their request. By Clyde F. Smith (School of Agriculture, North Carolina State College, Raleigh, N.C., U.S.A.) I wish to support the request of Dr. Hille Ris Lambers and H. L. G. Stroyan. I consider the facts as put forward to be clear, concise, straight-forward, and reasonable. Positive action on the case presented by Dr. Hille Ris Lambers and Dr. Stroyan would clarify what has been a very confused problem. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 195 HARRISONIELLA BEDFORD, 1928: PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS (INSECTA, MALLOPHAGA). Z.N.(S.) 1282 By Theresa Clay and G. H. E. Hopkins (British Museum (Natural History), London and Tring) The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to designate, as type- species of the genus Harrisoniella Bedford, 1929 (Mallophaga), the species generally accepted as such, thereby avoiding the serious confusion which would inevitably result from the application of the normal provisions of the Régles to this case, in which there is conclusive evidence that the nominal type-species of the genus was misdetermined. 2. The genus Harrisoniella was erected by Bedford (1929, Rep. vet. Res. S. Africa 15 : 529). The genus was described and the type-species was stated to be “ Hsthiopterum diomedeae (Fabricius)”. Immediately following the description of Harrisoniella there is a heading “1. Harrisoniella diomedeae (Fabricius) ’’, followed by a reference to the original description of Pediculus diomedeae Fabricius and five references to supposed redescriptions of which four are under the name Lipeurus ferox Giebel and the fifth is to a name which, if it does not refer to a nymph of ferox, applies to the nymph of a taxon which is not more than subspecifically distinct from the latter. This list is followed by particulars of certain specimens in Bedford’s collection which he considered to be H. diomedeae (Fabricius). 3. The genus Perineus Harrison, 1936 was erected in a paper published by Thompson (1936, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10)18 : 41) the type-species being stated to be Lipeurus nigrolimbatus Giebel, 1874 (Insecta epizoa : 233). Harrison’s name is not mentioned in this paper, but his manuscript was published posthumously (Harrison, 1937, Sci. Rep. Aust. Antarctic Exped. (C) 2, part 1) ; in this work Perineus is described on p. 28 and the description is identical with that published by Thompson except for the inclusion of three words which Thompson omitted ; a footnote on p. 5 claims Harrison’s author- ship* for certain other generic names published by Thompson from Harrison’s manuscript. 4. Nearly all the members of both genera (as generally interpreted) occur on albatrosses, and all belong to the elongate type of Ischnocera adapted for life on the back and wings of the bird. On most albatrosses there are two species, one of which (hereafter called A) is very large (about 8 or 9 mm. long) and is almost wholly blackish in colour when adult, while the other (B) is much smaller and mainly white with black margins. 5. The original description of Pediculus diomedeae Fabricius, 1775 (Systema Entomologiae : 808) is, as to be expected at that date, excessively brief and the Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, pt. 3. June 1961. * About this time Thompson admitted to me that Harrison was in fact the author of the manuscript which he, Thompson, had published.—N. D. Riley. 196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature type material is lost. Only superficial characters are mentioned in the descrip- tion but these are enough to exclude the possibility that Fabricius’s material belonged to type A and are entirely consistent with the probability that it belonged to type B. The host-record is “‘ in Brasiliae diomedeis ”’. 6. Dufour (1835, Ann. Soc. ent. Fr. 4 : 669, pl. 21, figs. 1, 2) described and figured as Philopterus diomedeae (Fabricius) a male and a nymph (called a female) of type A. 7. Giebel (1867, Z. ges. NatWiss. 29 : 195) described as Lipeurus ferox a specimen of type A. 8. Piaget (1880, Pédiculines : 334) suggested, correctly, that Lipeurus ferox Giebel, 1867, is the same as L. diomedeae “‘(Fabricius)”’ of Dufour, 1835, and Taschenberg (1882, Nova Acta Leop.-Carol. 44 : 145) placed both Pediculus diomedeae Fabricius and Philopterus diomedeae Dufour in the synonymy of Lipeurus ferox Giebel, together with another species described by Dufour which does not belong to either of the genera under discussion. This incorrect identification of diomedeae Dufour with diomedeae Fabricius was generally accepted for very many years and is the cause of all the subsequent confusion. Until 1916, the name Lipeurus ferox was in general use for the composite, but Harrison (1916, Parasitology 9 : 133, 134) placed ferox Giebel in Esthiopterum as a synonym of £. diomedeae Fabricius ; he did not mention diomedeae Dufour. 9. Hopkins (1946, Entomologist 79 : 4-7) discussed the question of the type- species of Harrisoniella Bedford, 1929, and pointed out that, although Pediculus diomedeae Fabricius is a species of type B, Bedford’s description of the genus applies to type A and definitely excludes type B, while all the references given by him, except that to the description of 1775, are to descriptions of members of type A ; moreover, Hopkins had seen Bedford’s collection and had confirmed that the only specimens in it which were labelled Harrisoniella diomedeae (Fabricius) were of type A and were specimens of the species described by Giebel as Lipeurus ferox. It is, therefore, beyond all possible doubt that the species intended by Bedford as the type-species of Harrisoniella was Lipeurus ferox Giebel, 1867 (Philopterus diomedeae Dufour, 1835, not Pediculus diomedeae Fabricius). Hopkins took the view that it is in accordance with commonsense and with the spirit of the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature to accept as type-species of a genus the species that the author had before him when describing the genus rather than that which he erroneously supposed himself to have, and therefore that the type-species of Harrisoniella is Esthiopterum diomedeae (Dufour et auctorum, not of Fabricius). This view has been accepted by subsequent authors with one exception (see para. 11), and in particular was expressed in the only comprehensive modern list of the Mallophaga (Hopkins and Clay, 1952, Checklist of the genera and species of Mallophaga : 165). Hopkins’s view was in complete accord with Opinion 168 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 421) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, which dealt with the question of misdetermined type-species of genera and which had supplemented and superseded Opinion 65 on the same subject, since the relevant portion of Opinion 168 read “in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is to be assumed that the original author of a genus correctly identified the species assigned by him thereto” (the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 197 italics are ours). The same qualifying phrase, placed by us in italics, is contained in the resolution passed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at Paris in 1948 (see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 158), but the qualifying words were deleted in 1953 (Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature : | 68, para. 127). The effect of this change, so far as the taxa under discussion are concerned, was that under strict application of the Rules the type-species of Harrisoniella, which (in view of the conclusive evidence of a misdetermination of the nominal species designated as type) had been a species of type A must now be taken to be a species of type B, since Bedford must be assumed to have identified Pediculus diomedeae Fabricius, 1775, correctly in spite of conclusive evidence to the contrary. 10. Clay (1940, Sci. Rep. British Graham Land Exped. 1 : 299-302, figs. 1, 2, 4a, 5a, 6a) redescribed Perineus diomedeae (Fabricius, 1775) and proposed as neotype a male in the British Museum (Natural History), slide No. 309, obtained in Sio Paulo, Brazil, from Diomedea m. melanophris Temminck. 11. Von Kéler (1956, Beitr. Ent. 6 : 532-534) disagrees with the actions of Clay and Hopkins on several grounds. First he claims that the matter o misidentified type-species of genera was settled by Opinions 65 and 168, ignoring the inconclusive nature of the former and the qualifying words in the latter (which supplements and supersedes Opinion 65) and the fact that these qualifying words were not deleted until 1953. Next he claims that the species Fabricius had was possibly a straggler, not an albatross-parasite, but shows his own degree of faith in this argument by continuing to use diomedeae Fabricius for the species represented by Clay’s proposed neotype. Von Kéler’s final argument is that, on morphological grounds, diomedeae Fabricius, together with most of the other albatross-infesting species which have been referred by all other recent authors to Perineus are not congeneric with Perineus nigrolimbatus (Giebel, 1874) but with Harrisoniella ferox (Giebel, 1867). 12. The question of whether Pediculus diomedeae Fabricius is congeneric with Perineus nigrolimbatus (Giebel) or with Harrisoniella ferox (Giebel) or with neither is clearly a matter of opinion with which the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature cannot deal. But it is obvious that all arguments on the subject will be vitiated and intense confusion will result so long as there is any doubt as to the identity of the species described by Fabricius as Pediculus diomedeae and while some authors regard as type- species of Harrisoniella the large blackish species (Lipeurus ferox Giebel or Philopterus diomedeae Dufour, 1835, nec Fabricius, 1775) which Bedford had before him when he described the genus, while others consider it to be the small and mainly white species (Pediculus diomedeae Fabricius, 1775) which he, relying on an old misidentification which had been accepted by later authors, wrongly supposed himself to have. The former view, though in accordance with Opinion 168, which was in force when it was published, and though it has been accepted by all subsequent authors with one exception, was made incorrect by the alteration of the Rules made in 1953. 13. To avert the otherwise inevitable confusion, we ask that the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should take the following action :— 198 Bulletin of Zoological .Nomenclature (1) use its plenary powers, under the procedure prescribed by the Inter- national Congress of Zoology for the determination of the type-species of genera based upon misidentified type-species, to set aside all designations of type-species for the genus Harrisoniella Bedford, 1929, made prior to the decision now proposed, and to designate Lipeurus ferox Giebel, 1867, to be the type-species of that genus ; (2) place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Harrisoniella Bedford, 1929 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers as proposed in (1) above, Lipeurus ferox Giebel, 1867 ; (b) Perineus Harrison, 1936 (gender: masculine), type-species, by original designation, Lipeurus nigrolimbatus Giebel, 1874 ; (3) place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) diomedeae Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Pediculus diomedeae, the species so named to be interpreted by the neotype proposed by Clay in 1940 ; (b) ferox Giebel, 1867, as published in the binomen Lipeurus ferox (type-species of Harrisoniella Bedford, 1929) ; (c) nigrolimbatus Giebel, 1874, as published in the binomen Lipeurus nigrolimbatus (type-species of Perineus Harrison, 1936). 14. No family-group names are based on the generic names Harrisoniella Bedford, 1929, and Perineus Harrison, 1936. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 199 PUNTIUS HAMILTON, 1822 (PISCES): PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY. Z.N.(S.) 1308 By J. J. Hoedeman (Zoological Museum, Amsterdam, Netherlands) The object of the present application (first submitted in January 1958) is to ask the Commission to give a Ruling confirming the validity of a type- designation for the genus Puntius Hamilton, 1822 (An Account of the Fishes found in the River Ganges and its Branches : 310), proposed as a division of the genus Cyprinus Linnaeus, and given full generic rank by Bleeker in 1863 (Atlas Ichthyologique 3 : 27). Hamilton as original author did not designate or indicate a type-species ; Bleeker, as first reviser selected the nominal species Cyprinus sophore Hamilton, 1822 (loc. cit.) as type-species of the nominal genus Puntius. 2. Puntius contained among the original nominal species Cyprinus puntio Hamilton, 1822 (op. cit.: 318). It was maintained by Smith, 1945 (Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 188 : 165) that this species was, according to the Code, the type-species of Puntius by absolute tautonymy. However, the words Puntius and puntio are not absolutely identical as is necessary for the application of the rule in question. There is between those two names virtual tautonymy and there is a recommendation in the Code that an author should, if possible, designate such a species as the type of a genus ; but a recommendation is not a rule and there is no question but that Bleeker’s designation of sophore as the type of Puntius is valid. 3. If Smith’s opinion were accepted, moreover, the genus Puntius would be left with a very doubtful status. According to Hora & Mukerji, 1932 (Rec. Indian Mus. 36(3) : 369-370) the status of Cyprinus puntio Hamilton, 1822, is doubtful, as they concluded ‘‘ Under the name Cyprinus puntio Hamilton described a small species from the ‘ ponds and ditches of the southern part of Bengal ’, and a reference to his ‘ Original Notes ’ shows that the species was obtained by him at ‘ Luchipur’ and Calcutta. Unfortunately it has never been taken from Bengal since Hamilton’s time, and the original descrip- tion is very meagre and inadequate. No illustration of the species exists in Hamilton’s published or manuscript drawings. In the circumstances it is very difficult to be certain of the identity of Hamilton’s puntio and the species must be regarded as a species inguirendum ”’. 4. The above conclusion of two eminent ichthyologists very familiar with the fishes from India, I believe, cannot be ignored. Schultz’s statement (1957, Tropical Fish Hobbyist 5(4) : 15) that “ Day, 1870 (Proc. Zool. Soc., London, p. 100) redescribed Barbus puntio’’ and that “‘ Hora & Mukerji. . also recognize this species as Barbus puntio, which definitely gives it taxonomic status’, is not true and is wrongly interpreted. Hora & Mukerji, on the contrary, state that there is no reason to suppose that the forms described by Hamilton and Day are conspecific. 5. The first author to select a type-species for Puntius was Bleeker, 1863. In his division Systomi of the Cyprinid fishes Bleeker elevated Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, pt. 3. June 1961. 200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Hamilton’s name Puntius to the rank of a genus, and after this generic name gave a full diagnosis, concluding with the remark: type-species Cyprinus (Puntius) sophore Hamilton, 1822. Those early workers like Bleeker, being much more familiar with the works of their fellow scientists of the time than we can ever be, must have had a very good reason for designating sophore type-species instead of puntio. This reason no doubt was that sophore is one of the best defined of Hamilton’s species, the only one occurring on the page where the name Puntius was introduced, and the first one of the included species. Cyprinus puntio was referred to on page 318 as one of the last- mentioned of the series. From the way Bleeker used to work, we may con-. clude that he thought sophore to be the nominal species agreeing most with what he believed to be typical for Hamilton’s genus Puntius. 6. This view, that is, the adoption of Bleeker’s selection of the type-species of Puntius, is objected to by Smith (Joc. cit.) in the following words “ Bleeker’s course does not appear to have been sound. The subgenus Puntius should have represented the genus in sensu stricto; that is, it should have agreed with the genotype in the special character (number of barbels) on which the genus was divided’. This division by Bleeker (op. cit : 27, immediately after the diagnosis of the genus) reads as follows : Barbodes, 4 cirri, type-species Barbodes belinka Bleeker Capoéta, 2 cirri, type-species Capoéta amphibia Valenciennes Puntius, cirri nulli. The type-species of each of the three subgenera is selected in perfect accordance with the Code, since Cyprinus sophore as type-species of the generic name Puntius, becomes automatically the type-species of the subgenus. The taxonomic diagnosis, cirri nulli (no barbels), for Puntius is also quite in agree- ment with the given type-species sophore. The number of barbels in sophore of Hamilton is none, and not four as supposed by Smith (loc. cit.) and Schultz (loc. cit.). This has for long been pointed out by Chaudhuri (1916, Mem. Indian Mus. 5(4) : 436-437). 7. The International Commission is therefore asked :— (1) to place the generic name Puntius Hamilton, 1822 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation by Bleeker, 1863, Cyprinus sophore Hamilton, 1822, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (2) to place the specific name sophore Hamilton, 1822, as published in the binomen Cyprinus sophore (type-species of Puntius Hamilton, 1822) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 201 LESTIS LEPELETIER & SERVILLE, 1828 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA); PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1383 By Paul D. Hurd, Jr. (University of California, Berkeley, U.S.A.) and Charles D. Michener (University of Kansas, Lawrence, U.S.A.) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to designate a type-species in harmony with accustomed usage for the genus Lestis Lepeletier & Serville, 1828 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). 2. Lestis Lepeletier & Serville, 1828 (Hncy. méth. (Ins.) 10 : 795, 799-800) was published with type-species Centris muscaria (Fabricius, 1804, Syst. Piezat. : 358) by original designation. The original publication of this specific name was as Apis muscaria Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 386). As will be seen, the species intended by the original authors of the genus when employing this specific name was Apis bombylans Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 386). 3. This is another instance of erroneous identification of the type-species of a genus, in which strict application of the Rules would result in the transfer of a generic name from one group of organisms to another. Lepeletier and Serville, based their genus Lestis on a putative single species represented by two specimens, a male and a female, contained in the entomological collection of the King of France (: 799 “ L’espéce qui nous sert de type ne nous est connue que par deux individus, |’un male et l’autre femelle, faisant partie de la collection entomologique du cabinet du Roi; ... ”). These specimens are not the Fabrician types. On page 795 these authors state, “ Fabricius en créant le genre Centris dans son Syst. Piez. y rapporte trente-six espéces. Les nos. . . . 19 et 20 [bombylans and muscaria] sont les deux sexes d’une méme espéce, type de notre genre Lestis; ...” On page 800, apparently exercising the principle of the first reviser, they selected Centris muscaria (Fabricius, 1804) (i.e. Apis muscaria Fabricius, 1775) as the name for the species and placed in synonymy Centris bombylans (Fabricius, 1804) (i.e. Apis bombylans Fabricius, 1775). Thus it is apparent that Apis muscaria Fabricius and not Apis bombylans Fabricius is the type-species of Lestis. 4. Smith, 1854 (Cat. Hymenopt. B.M. (2) : 364), subsequently stated that “The Centris muscaria of Fabricius is a Xylocopa 3’, and has treated Apis bombylans Fabricius, 1775, as a valid species of the genus Lestis, a status which all subsequent workers have recorded. A recent examination by Padre J. 8S. Moure of the type of Apis muscaria Fabricius, 1775, which is labelled from New Holland (Australia), has revealed that in reality it is a South American species of the genus Xylocopa and is assignable to the subgenus Schénherria Lepeletier, 1841. Fabricius, 1775, described this species without stating a locality but subsequently (1793, Ent. syst. : 339) he gives, ‘“ Habitat in nova Hollandia Mus. Dom. Banks.’’. Bull. zool, Nomencl., Vol. 18, pt. 3. June 1961. 202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5. If it were necessary under the Rules to assume that the Lepeletier and Serville designation is valid, then the well-known Australian carpenter bee genus (currently known as Lestis) is left without a name since the designated type-species is a South American species. Moreover it would become necessary to transfer and apply the name Lestis Lepeletier & Serville to the New World subgenus Schénherria Lepeletier, 1841, since they are taxonomically (zoo- logically) equivalent. Such action would not only cause confusion in the nomenclature of these genera, but would also run directly counter to the intentions of Lepeletier & Serville, which was to provide a generic name for the bees placed in the genus Lestis. 6. The International Commission is therefore asked : (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Lestis Lepeletier & Serville, 1828, made prior to the Ruling now requested and, having done so, to designate Apis bombylans Fabricius, 1775, to be the type-species of that genus. (2) to place the generic name Lestis Lepeletier & Serville, 1828 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Apis bombylans Fabricius, 1775, 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) bombylans Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Apis bombylans (type-species of Lestis Lepeletier & Serville, 1828) ; (b) muscaria Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Apis muscaria. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 203 TRICHOCERA MEIGEN, 1803; PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY (INSECTA, DIPTERA). Z.N. (S.) 1407 By Christine Dahl (Zoological I nstitute, University, Lund, Sweden) The object of the present application is to seek the addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of a well-known name in Diptera Nematocera, viz. Trichocera Meigen, 1803. The application is the result of the invitation to specialists to deal with certain names of Diptera established by Meigen, 1803, (cf. 1960, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 31). 2. Meigen (1800, Nouv. Class. : 15) erected a genus Petaurista said to contain two “espéces”’, but no species was named. Meigen’s paper passed into oblivion and so did the name Petaurista, until it was reintroduced by Hendel in 1908 (Verh. zool. bot. Ges. 58 : 47). After him only Lindner (1930, Flieg. pal. Reg. (1) : 11) used the name, selecting (p. 12) Tipula regelationis Linnaeus (1758, Syst. Nat. 1: 587) as the type of the genus and creating the family name PETAURISTIDAE (p. 11). Petawrista Meigen, however, falls as a junior homonym of Petaurista Link (1795, Beytr. Naturg. I : 78, Mammalia, Rod.). 3. In 1803 (Versuch Gattungs Eint. europ. Zweifl., Illiger Mag. Ins. Kund. 2 : 262) Meigen established T’richocera. It is evident from the description that this name was intended to replace Petaurista. T. hiemalis de Geer, 1776, is the only originally included species, therefore the type-species by monotypy. Trichocera has been widely used, by numerous authors. It is the type-genus of the family TRICHOCERIDAE Crampton, 1924 (Psyche 31 : 239). 4. Tipula hiemalis was described by de Geer in 1776 (Mém. Hist. Ins. VI : 360-361, pl. 21, figs. 1, 2). It has been claimed that this work is not binominal (cf. Hottes, 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 166-173) and thus is not available. I feel, however, that the problem of 7. hiemalis de Geer must be dealt with apart from the question of the availability of de Geer’s work, since the species is widely referred to in the literature and has been dealt with by a great many authors. 5. An examination of the de Geer collection in the Riksmuseum at Stockholm revealed that no specimens of T'richocera remain. Under the label Tipula hiemalis there are three specimens of Tipula pagana Meigen (det. Dr. Bo Tjeder, Falun). It is clear, however, from de Geer’s description and his illustrations, that he had a species of T'richocera before him. It is known that the de Geer collection was rearranged at least once and it seems very probable that the above tipulid specimens at such a rearrangement of the collection were placed under 7’. hiemalis accidently. These tipulid specimens are not available for the selection of the neotype. From a formal point of view the Specimens in the de Geer collection might have to rank as syntypes. Since there is no doubt that they were not amongst the material used by de Geer for the description, it is herewith proposed that they should be set aside by the Commission under its plenary powers. Bull. z00l. Nomencl., Vol. 18, pt. 3. June 1961, 204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 6. Although de Geer’s description proves that 7. hiemalis is a species of Trichocera it does not allow a definite specific identification. Only in 1921 (Tijdschr. Ent. 64 : 86, fig. 125) de Meijere presented a detailed, illustrated revision of the species involved. He has to be regarded as the valid first reviser of the species. His opinion has been generally accepted and agrees well with what has been found at recent investigations on the Swedish fauna of TRICHOCERIDAE, which is of some importance since de Geer most probably described 7’. hiemalis from Central Swedish material. 7. For the stability of nomenclature it is convenient to select a Swedish specimen of 7’. hiemalis sensu de Meijere as the neotype of 7’. hiemalis de Geer and to deposit it in the de Geer collection in the Riksmuseum, Stockholm. I therefore designate as the neotype a pinned, male specimen, labelled as follows: Upl. Uppsala, Ultuna, 7.10.1949, Ossiannilsson leg. As regards the proposed designation of a Swedish specimen of 7’. hiemalis auct. as the neotype of 7’. hiemalis de Geer, I refer to the perfectly illustrated description of the species in question by de Meijere (1921, op. cit. : 86, fig. 125). 8. In 1803 (l.c., p. 263) Meigen established Atractocera with Tipula regela- tionis as the only included species and so the type-species by monotypy. There is no reference to a previous author of regelationis and it is evident that Meigen’s species did not agree with Linnaeus’s Tipula regelationis. The latter was established in Systema Naturae (1758 : 587) ; the diagnosis hardly enables a safe recognition of the genus but the extended description in Fauna Suecica (1761 : 434) clearly indicates a species of T'richocera. Therefore, it would have been convenient to regard Tipula regelationis (Meigen, 1803) as a species of Meigen and not as a citation of the Linnean species. This would mean that Atractocera would become a junior synonym of Simuliwm Latreille (1802-03) (Hist. Nat. Crust. Ins. 3 : 426). In 1818 (Syst. Beschr. europ. Zweifl. Ins. 1 : 290), however, Meigen said that he had misidentified Tipula regelationis of Linnaeus in the 1803 paper, so it becomes evident that he was dealing with the Linnean species and put it as the only included species of his genus Atractocera. This means that, under the rules, the true regelationis becomes the type-species of Atractocera. Since Tipula regelationis is a species of Trichocera (an original specimen is still preserved in the Linnean collection of the Linnean Society in London), currently considered congenerice with Tipula hiemalis de Geer, Atractocera becomes a synonym of T'richocera. Atractocera has never been in use, so compared to T'richocera which has page-precedence it has to be rejected. The name Atractocera has never been placed as a synonym under Trichocera and was first dealt with as a synonym of Simulium by Latreille, 1809. 9. Although there is no doubt that Tipula regelationis Linnaeus, 1758, is a species of T’richocera and although an original specimen is kept in the collec- tions of the Linnean Society of London, its taxonomic status has not been definitely fixed. Therefore, it seems convenient not to place it on the Official List of Specific Names until this has been done. 10. The International Commission is therefore asked :— (1) to set aside under its plenary powers the three specimens of Tipula pagana to be found under the name Tipula hiemalis in the de Geer Se Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 205 collection in Stockholm, and, having done so, to designate the above- mentioned male, labelled, Upl. Uppsala, Ultuna, 7.10.1949, Ossian- nilsson leg., and placed in the de Geer collection in Stockholm, as the neotype of 7’. hiemalis de Geer, sensu de Meijere ; (2) to place the generic name Trichocera Meigen, 1803 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Tipula hiemalis de Geer, 1776, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name hiemalis de Geer, 1776, as published in the binomen Tipula hiemalis, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the family-group name TRICHOCERIDAE Crampton, 1924 (type- genus: T'richocera Meigen, 1803) on the Official List of Family- group Names in Zoology. The above application by Mrs. Dahl is supported by Per Brinck, Ph.D. Bo Tjeder, Ph.D. (Lund, Sweden) (Falun, Sweden) 206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature TYLENCHUS GULOSUS KUHN, 1890: PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS (NEMATODA). Z.N.(S.) 1432 By P. A. A. Loof (Landbouwhogeschool, Wageningen, Netherlands) The nematode genus Pratylenchus was erected by Filipjev in 1936 to include those species of the old comprehensive genus T'ylenchus Bastian, 1865, that were grouped around T'ylenchus pratensis De Man, 1880, which species was designated typus generis. Pratylenchus species being morphologically very similar, great confusion arose during the first half of the twentieth century with respect to taxonomy and nomenclature. The genus was revised by Sher & Allen in 1953. Their work helped a great deal to promote order in the group, but left still some questions unsolved. 2. The following remarks concern the problem of the identity of T'ylenchus gulosus Kiihn, 1890, the species involved being T'ylenchus pratensis De Man, 1880, 7’. gulosus Kiihn, 1890, and 7’. penetrans Cobb, 1917. History of the species concerned 3. Tylenchus pratensis was described in 1880 from the Netherlands. Its identity has been uncertain for a long period, many different species having been synonymized with it in the course of time. Thus Cobb (1927) synonymized it with 7’. penetrans Cobb, 1917; Steiner (1927) with Aphelenchus neglectus Rensch, 1924; T. Goodey (1932) with both the above and with 7’. coffeae | Zimmermann, 1898 and 7’. brachyurus Godfrey, 1929; Steiner (1932) with T. gulosus Kiihn, 1890. The first step towards settling the taxonomy of this group was the redescription of Pratylenchus pratensis (De Man) by Thorne (1949). Sher & Allen (1953) accepted his interpretation and re-established P. coffeae, P. brachyurus and P. penetrans as valid species, leaving only T. gulosus and A. neglectus in the synonymy of P. pratensis. 4. Tylenchus gulosus was described in 1890 by Kiihn, and redescribed in 1894 by Fischer from Germany. As far as the writer knows, the name was never mentioned again until 1932, when Steiner synonymized it with T. pratensis de Man, under which name, however, he understood the species now known as P. penetrans (Cobb). 7’. gulosus Kiihn, 1890 has remained in the synonymy of P. pratensis ever since. 5. Tylenchus penetrans was described from the U.S.A. in 1917. It was synonymized with 7’. pratensis De Man by Cobb (1927) and Steiner (1927) ; in 1932, Steiner added 7’. gulosus Kiihn to the synonymy. When re-establishing P. penetrans (Cobb) as a valid species, Sher & Allen (1953) left T'ylenchus gulosus in the synonymy of P. pratensis. Status of Tylenchus gulosus 6. In his review of the genus Pratylenchus (Loof, 1960) the present author came to the following conclusions : (a) The original description of T'ylenchus gulosus is extremely poor and misleading, even taking into account that it was written seventy years ago ; Bull. zool. Nomencel., Vol. 18, pt. 3. June 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 207 (b) Tylenchus gulosus apud Fischer (1894) is not identical with P. pratensis (De Man) but with P. penetrans (Cobb). 7. Fischer stated that he had this material checked by Kiihn, who confirmed the determination as T'ylenchus gulosus. This, however, does not amount to much, in the light of our present distinctions in the genus Pratylenchus. The phytopathological data supplied by Kiihn (1890) argue against the conspecificity of Kiihn’s and Fischer’s species. The identity of the former can in no way be deduced. 8. Tylenchus gulosus Kiihn, 1890, antedates 7’. penetrans Cobb, 1917 and the strict application of the Law of Priority would demand that 7. gulosus be the valid name for the species, since Fischer’s species, a later usage of Kiihn, is definitely conspecific with 7’. penetrans. The present writer thinks this undesirable. Although the name penetrans had been suppressed as a synonym from 1927 to 1953, it has come into general use since, especially in phyto- pathological literature, the species being a widespread parasite of many crops and of high economic importance. A very incomplete search in the literature (covering chiefly the Plant Disease Reporter and the Tijdschrift over Planten- ziekten) yielded nearly fifty references from 1953 and 1958. The name gulosus, on the other hand, seems to have gone into complete oblivion since 1894. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked : (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name gulosus Kiihn, 1890, as published in the binomen T'ylenchus gulosus, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the specific name penetrans Cobb, 1917, as published in the binomen T'ylenchus penetrans, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES Cobb, N. A. (1917). J. agric. Res. 11 :.27-33 Cobb, N. A. (1927). J. Parasit.14 : 71 Fischer, M. (1894). Ber. phys. Lab. Vers. landw. Inst. Univ. Halle 3 : 1-11 Kihn, J. (1890). Jahrb. Deut. Landw. Ges. 4: 93-94 Loof, P. A. A. (1960). Tijdschr. PlZiekt. 66 : 29-90 Man, J. G. de (1880). Tijdschr. ned. dierk. Ver. 5 : 1-104 Sher, S. A., & Allen, M. W. (1953). Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 57 : 441-470 Steiner, G. (1927). J. agric. Res. 35 : 961-981 Steiner, G. (1932). J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 22 : 517-518 Thorne, G. (1949). Proc. helm. Soc. Wash. 16 : 37-73 208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PLANICEPS SCOTT & OSBORN, 1887 (HYRACODON): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS AS A NOMEN DUBIUM (MAMMALIA). Z.N.(S.) 1438 By Horace E. Wood (Montclair, New Jersey, U.S.A.) Scott and Osborn, 1887 (Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard 18 : 170-171), proposed the name Hyracodon paniceps for a partial skull collected by Samuel Garman in 1880 in the White River group without data as to level or locality, but assumed to be from the Oligocene of the Big Badlands of South Dakota. The skull, a small one, was assigned to Hyracodon under the misconception that it was an adult. It was given a new specific name, “ planiceps ’’, because of its wide flat head. The specimen was never figured and never restudied until now when it became apparent that it was a very young calf, and so not referable to Hyracodon but to a very much larger true rhinoceros. 2. The infantile characters, smooth cranial contours without a sagittal crest, unsealed sutures and very thin bones, along with the tooth pattern, indicate that it is the young of one of the Caenopinae, probably of the genus Subhyracodon. The teeth, dP 2-4 of both sides, of which the dP 4s are entirely unworn have the typical thin enamel of a milk dentition. They are large in proportion to the skull and rather more robust than those of any Oligocene calf known. There are general resemblances to Subhyracodon occidentalis calves in the American Museum Collections, but the teeth match more closely a calf lower jaw, A.M.N.H. 1112 referred to as Subhyracodon tridactylus (Osborn, 1893) (Bull. amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 5 : 85-86). If this synonymy were demonstrated, the calf in question would have a priority of six years over S. tridactylus. However, this synonymy could not be proven conclusively unless or until a juvenile skull was discovered showing tooth replacement with indubitable tridactylus molars. 3. In view of the circumstances it would be pedantic and a disservice to substitute the name given to a baby animal from an unknown level for a long established name based on a nearly complete adult skeleton from a known level. In order to conserve the specific name tridactylus the International Commission is asked :— (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name planiceps Scott & Osborn, 1887, as published in the binomen Hyracodon planiceps, for purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the specific name tridactylus Osborn, 1893, as published in the binomen Aceratherium tridactylum on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name planiceps Scott and Osborn, 1887, as published in the binomen Hyracodon planiceps (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, pt. 3. June 1961. a et a ed Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 209 PNOEPYGA HODGSON, 1844: PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS (CLASS AVES). Z.N.(S.) 1457 By Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) In August 1837, Gould proposed the generic name Microura (Icones Avium fasc. 1 : expl. to Plate 5) for a wren-like bird from the Himalayas. The type, by monotypy, was Microuwra squamata Gould (loc. cit.), a junior synonym of Tesia albiventer Hodgson (Feb. 1837, J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal 6 : 102, Nepal). 2. Hodgson in 1844 (Zool. Misc. : 82, June 1844) proposed the genus Pnoepyga with two valid included species (rufiventer and albiventer) and two included nomina nuda (concolor and pusillus). The genus was not described nor was a type-species designated, and therefore the 1844 description of the genus Pnoepyga always has been considered (though erroneously) a nomen nudum. 3. In 1845 (Proc. zool. Soc. London 13 : 24) Hodgson fully described the new genus Pnoepyga and gave full descriptions of two additional species, unicolor and pusillus. “* This reference has been recognized almost universally as the original account of the genus’ (Zimmer & Vaurie, 1954, Bull. British Ornithol. Club 74 : 41), which is not surprising since Hodgson himself ignored his preliminary description of 1844. Sharpe, 1881 (Cat. Birds B.M. 6 : 301) desig- nated the species T'esia albiventer Hodgsonas type of Pnoepyga Hodgson, 1845, 4, Shortly afterwards it was discovered that Ehrenberg in 1831 (Symb. phys.—Evert. Phytoz. Turbell., fol. b, [1]) had proposed the name Micrura for a species of nemertean worms (family Lineidae), and according to the classical usage of the period, Microwra Gould, 1837 was considered a strict homonym of Micrura Ehrenberg, 1831. As a consequence, the name Pnoepyga has been consistently used in the standard ornithological literature since about 1860 for albiventer and its allies. The name Microura has been occasionally listed in synonymy (as preoccupied), and possibly accepted by an occasional writer, but all standard works such as the ‘Catalogue Birds British Museum ’, ‘Sharpe’s Handlist of Birds’, ‘ Fauna of British India’ (first and revised editions), Hartert (Palearctic Birds), Vaurie (Palearctic Birds), Chasen (Malaysia Birds), Delacour (Revision of Timaliidae, Malaysia), to mention only a few among scores of works published during the last 100 years, have consistently and universally adopted the name Pnoepyga. It is unlikely that there is a single ornithologist, except a few bibliographers and specialists in nomen- clature, who would know to what bird the name Microura refers. 5. Yet according to the revised rules the grammatical equivalence of the Greek ow and the Latin u in words of Greek origin (Mixpovpx) does not make the generic names Micrura and Microwra homonyms. The valid genus for albiventer would be Microwra, if the revival of the name after 100 years of oblivion were not in direct contradiction to the Preamble of the Copenhagen Decisions (pt. 2, p. 22, 1953). Here is clearly a case that calls for the suppres- sion of a forgotten name by use of the plenary powers of the Commission. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, pt. 3. June 1961. 210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 6. Neither Microuwra nor Pnoepyga has served as the basis of a name on the family level. The genus Pnoepyga was long assigned to the family TROGLO- DYTIDAE (wrens), but is now believed to belong to the wren-babblers in the family TIMALIIDAE (Delacour, 1946, L’Oiseau : 16, 24). 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accord- ingly requested : (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name Microuwra Gould, 1837, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the generic name Pnoepyga Hodgson, 1844 (gender : feminine), type-species by subsequent designation (Sharpe, 1881), T'esia albi- venter Hodgson, 1837, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; : (3) to place the specific name albiventer Hodgson, 1837, as published in the binomen Testa albiventer Hodgson, 1837, (type-species of the genus Pnoepyga) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the generic name Microura Gould, 1837 (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 211 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS EIGHT SPECIFIC NAMES OF TURTLES (REPTILIA, TESTUDINES). Z.N.(S.) 1459 By Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum und Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M.) and Heinz Wermuth (Zoologisches Museum, Berlin) In making a general revision of the living turtles and tortoises of the world the applicants recently discovered a number of unwanted specific names in the ancient literature: after their original introduction into the literature these names had never been used by subsequent authors. In two papers, entitled ‘‘ Versuch der Deutung einiger bisher iibersehener Schildkréten- Namen” (Zool. Beitr. N.F. 2(3) : 399-423, Berlin 1956) and “Status und Nomenklatur der Maurischen Landschildkréte, Testudo graeca, in SW-Asien und NO-Afrika” (Senck. biol. 39(3-4) : 149-153, Frankfurt a.M. 1958) H. Wermuth tried to identify these long-forgotten names. Following the rules, eight of the names in question have to replace other well-known names in this group of reptiles. Therefore in the interests of stability of nomenclature it seems best to ask the International Commission to suppress them under the plenary powers and to place them on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. The individual cases are set out in the following paragraphs, and further information may be taken from the two publications cited above. 2. Testudo viridi-squamosa Lacépéde, 1788 (Hist. nat. Quadrup. ovip. 1: Synops. method., 92), and Testudo mydas minor Suckow, 1798 (Anfangsgr. Naturgesch. Thiere 3 : 30) are senior subjective synonyms of the well-known name Lepidochelys olivacea kempii (Garman, 1880) (Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard 6 : 123), designated the Atlantic Ridley Turtle. 3. The names Testudo flava Lacépéde, 1788 (Hist. nat. Quadrup. ovip. 1 : Synops. method., 135, tab. 16), and Testudo meleagris Shaw, 1793 (Natural. Misc. : tab. 144) are senior subjective synonyms of the name Emys blandingit (Holbrook, 1838) (N.A. Herpet., Descr. Rept. U.S. (ed. 1) 3 : 35), which is in current use. 4. The name Testudo planitia Gmelin, 1789 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 1045) proved to be a senior subjective synonym of Macroclemys temminckit (Troost, 1835) (in Harlan, Med. phys. Res. : 158), the name in current usage for the Alligator Snapping Turtle. 5. Testudo dorsata Schoepff, 1801 (Naturgesch. Schildkr. : 158, tab. 34) is a senior subjective synonym of the name Geoemyda punctularia (Daudin, 1802) (Hist. nat. gén. partic. Rept. 2 : 249). 6. Testudo semimembranacea Hermann, 1804 (Observ. Zool. : 219) is a senior subjective synonym of the well-known name T'rionyx sinensis Wiegmann, 1835 (Nova Acta Acad. leop.-carol. 17 : 189). 7. Testudo terrestris Fermin, 1765 (Hist. nat. Holland équinox.:51) is in conflict with two other names : (a) Firstly, it is to be regarded as a senior subjective synonym of the name Chelus fimbriatus (Schneider, 1783) (Allg. Naturgesch. Schildkréten: 349), the Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, pt. 3. June 1961. 212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature scientific name for the Maramata, which is in current use throughout the literature. (b) Secondly, Vestudo terrestris Fermin, 1765, is a senior primary homonym of the name Testudo terrestris Forskal, 1775 (Descr. Anim., Faun. orient. Conspect. : VIII, 12). H. Wermuth in his 1958 paper pointed out that T'estudo terrestris Forskal is the earliest name designating the south-eastern race of the Moorish Turtle, there called Testudo graeca terrestris Forskal, 1775. Though a junior homonym, the name terrestris has been used by Wermuth, as the suppression of the senior name would be desirable in connection with the conservation of the well-known name Chelus fimbriatus (Schneider). In this special case it is necessary to suppress the name terrestris Fermin both for the purposes of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy, whilst in all other cases it is only necessary to set aside the names concerned with regard to the Law of Priority. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked :— (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following specific names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy :— (a) viridi-squamosa Lacépéde, 1788, as published in the binomen Testudo viridi-squamosa ; (b) minor Suckow, 1798, as published in the combination T'estudo mydas minor ; (c) flava Lacépéde, 1788, as published in the binomen T'estudo flava ; (d) meleagris Shaw, 1793, as published in the binomen Testudo meleagris ; (e) planitia Gmelin, 1789, as published in the binomen Testudo planitia ; (f) dorsata Schoepff, 1801, as published in the binomen T'estudo dorsata ; (g) semimembranacea Hermann, 1804, as published in the binomen Testudo semimembranacea ; (2) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name terrestris Fermin, 1765, as published in the binomen Testudo terrestris, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy ; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) kempii Garman, 1880, as published in the binomen T'halassochelys (Colpochelys) kempit ; (b) blandingii Holbrook, 1838, as published in the binomen Cistuda blandingit ; (c) temminckii Troost, 1835, as published in the binomen Chelonura temminckii ; (d) punctularia Daudin, 1802, as published in the binomen Testudo punctularia ; (e) sinensis Wiegmann, 1835, as published in the binomen T'rionyx (Aspidonectes) sinensis ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 213 (f) terrestris Forskal, 1775, as published in the binomen Testudo terrestris ; (g) fimbriata Schneider, 1783, as published in the binomen Testudo jimbriata ; (4) to place the specific names suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) and (2) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LISTS OF THE MALLOPHAGAN NAMES OF DE GEER, 1778. Z.N.(S.) 1400. (SeeVolume 17, pages 326-333) By Per Brinck (Zoological Institute, Lund University, Sweden) From a principle point of view the work of Mr. Hopkins and Miss Clay to stabilize the Mallophagan names is very important. Almost all descriptions before 1875 are composite or very incomplete, and as the typical material as a rule has disappeared, the only way to fix the names is to designate neotypes. De Geer’s descriptions and illustrations are unusually good. The case is, however, com- plicated in two ways: 1. Hottes (1954) claimed that De Geer’s work is not binominal, and 2. Because of what seems to be a printer’s error, the species names are not typographically differentiated. The latter is hardly important since linguistically there can be no doubt as regards the nature of the specific names. It is of some interest that the opinion of the authors agrees fully with that presented by J. A. Retzius in his initiated book on “‘ Caroli De Geer . . . Genera et species insectorum . . . ”’ (Lipsiae 1783). The former should, according to my opinion, not prevent our dealing with the present case which is important for the stabilization of the Mallophagan names. Therefore, I support the application. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO PLACE THE GENERIC NAME GARI SCHUMACHER, 1817, ON THE OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.) 1461. (see this volume, pages 90-96) By C. A. Fleming (New Zealand Geological Survey, Lower Huti) I write to express support for Dr. L. R. Cox’s application for use of plenary powers to preserve the generic name Gari Schumacher, 1817, and for consequent placings of certain generic, family and specific names on appropriate Official Lists and Indexes. The generic name Gari has been in use for New Zealand species for about 45 years, and correction to Garum or rejection would cause confusion. 214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature TIGRINA (SALAMANDRA) GREEN, 1825: PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS (AMPHIBIA, CAUDATA). Z.N.(S.)1460 By Hobart M. Smith and Joseph A. Tihen (Department of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) The species of salamander widely distributed in North America and known by the common name of Tiger Salamander has been referred to for over a century, almost without exception, by the specific name tigrinwm, the proper generic combination for which is Ambystoma tigrinum (ex Salamandra tigrina Green, 1825, J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 5 : 116, type-locality Moorestown, Burlington Co., New Jersey, type unknown fide Dunn, Copeia, 1940: 156). An enormous literature has grown about this name, including much experimental as well as systematic work. It would be a very unfortunate mistake to allow this name to be changed after such a long history of extensive and unchallenged use. 2. At least three synonyms, however, antedate Ambystoma tigrinum (Green, 1825). The earliest is Siren operculata Beauvois (1799, Trans. amer. philos. Soc. 4 : 277-281, figs. 1-4), the type-locality for which is stated as ‘‘ a swamp in Jersey near the Delaware, not very distant from the Middle Ferry opposite the city of Philadelphia”. The type is unknown. The second is Proteus Neo Caesariensis Green (1818, J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1 : 358), type-locality New Jersey, restricted to “‘ vicinity of Princeton ” by Schmidt (1953, Checklist N. Amer. Amphs. Repts.: 49), type unknown. The third is an objective synonym of Siren operculata Beauvois, since it was published as a substitute for it : Axolotus philadelphicus Jarocki (1822, Zoologiia, 3: 179). All three earlier names are available and, if they can be conclusively demonstrated to be synonyms of Ambystoma tigrinum Green, authorized use of the latter name will require suppression of the earlier names under the plenary powers of the Commission. 3. Dunn (1926, Salamanders, Family Plethodontidae : 272) synonymized Siren operculata Beauvois, 1799, with a question, with Pseudotriton r. ruber (Sonnini, 1802), explaining that he was uncertain of its allocation. Cope (1889, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 34 : 179) made the same, but unquestioned alloca- tion. Dunn implied he was following the opinion of Say (1818, J. Acad. nat. Sci Philad. 1 : 405). Say actually stated only that Proteus neocaesariensis Green, ‘judging from the description”, is the same as Siren operculata Beauvois, leaving as a question with what species the name operculata should be allocated although he did point out that Shaw (1802, Gen. Zool. 3(2) : 614) suggested a relationship with Siren pisciformis=Ambystoma mexicanum. With this thought we fully concur. Allocation of either neocaesariensis or operculata to a plethodontid salamander, such as Pseudotriton, is completely untenable. It is true that more costal grooves (16) are shown in Beauvois’s figure than occur in Ambystoma tigrinum, and the same number as in P. r. ruber, but the size shown in the figure and the form of head and finned body are unmistakably Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, pt. 3. June 1961. a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 215 diagnostic of tigrinum and certainly of no other species of the north-eastern United States. Furthermore, the habitat—a ‘“‘ swamp ’’—is appropriate for the Tiger Salamander, not for Pseudotriton, which is restricted to springs and fresh- flowing, clear streams. One of us has gained thorough familiarity with Ambystoma, having reviewed the characteristics and classification of all species of the entire family (Tihen, 1958, Bull. Florida State Mus. 3 : 1-50, figs. 1-11), and having repeatedly dealt with living and fossil types related to tigrinum ; with this background of experience we can recognize no question whatever in allocation of operculata, on the basis of Beauvois’s figures, to tigrinum. The late S. C. Bishop, outstanding expert on American salamanders (1947, Hand- book Salamanders U.S. Canada), expressed to both of us his emphatic certainty of the same allocation. The only contrary indications are the numerous costal grooves (the same as in P. ruber). We can say only that the grooves must be incorrectly shown. We harbor no doubts whatsoever that operculata is a synonym of tigrinum. : 4. Green’s description of neocaesariensis is very brief and unillustrated, but the large size mentioned (“ between four and five inches’) and comparison with Necturus maculosus*, Proteus anguineus and Ambystoma mexicanum effectively eliminate all species but tigrinwm from consideration. 5. It is difficult adequately to account for Cope’s (loc. cit.) reference of both neocaesariensis and operculata to P. r. ruber, a species offering almost no grounds for such synonymy, especially since Shaw (op. cit.) and Say (op. cit.) correctly allocated them. Dunn (loc. cit.) was no doubt impelled by conservat- ism to question allocation of operculata and to follow Cope in allocations of neocaesariensis, since operculata, 1799, antedates even P. r. ruber, 1802, and both names antedate tigrinum, 1825. 6. Curiously, Salamandra tigrina Green has never been designated the type of any genus, although a number of its synonyms, or synonyms of subspecies of it, have been so designated. Likewise, Siren operculata is the type of no genus. However, Avolotus philadelphicus is a potential type of Axolotus Jarocki (1822: 179). This genus originally received three species, none designated as type then or subsequently : “Aolotus pisciformis (Siren pisciformis Shaw) ; Azolotus lacertinus (Siren quadrupes Bart.) ; Axolotus philadelphicus (Sirene operculée Beauv.)”’. Siren quadrupes Barton is a nomen nudum since it was apparently first printed in Jarocki’s work (Barton described an animal that must have been Amphiuma, but did not name it ; if the name were to be considered available as of Jarocki it would be a junior synonym of Amphiuma means Garden, 1821); and Siren operculata Beauvois, 1799=Ambystoma tigrinum Green, 1825. The diagnosis for Avxolotus (kindly translated for us by Peter S. Chrapliwy) leaves no doubt that Amphiuma figured little, if at all, in Jarocki’s concept of the genus, which could apply equally well to either of the other species. Since the “axolotl” has long been accepted as the Mexican * It is noteworthy that Green’s “‘ P. [roteus] tetradactylus ’’ is the earliest use of alatinized form of Lacépéde’s “‘ Protee tetradactyle ”’ readily identifiable as Nectwrus maculosus (Rafinesque 1818). Green’s usage, although identifiable in context with the literature of the time, does not od the name available since no author or other reference was given by him to pin the name down. 216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature species (Siren pisciformis Shaw=Ambystoma mexicanum (Shaw)) and neotenic forms related thereto, we regard it most appropriate to consider the Mexican species as type. We accordingly designate as type of Axolotus Jarocki, 1822 his species Axolotus pisciformis in turn derived from Siren pisciformis Shaw, 1802, a junior synonym of Gyrinus mexicanus Shaw, 1789=Ambystoma mexicanum (Shaw). With this action the name operculata is removed from consideration as type of any genus. 7. With establishment of Siren operculata Beauvois, 1799 and Proteus neocaesariensis Green, 1818, as senior synonyms of Salamandra tigrina Green, 1825, we request the Commission : (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following specific names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (a) operculata Beauvois, 1799, as published in the binomen Siren operculata ; (b) philadelphicus Jarocki, 1822, as published in the binomen A-xolotus philadelphicus ; (c) neocaesariensis Green, 1818, as published in the combination Proteus Neo Caeeariensis ; (2) to place the specific name tigrina Green, 1825, as published in the binomen Salamandra tigrina, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the following specific names, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) operculata Beauvois, 1799, as published in the binomen Siren operculata ; (b) philadelphicus Jarocki, 1822, as published in the binomen Azolotus philadelphicus ; (c) neocaesariensis Green, 1818, as published in the combination Proteus Neo Caesariensis. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 217 PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE A NEOTYPE FOR CORVUS BENGHAL- ENSIS LINNAEUS, 1758 (AVES), UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS Z.N.(S.) 1465 By Biswamoy Biswas (Zoological Survey of India, Indian Museum, Calcutta) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to give directions under its plenary powers that the nominal species Corvus benghalensis Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves, Coraciiformes) be interpreted by reference to the neotype designated for that purpose by the author hereunder. The facts of the case are briefly set forth in the following paragraphs : 2. The Indian roller was described by Linnaeus (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 106) as Corvus benghalensis based exclusively on Albin (1738, Natural history of birds 1:17, pl. 17). The locality for the bird was given as “ Benghala ”’. 3. Albin’s (loc. cit.) description of “‘ The Jay from Bengal. Pica Glandaria Bengalensis ”’ reads : ‘‘ It is something bigger than our English Jay ; the Bill is of an ash Colour ; the Top of the Head blue ; the Neck and Breast cinereous with a Mixture of light brown and red ; the Wings are blue, as also the under Part of the Belly and Thighs ; the Back and Rump are of a muddy green Colour ; the Tail is of a dark blue next the Body, of a pale or bright blue in the Middle, and dark towards the End : Its Legs and Feet are of a yellowish brown ; the Claws black.” Regarding the locality Albin clearly stated that he was “ obliged to Mr. Dandridge for the Draught of this Bird, who received it from his Kinsman Joseph Dandridge residing at Fort St. George [in the present Madras City] in the Bay of Bengal, who drew it from the natural Bird, .. .” In the plate (pl. 17) accompanying the text, however, the bird’s name was given as “ Pica Glandaria Capensis. The Jay from the Cape of Good Hope ”’. Linnaeus’s locality ‘‘ Benghala ”’ was, therefore, based either on ‘‘ Bengalensis ” in the name used by Albin, or on the expression “‘ Bay of Bengal” after Fort St. George. 4. It arises out of paragraphs 2 and 3 above that the description of Linnaeus’s Corvus benghalensis was based on the description given by Albin and the sketch provided by Dandridge (in Albin). As such it is clear that its type material does not exist any more. 5. In 1766, Linnaeus (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 159) described another roller as Coracias indica based on Edward (1764, Gleanings of natural history 3: 247, pl. 326), and its locality was given as ‘“‘ Indes orientali ”’. 6. From the beginning of the study of the taxonomy of Indian birds until the early twentieth century the northern and southern Indian rollers were not distinguished, and the Indian roller was known as Coracias indica Linnaeus, 1766. For reasons unknown Linnaeus’s earlier name benghalensis was overlooked?. 7. Since the concept of subspecies has been applied to Indian ornithology, 1This may possibly be due to the fact that it was only about 100 years ago that the 10th edition of Linnaeus’s ‘‘ Systema Naturae ’ was preferred to the 12th edition, , Bull. zool. Nomencel., Vol. 18, pt. 3. June 1961, 218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Hartert (1912, Végel der paldarktischen Fauna 2 : 874) was first to distinguish between the northern and southern Indian rollers. He used Coracias benghal- ensis (Linnaeus), 1758, as the specific name, with the northern subspecies as C. b. benghalensis, and the southern as C. b. indica Linnaeus. There has been no change in these names since then. 8. Hartert (loc. cit.) also pointed out that Albin’s plate of C. benghalensis was based on bird(s) from Madras, and Edward’s of indica on bird(s) from Ceylon. 9. In spite of Hartert’s correction of the type-localities, Baker (1927, 1930, Fauna of British India, birds 4 : 224, 7 : 344) followed Linnaeus’s locality Bengal for C. b. benghalensis, but accepted Hartert’s view for C. b. indica. Peters (1945, Check-list of birds of the world 5 : 243) accepted Hartert’s designation of the type-localities in both the cases and suggested 20° N lat. as the dividing line between the two subspecies; yet he used the name benghalensis for the northern bird. 10. It will thus be seen that the name Coracias b. benghalensis (Linnaeus) has been used for the northern Indian roller for the last forty-eight years without exception. 11. However, if the provisions of the Code be strictly applied C. indica will become a synonym of C. benghalensis which is the earlier of the two names based on the southern Indian-Ceylonese form of the Indian roller, and C. benghalensis will, in turn, have to be applied to the southern Indian-Ceylonese subspecies, leaving the northern subspecies without a name. Thus a great deal of change of well-established names will take place resulting in disruption and confusion in nomenclature. 12. The solution seems to be to set aside all prior type designations for Corvus benghalensis Linnaeus and to select a neotype from Bengal, which will fix the name to the northern Indian bird and maintain the old-established usage. 13. A suitable specimen is, therefore, hereby described as the neotype of Corvus benghalensis Linnaeus, 1758 :— Neotype : Zoological Survey of India Regd. No. 28401; adult male; Tulin, Purulia district, West Bengal, India ; collected by B. Roy on 14 March 1960. Description : Forehead and chin pale rufous or brownish white ; crown and nape warm Sorrento Green', brighter and near Benzol Green above the eye ; collar on hindneck light Hay’s Maroon; back, scapulars and innermost secondaries pale Dark Citrine ; wing coverts next the scapulars and shoulder of wing bright Hay’s Blue ; median coverts Calamine Blue ; primaries bright Hay’s Blue on base, Hay’s Blue sub-terminal patch on the inner web, black on tip, and Calamine Blue in varying depths elsewhere ; secondaries bright Hay’s Blue with Calamine Blue on base ; rump Peacock Blue ; upper tail coverts bright Hay’s Blue ; central tail feathers warm Diamine Green tinged with blue near base ; other tail feathers warm Calamine Blue, paler on the inner webs, and bright Hay’s Blue on bases and tips ; sides of the head and throat purplish 1Colour names with initial capital letters are after Ridgway (1912, Color standards and color nomenclature). Bull. zool. Nomenel., Vol. 18 Plate 3 50 mm 10 50 mm (0) 0 10 50 mm 0 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 219 lilac with broad white shaft-stripes ; breast feathers Blackish Purple on the edges, cream or white along the middle (shaft-stripes) and cinnamon brown in between, changing on the lower breast and upper abdomen to a shade between Buckthorn Brown and Dresden Brown, with less marked shaft-stripes ; under wing coverts, axillaries, flanks, lower abdomen, and under tail coverts Calamine Blue. The specimen is consistent with Linnaeus’s original description. Three photographs of the specimen accompany this application (Pl. 3). Measurements of the neotype (in mm.) : Wing 184, tail 123, bill from the skull 40, bill from the anterior edge of nostril 26.5. The neotype specimen has been deposited in the Zoological Survey of India (Indian Museum), Calcutta. The following labels are attached to the specimen : (1) A standard label of the Zoological Survey of India having the following data written in waterproof Indian ink : Registered number, name, locality, name of collector, date, and sex. (2) A red label marked NEOTYPE, bearing the Registered number and name. 14. The International Commission is hereby requested : (1) to use its plenary powers (a) to set aside all designations of type specimen for the nominal species Corvus benghalensis Linnaeus, 1758, made prior to the Ruling now asked for and (b) to give directions that that species be interpreted by reference to the specimen designated and figured above as the neotype by the present applicant ; (2) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) benghalensis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Corvus benghalensis (to be interpreted by reference to the neotype designated under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above) ; (b) indica Linnaeus, 1766, as published in the binomen Coracias indica (type-locality, as designated by Hartert, 1912, Ceylon). EXPLANATION OF PLATE 3 Corvus benghalensis Linnaeus, 1758 Neotype designated by Biswas (B.) in the application submitted by him to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (: 217-219) in the present volume. A, dorsal view ; B, ventral view ; C, lateral view. 220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DUBIA (AMPHISBAENA) RATHKE, 1863 (REPTILIA, SQUAMATA). PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1466 By Carl Gans (Department of Biology, The University of Buffalo, Buffalo 14, N.Y., U.S.A.) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature to suppress the specific name dubia Rathke, 1863, as published in the binomen Amphisbaena dubia. 2, Rathke (1863 : 28) mentioned that he proposed to refer to an anatomical specimen of uncertain identification as Amphisbaena dubia in the discussion of its visceral circulation. Unfortunately he presented an adequate description in a footnote, so that it is impossible to consider his name a nomen nudum. There can be little doubt that he had a specimen of Amphisbaena fuliginosa Linné, 1758, though it is not possible to decide whether the individual belonged to the subspecies amazonica or wiedi, both of Vanzolini, 1951. 3. The origin of the specimen is not known and it appears to have been destroyed after dissection. The name has been referred to (incidentally) in only a single review paper since that time. 4. Miiller later (1924 : 86) described a good species by the same name, Amphisbaena dubia, and the name has been generally applied to his form. The type of Miiller’s species still exists and there can be no doubt of the identification. 5. If Amphisbaena dubia Rathke were resurrected it would upset two well- known names—one its junior synonym (either A. f. amazonica or A. f. wiedi) and the other its junior homonym (Amphisbaena dubia Miiller), which would have to be renamed. In order to prevent the confusion which would result I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name dubia Rathke, 1863, as published in the binomen Amphisbaena dubia, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the specific name dubia Miiller, 1924, as published in the binomen Amphisbaena dubia, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name dubia Rathke, 1863, as published in the bi- nomen Amphisbaena dubia (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES Miiller, Lorenz. 1924. Mittheil. zool. Mus. Berlin 2(1) : 75-93. Rathke, Heinrich. 1863. Abhandl. math.-phys. Classe Kénigl. bayer. Akad. Wiss. Miinchen 9(1) : 125-183. Bull, zool. Nomencel., Vol. 18, pt. 3. June 1961. a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 221 ERYTHRONOTA (SALAMANDRA) RAFINESQUE, 1818; PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS (AMPHIBIA, CAUDATA). Z.N.(S.) 1467. By Richard Highton (University of Maryland, College Park, U.S.A.) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name erythronota Rafinesque, March 1818 (Science Journal 1(1) : 25) as published in the combination Salamandra erythronota, and to secure that the name cinerea Green, September, 1818 (J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1(2) : 356), as published in the combination Salamandra cinerea, shall be the specific name of the species currently known by the name Plethodon cinereus. 2. The species currently known as Plethodon cinereus occurs in two colour phases, a red striped phase and a unicolorous unstriped phase. There is no question but that both phenotypes represent the same biological species since the two pattern types repeatedly occur in the broods of females of both colour phases. 3. In 1818, Green proposed the name Salamandra cinerea for the unstriped phase and used the name Salamandra erythronota for the striped phase in the same paper. He indicated that the name erythronota was taken from Rafinesque, but subsequent authors have apparently assumed that Rafinesque’s name was a nomen nudum and have credited Green with both names. Actually, Rafinesque had published the name Salamandra erythronota earlier in the same year in a rare, long overlooked paper not listed in the bibliographies of Rafinesque (Goodwin, 1960, Syst. Zool. 9(1) : 36). 4. Tschudi (1838, Mém. Soc. Sci. nat. Neuchatel 2 : 58) used the combination Plethodon cinereus. Subsequent authors have regarded Tschudi as the first reviser who chose the name cinereus over the name erythronotus. They erroneously credited Green with both names because they overlooked the earlier publication of the name erythronota Rafinesque. 5. The combination Plethodon erythronotus was used extensively during the 19th century and the first decade of the twentieth century by authors who regarded the two colour phases as distinct species. Dunn (1926, Smith College Ann. Pub. : 164-5) listed 58 references to the combination Plethodon erythronotus between 1849 and 1924. During the period from 1838 to 1925, he listed 64 references to the combinations Plethodon cinereus and Plethodon cimereus cinereus. It is apparent that more authors used the name cinereus in spite of the fact that the red striped phase is much more commonly collected. Since 1925, I have found 241 published references to the species in the scientific literature, all using the combination Plethodon cinereus, following the recom- mendation of Stejneger and Barbour (1917, Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles : 15). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, pt. 3. June 1961. 222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 6. As the combination Plethodon cinereus has generally been used since 1838 by zoologists who correctly recognized that both colour phases belonged to a single species and has been used exclusively for the past thirty-five years in the literature of zoology (systematics, ecology, physiology, embryology, anatomy and genetics) and in the popular literature as well, a change in this long-established name for the sake of priority would result in tremendous confusion. 7. For the reasons set out in the present application, I now ask the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (a) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name erythronota Rafinesque, 1818, as published in the combination Salamandra erythro- nota, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (b) to place the specific name cinerea Green, 1818, as published in the combination Salamandra cinerea, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (c) to place the specific name erythronota Rafinesque, 1818, as published in the binomen Salamandra erythronota (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. J Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 223 RETICULATA (AMPHISBAENA) HOLMER, 1787; PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS (REPTILIA, SQUAMATA). Z.N.(S.) 1468 By Carl Gans (Department of Biology, The University of Buffalo, Buffalo 14, New York, U.S.A.) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to suppress the specific name reticulata Holmer, 1787, as published in the combination Amphisbaena reticulata. 2. Holmer (1787 : 30) described the new species Amphisbaena reticulata in the footnote to a very rare dissertation, generally cited under the name of Carl Peter Thunberg who examined the candidate. The name reticulata was mentioned by Donndorff (1798 : 221) and for the third and last time by Merrem (1828: 160). It has been omitted from all subsequent papers, hand- books and compendia. 3. Holmer’s description was brief but diagnostic. It is almost certain (Gans, 1961) that it refers to the form generally listed as Blanus cinereus (Vandelli, 1797: 69). The description did not include a figure, designate a type, or list the type-locality. The typical material has presumably been lost. 4. The form in question is one of the best known amphisbaenids and has been referred to by the name cinereus more than one hundred times in the technical literature during the last 130 years. Amphisbaena cinerea is the type-species by monotypy of the genus Blanus Wagler, 1830 (: 197.) 5. In order to avoid the confusion that would result from the resurrection of Holmer’s name, I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature :— (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name reticulata Holmer, 1787, as published in the binomen Amphisbaena reticulata, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the generic name Blanus Wagler, 1830 (gender : masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Amphisbaena cinerea Vandelli, 1797, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name cinerea Vandelli, 1797, as published in the binomen Amphisbaena cinerea (type-species of Blanus Wagler, 1830) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the specific name reticulata Holmer, 1787, as published in the binomen Amphisbaena reticulata (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. There are no family-group names based on the generic name Blanus. REFERENCES Donndorff, Johann August 1798, Zoologische Beytrige zur XIII. Ausgabe des Linnéischen Natursystems. Leipzig, vit+-980 pp. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, pt. 3. June 1961. 224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Gans, Carl, 1961, British Jour. Herpetology (in press) Holmer, Laur. Magn., 1787, D.D. Museum Naturaliwm Academiae Upsaliensis . . . Carol. Pet. Thunberg, Cujus partem secundam. Upsaliae, pp. 17-— 32 Merrem, Blasius, 1820, Tentamen systematis amphibiorum. Marburg, xv+- 191 pp. Vandelli, Dominici (or Dominicus), 1797, Mem. Acad. real Sci. Lisboa, pp. 37-79 Wagler, Johannes, 1830, Natiirliches System der Amphibien, mit vorangehender Classification der Sdugthiere und Vogel. Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Zoologie. Miinchen, Stuttgart und Tiibingen, vi+354 pp. —S ee ee a ee INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Trust Chairman : The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. Managing Director: Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A. Scientific Controller: W. E. China, C.B.E., Sc.D. B. The Members of the Trust Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. Prof. Dr. R. Sparck Dr. N. R. Stoll Mr. C. W. Wright Dr. G. F. de Witte CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) New Applications Cicadella Latreille, 1817: Proposed validation under the Dory powers (Insecta, Hemiptera). (W. E. China) . Conomelus Fieber, 1866 (Insecta, Hemiptera) : ae res tion of a type-species under the plenary powers. (W. Wagner) Cerastes Laurenti, 1768 (Reptilia, Squamata) : Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. (The late Karl P. Schmidt, Clifford H. Pope, and Arthur Loveridge) : Siredon Wagler, 1830 (Amphibia, Caudata) : es suppression under the plenary ae senor M. Smith and eee A. Tihen) ; SY : ten Aphis Linnaeus, 1758, its type-species and the b taints -group name derived from it (Insecta, Hemiptera). (W. E. China)... - Anilius Oken, 1816 (Reptilia, Squamata): Proposed validation under the plenary powers. (Dr. Jay M. Savage) be Proposal to validate the generic name Panopea Ménard dela Groye, 1807 (Mollusca : Bivalvia) under the Bed powers together with certain related proposals. (H. E. Vokes and L. R. Cox) Dasiops Rondani, 1856 (Insecta, Diptera) : Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. (W. E. China) ... Harrisoniella Bedford, 1928 : Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers (Insecta, Laest Spean ees Clay and G. H. E. Hopkins) he is ee Puntius Hamilton, 1822 (Pisces): Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (J. J. Hoedeman) Page 163 168 170 172 177 181 184 189 195 199 CONTENTS (continued from inside back wrapper) Lestis Lepeletier & Serville, 1828 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) : Pro- posed designation of a type-species under the PRueey Pere (Paul D. Hurd, Jr. and Charles D. Michener) Trichocera Meigen, 1803: Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Sey ee Be cst, ee Dahl) Tylenchus gulosus Kiihn, 1890 : Pinipaied suppression anaes the plenary powers (Nematoda). (P. A. A. Loof) : s. planiceps (Hyracodon) Scott & Osborn, 1887 : Proposed suppression under the plenary powers as a nomen dubium atch (Horace E. Wood) Pnoepyga Hodgson, 1844 : Proposed validiiies sina the plenary powers (Class Aves). (Ernst Mayr) Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress eight spbcitia names of Turtles (Reptilia, ee eye Mertens and Heinz Wermuth) ... tigrina (Salamandra) Green, 1825 - Pees validation wale the plenary powers (Amphibia, Sous: ores M. Smith and Joseph A. Tihen) sie Proposal to designate a neotype for Girone Jesaleslorisns idence 1758 (Aves), under the plenary powers. (Biswamoy Biswas)... dubia (Amphisbaena) Rathke, 1863 (Reptilia, Squamata): Pro- posed suppression under the plenary powers. (Carl Gans) ... erythronota (Salamandra) Rafinesque, 1818 : Proposed suppression under the Dey sania sic Bunng sk pases Highton) e reticulata (demtibabna) Tacit 1787 - Pesce suppression under the plenary powers (Reptilia, Squamata). (Carl Gans)... Comments Comments on the proposed use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species for the nominal genus Blankaartia Ones 1911. (D. A. Crossley and R. Domrow) 3 ee, Comments on the proposed use of the plenary powers to dickanaie a type-species for ape hi age 1870. st Ossiannilsson and C.F. Smith) ... Comment on the proposed addition es de Official Lists of the Mallophagan names of De Geer, 1778. (Per Brinck) .. Comment on the proposed use of the plenary powers to ince the generic name Gari Schumacher, 1817, on the Official List. (C. A. Fleming) © 1961. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by MeTcaLFe & Cooper LimiTeD, 10-24 Scrutton St., Londen EC2 ~ Page ? 7 i I a Volume 18. Part 4. | llth August, 1961 ‘Se pp. 225-288. 4 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 25 AUS 1961 PURCHASED The Official Organ of _ THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE CoNTENTS Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature rae bys vail, oe Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 225 (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 1961 Price Three Pounds (AU rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Professor James Chester BrapLey (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. Riwey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) Assistant Secretary: Dr. W. E. Cura (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. Stoxu (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) Dr. L. B. Hotrauis (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. MriEr (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, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4 December 1954) Professor Enrico TortoNnESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ‘‘G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16 December 1954) Dr. Per. Brrycx (Lunds Universitets, Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958) Dr. Max Pott (Musée Royal de Afrique Centrale, Tervuren, Belgium) (12 July 1958) Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (23 July 1958) Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (23 July 1958) Dr. Henning Lemoue (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958) Professor Pierre Bonnrt (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Mr. Norman Denbigh Ritey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) (Secretary) Professor Dr. Tadeusz JaczEwski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur-Musewm u. Forschwngs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Erich Martin Hermye (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zw Berlin, Germany) (23 July 1958) Dr. D. V. OsrucuEy (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-71, USSR) (5 November 1958) Professor Tohru Ucurpa (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March 1959) Professor Dr. Rafael Atvarapo (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) x (31 May 1960) Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), London) (31 May 1960) a Roe ws ’ a a ee Peer —— re faen ee ee “hes a ae BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Bag NaN ye RP ee eS eae D4} PURCHASED cass 7 Volume 18, Part 4 (pp. 225-288) llth August, 1961 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 Clathurella Carpenter, 1857 (Gastro- poda). Z.N.(S.) 518. (2) Stabilization of Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816, Carcharodon A. Smith, 1838, and Odontaspis J. L. R. Agassiz, 1838 (Pisces). Z.N.(S.) 920. (3) Designation of a type-species for Lygus Hahn, 1833 (Insecta, Hemiptera). Z.N.(S.) 1062. (4) Designation of a type-species for T'ritonia Cuvier, [1797] (Gastropoda). Z.N.(8.) 1215. (5) Designation of a type-species for M: yodocha Latreille, 1807 (Insecta, Hemiptera). Z.N.(S.) 1431. c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary London, S8.W.7, England. International Commission on 9 June 1961. Zoological Nomenclature 226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE ON MY APPLICATION CONCERNING THE GENERIC NAME @ARI SCHUMACHER, 1817, AND CERTAIN MATTERS INCIDENTAL THERETO. Z.N.(S.) 1461. By L. R. Cox (British Musewm (Natural History), London) Incidentally to my main application (1960, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 90), in which it was proposed that the generic name Gari Schumacher should be placed on the Official List unaltered, T also made the submission that the generic name Garum Dall, 1900, should be placed on the same list with Psammobia dutemplei Deshayes, 1857, its type-species, by original designation. Professor H. E. Vokes and Dr. Myra Keen have both written pointing out that the former (Vokes, 1956, J. Paleont. 30 : 762) has shown that, although Dall’s formal introduction of the name Garum was as stated by me, that author had, in fact, published the name two years previously in his “ Synopsis of the Recent and Tertiary Psammobiidae of North America” (1898, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad.: 60). No diagnosis was there given, and it was not stated that the name was a new one, but its introduction must be accepted as valid as a previously established nominal species, Psammobia filosa Conrad, from the Claibornian Eocene, was listed under it. [A second species, P. claibornensis Dall, was also listed, but this name was then merely a nomen nudum.] As Psammobia filosa, thus the type-species of Garwm Dall, 1898, by monotypy, and P. dutemplei Deshayes, the species named by Dall in 1900 as type-species of Garwm, are still regarded as congeneric, this prior publication does not affect the concept of this genus and there seems to be no case for action under the plenary powers for the purpose of establishing P. dutemplei as type-species. I should, therefore, like to emend 2(b) of my application to read that Garum Dall, 1898 (gender : neuter), type-species, by monotypy, Psammobia filosa Conrad, 1833, should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. I should also like to add to the specific names, which it was recommended in 3 of my application should be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, that of filosa Conrad, 1833 (Fossil Shells Tert. N. Amer. 4 : 42), as published in the binomen Psammobia filosa. There is no reason why the specific name dutemplei Deshayes should be removed from the list of names which it was recommended should be placed on the same Official List. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF COLUBER ATRATUS GMELIN, 1788. Z.N.(S.) 1371 (see this volume, pages 85-86) By Giles W. Mead (Chairman, Committee on Nomenclature, American Society of Herpetologists and Ichthyologists) At Dr. Peters’s request the Committee on Zoological Nomenclature of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists has reviewed this application. By a vote of three to two, the Chairman abstaining, the Committee expressed itself as favouring the fulfilment of this application. Of the comments received from the Committee members, only one contained information of factual significance, as follows :— “Tt is my opinion that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should not fulfil the request proposed in this application. My reasons for this opinion are : (1) that the species concerned are of extremely narrow interest to biologists, and in fact are of interest only to a small group of taxonomists ; (2) the replacement of the name atratus by the name lansbergi for the particular species involved in no way causes confusion with respect to the species intended, for these names have never been applied to any except this one species within this genus; and (3) Burger and Werler published their account changing the name atratus to lansbergi long enough ago (1954) that their substitute name, lansbergi, has had time to become accepted at least in the small circle of herpetologists publishing on the fauna of the area inhabited by this snake. Were the species involved a common one, or were the names involved actually switched from one species to another, thus causing very considerable confusion as to the identity of the species in nature to which the name is applied, or if the discovery of unavailability of atratus had been made prior t> publication and suppression of it with resurrection of a substitute name, then I would feel there would be some reason to request the Commission to use its plenary powers to circumvent the “ automatic” application of generalized rules. Under the circum- stances, however, I think it very unwise to request the Commission to consider this or any other case of similar nature.” Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 227 COMMENTS ON THE REPORT ON THE NAMES PUBLISHED BY MEIGEN, 1800. Z.N.(S.) 191. (see this volume, pages 9-64) By C. W. Sabrosky (Insect Identification and Parasite Introduction Research Branch, U.S. Department of Agriculture) With reference to the report on my proposal to suppress the 1800 pamphlet by Meigen (Z.N.(S.) 191), the detailed method of handling the application has unfortunately resulted in a report with so many complications and ramifications that zoologists might not do justice to the report in years, let alone six months. It appears to me to be unwise to proceed to place so many names on the Official Lists and Indexes, and to name type-species, without much careful study by interested specialists. I doubt that this will be given, because the time is short, the report is probably not widely read, its size is discouraging, and the involvement of names in other groups will remain unnoticed by many who will, quite naturally, regard the Meigen case as one for dipterists or at most for entomologists. 2. The imminence of proposed official action is also distressing when one finds numerous errors and omissions in the report. A number of these were revealed when I checked the information against my nearly-completed catalogue on family-group names in Diptera and their type-genera. However, many of the Meigen names do not involve names in the family-group, and these cannot be checked by my catalogue. 3. At the present time, with so many known errors, and individual cases still incompletely studied or of uncertain solution, it would be much safer and simpler (1) to suppress the Meigen (1800) paper for purposes of priority but not for homonymy, (2) to preserve by plenary action the 14 junior homonyms that would then be threatened, and (3) to defer action on all other names until such time as usage, taxonomy, references, and type-species can be studied and evaluated by interested specialists. 4, The following paragraphs list a number of errors noted in the more essential parts of the Appendices. I have not listed errors for Appendix VII, because I regard this phase of the Commission’s work as costly, wasteful, and unnecessary, and do not wish to expand upon it. I will remark, as an example of errors, that all of the family names listed in Parts A and B (pp. 53-54) have earlier uses, some of them many times over. In Part C (pp. 54-56) as with A and B, the references given are not in all cases the earliest for the spellings in question. Many of the spellings are of course not “incorrect original spellings ’’, as stated in the title, but only subsequent spellings, often merely a different ending. It is a waste of time and money to fill an Official Index with such things. As a sample, my catalogue of family-group names shows, up to the present, 24 variant spellings of BOMBYLIIDAE (compared with 4 in Part C), 11 of TACHINIDAE (compared with 2), 21 of Conoprpar (compared with 3), and 18 of OESTRIDAE (compared with 2), not counting endings for superfamily. It should be sufficient to state the one correct spelling in the Official List ; all others are incorrect, no matter when published and when discovered. APPENDIX V Part A 33 Chrysops. Usage is divided on the gender. Masculine is classically correct for the -ops in this name. Furthermore, Meigen, author of the genus, treated it as masculine (1820, Syst. Beschr. 2: 65-75). Fabricius (1805, Syst. Antliatorwm: 110-113), had also done so. (Our North American Catalogue of Diptera, in preparation, is treating it as masculine. TABANIDAE by C. B. Philip.) 54 Lonchoptera. Type by subsequent monotypy. 58 Clinocera. Type by subsequent monotypy. 70 Criorhina is the original spelling, not Criorrhina. 73 The type-species, merdaria Fabricius, is a synonym of Musca stercoraria Linnaeus. Part B 14 Type designation for Tendipes : Coquillett, 1910 : 612 (not 260). Part C 16 Ceratopogon : Ceratopogon lucorum does not seem to be mentioned in the cited reference by Thienemann. 10 Rhyphus dates from Latreille, 1804, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. 24, Tabl. Method., p. 188. i eM ycetophila: Meigen (1803) actually cited the binomial Tipula agarici, credited to r, 228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 44 Tachydromia: The designation by Curtis (1833) is, in my opinion, perfectly valid, and not “ of course, invalid”. Like Coquillett (1910), Curtis used the valid name for the type in his designation, but within the same paper showed the synonymy of an orginally included species under the valid name that he accepted, here cimicoides as a synonym of arrogans. In view of the simultaneous statement of synonymy within the same publication, I accept arrogans (synonymy cimicoides) as fulfilling the requirements for type designation [of new Code, Art. 69a(iv)]. No action is needed under the plenary powers. 74 Dictya: For the history of the “ Dumeril, 1798 ” reference, see Sabrosky, 1951, Annals Ent. Soc. Amer. 44 : 566-572. Chaetomacera is not a replacement name, but a new genus proposed for T'etanocera of authors, since Gresson recognized (correctly) that the earliest use of J'etanocera was based on Musca graminum Fabricius, a species that belongs in another family, the oTrTIDAz. Musca umbrarum, graminum, and elata belong to three different genera in modern usage, respectively Dictya, Dorycera and Tetanocera. 80 Gonia : Wiedemann’s is merely a subsequent usage. Both bimaculata and fasciata seem to be typical Gonia. I suggest that the first species, bimaculata, be designated as type-species. Part D 37 Dionaea: The type-species is in error. There is nothing about Meigen’s forcipata in the original publication ; Robineau-Desvoidy happened to choose the same (and appropriate) specific name. The type-species is D. forcipata Robineau-Desvoidy [preoccupied in Dionaea by Tachina forcipata Meigen, 1824] = D. lineata Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863 : 55, proposed as a replacement name. Part I 42 Conops: Both masculine and feminine have been used in the history of this genus, and current usage is divided. With such mixture, one may as well adopt the classical usage, which is masculine. 47 Geosargus : Sargus is currently used, at least by American specialists in the family, because Sargus Fabricius is not preoccupied by Sargus Walbaum, 1792. See Opinion 21, 1.C.Z.N., invalidating the names of Klein in Walbaum. 63 Thereva : Musca plebeia Linnaeus is type-species by subsequent monotypy, by Latreille, [1802-1803], Hist. nat. Crust. et Ins. 3 : 441. Part J 27 Sicus: The status of the conopid genus is perfectly clear, and the confused history of junior homonyms is no reason for delay. Sicus Latreille and Sicus Fabricius are homonyms, long recognized as such, and early replacement names have long been in use. The situation is a bit complicated by misunderstanding, especially at the family-group level, but will be explained in detail in my catalogue of family-group names in Diptera. Briefly, as a junior homonym, Sicus Latreille (1796) does not stand in the way of Tachydromia, and Sicus Fabricius (1798) founded on Musca ferruginea Scopoli and others, is a junior synonym of Coenomyia Latreille, 1796 (type-species, by subsequent monotypy, Musca ferruginea Scopoli). In my manuscript, I have designated M. ferruginea Scopoli as type-species of Sicus Fabricius. 49 Anthrax: I do not understand what older available name there may be for the species than one of Linnaeus, 1758. APPENDIX VIII Part A Most of the names have earlier uses than those given. 4 PTYCHOPTERIDAE Osten Sacken, in Loew, 1862, Monog. Diptera N. Amer.1 : 12 (correc- tion of PTYCHOPTERINA). 13 sciaRrrnak Billberg, 1820, Enumeratio Insectorum, p. 121 (correction of SCIARAEDES). 26 XYLOPHAGINAE Fallén, 1810, Specimen Ent., p. 6 (correction of XYLOPHAGEI). 40 LAPHRIINAE Macquart, 1838, Diptéres Exotiques 1(2) : 56 (correction of LAPHRITAE). 44 TACHYDROMUINAE Meigen, 1822, Syst. Beschr. 3 : vii (correction of TACHYDROMIAE). 57 PIPUNCULIDAE F, Walker, 1834, Ent. Mag. 2 : 262. 59 MICROPEZIDAE Loew, 1861, Dipterenfauna Bernsteins, p. 89, or aS MICROPEZITAE Desmarest, in Chenu, 1860, Encyc. d’hist. Nat. 8 ; Annelés, Tabl. Alph., p. 39, unless this is considered a vernacular name. 80 GontINAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, Essai Myod. : 185 (correction of GONIDAE). 82 TAOCHINIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, Essai Myod. : 185 (correction of TACHINARIAE). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 229 Part B 19 cCULICIDAE Billberg, 1820, Enumeratio Insectorum, p. 122 (correction of CULICIDEs),. 38 EMPIDIDAE Latreille, 1804, Nowv. Dict. 24, Tabl. Method. : 189, 191 (correction of EMPIDES). 43 MYOPINAE Macquart, 1834, Ins. Dipt. du Nord de la France, Mém. Soc. Sci. Lille 1833 « 333 (correction of MyopaRtaz). [I suggest that it would not be wise to add this name to the Official List until settlement of the status of its type-genus, postponed for further consideration (Appendix V, Part J, p. 43). 49. ANTHRACINAE Latreille, 1804, Nouv. Dict, 24, Tabl. Method. : 189, 190 (correction of ANTHRACII). 87 HIPPOBOSCIDAE Samouelle, 1819, Entomologist’s Useful Compendium, p. 302. By H. H. Ross (State Natural History Survey Division, Urbana, U.S.A.) I would like to support the proposal for the suspension of 56 generic names published by Meigen, in 1800 (Insecta, Diptera S.N.(S.) 191). The literature in regard to these names is exasperating to say the least. The specialists in Diptera have advocates using both the 1800 names and the later ones. Textbooks and books dealing with insects as a whole almost uniformly retain the later names which came into universal usage before the exhuming of the 1800 group. It is obvious that the suspension of the 1800 Meigen names would be a far-reaching step toward making scientific names as stable as common names and would bring to an end several decades of controversial confusion. I strongly recommend this suspension of the Meigen 1800 names as outlined in Z.N.(S.) 191. By Maurice T. James ( Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, U.S.A.) I wish to express my agreement as to the feasability of suppression of the Meigen 1800 generic names of Diptera. I have used these names extensively in my publications, including “The flies that cause myiasis in man ” (U.S.D.A. Misc. Publ. 631) and my recently published revision of Herms’s ‘ Medical Entomology’. Nevertheless, I feel that it will ultimately be in the interest of nomenclatorial stability to suppress these names. 230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 597 PROTHECHUS RONDANI, 1856, AND ALLONEURA RONDANT, 1856 (INSECTA, DIPTERA); SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. RULING.—(1) The following generic names are hereby suppressed under the plenary powers for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy :— (a) Prothechus Rondani, 1856 ; (b) Alloneura Rondani, 1856. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names with the Name Numbers specified :— (a) Verrallia Mik, 1899 (gender: feminine), type-species, by original designation, Cephalops aucta Fallén, 1817 (Name No. 1412) ; (b) Cephalosphaera Enderlein, 1936 (gender: feminine), type-species, by original designation, Pipunculus furcatus Egger, 1860 (Name No. 1413) ; (c) Témésvdryella Aczél, 1939 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation, Pipunculus sylvaticus Meigen, 1824 (Name No. 1414). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified :— (a) aucta Fallén, 1817, as published in the binomen Cephalops aucta (type- species of Verrallia Mik, 1899) (Name No. 1725) ; (b) furcatus Egger, 1860, as published in the binomen Pipunculus furcatus (type-species of Cephalosphaera Enderlein, 1936) (Name No. 1726) ; (c) sylvaticus Meigen, 1824, as published in the binomen Pipunculus sylvaticus (type-species of Témdsvaryella Aczél, 1939) (Name No. 1727). (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) Prothechus Rondani, 1856 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above) (Name No. 1479) ; (b) Alloneura Rondani, 1856 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above) (Name No. 1480). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 230) The case was first submitted to the Commission by Dr. Elmo Hardy in a paper dated 19 February 1947 and was published, after some revision, on 1 October 1959 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 27-29. 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 seven entomological serials. Dr. Hardy’s application was supported by Dr. M. L. Aczél and strongly opposed by Mr. J. E. Collin. The following report by Mr. Riley, Secretary to the Commission, was circulated with the Voting Paper :— “The object of the application (Bull. 17 : 27-29) is to suppress under the plenary powers two generic names, Prothechus and Alloneura, which are nomina dubia because based upon misidentified type-species. Mr. J. E. Collin (New- Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 4. August 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 231 market, England) has objected to the proposal on the grounds that Prothechus and Alloneura, although based on misidentified types, are not nomina dubia and ought to be preserved. Two letters addressed by Mr. Collin to the Office of the Commission are quoted below. In reading Mr. Collin’s letters the Commission will not, of course, need to be reminded that a nominal genus is defined only by reference to its nominal type-species. “2. Mr. Collin’s letter received on 26 January 1960 : ‘ Dr. Hardy maintains that these generic names should be regarded as ‘ nomina dubia’, presumably because he considers that they were ‘ based upon unrecognisable, misidentified, type-species ’. The only ‘ type-species ’ mentioned by Rondani were certainly misidentified by him, because the species indicated by the quoted name as “Type ’ for each genus does not possess the distinctive characters described by Rondani for that particular genus, a condition absolutely essential for any “Type ’ of a genus. ‘Actually neither of Rondani’s two generic names was ‘based upon a type-species ’, that is to say they were not new generic names published in association with a species mentioned by name only. They were in fact published by Rondani as new generic names for two proposed subdivisions of the old genus Pipunculus, and were based upon described distinctive characters by means of which each new genus could be recognized. ‘The characters used for distinguishing these subdivisions were accepted and used by various later authors, but the names proposed by Rondani were not adopted because the characters were considered of very doubtful generic value. Becker in 1897 correctly recognized the ‘ group’ Allonewra, but not the ‘ group’ Prothechus, Mik in 1899 and Verrall in 1900 correctly recognized both ‘ groups’, while Verrall, who in his 1900 work included a List of the European species of Pipunculidae (as well as Syrphidae), quoted Rondani’s two generic names as ‘ Section ’ names in the genus Pipunculus. ‘Then, in 1936, Enderlein (without any reference to previously proposed subdivisions) founded the genus Cephalosphaera with type Pipunculus furcatus Egger, and in 1939 Aczél (again without any reference to previous proposed subdivisions) founded a subgenus T6mésvdryella, with type Pipunculus sylvaticus Meigen. ‘The most surprising fact, however, is that Dr. Hardy apparently failed to notice that the characters upon which Rondani based his genus Prothechus were precisely the characters upon which Enderlein based his genus Cephalo- sphaera, and the characters upon which Rondani based his genus Alloneura were precisely the characters upon which Aczél based his subgenus Témésvdryella. ‘Finally, the acceptance of priority for Rondani’s two generic names will in no way affect the validity of the generic name Verralia Mik.’. “3. Upon receipt of this letter Mr. Melville (at the time Assistant Secretary to the Commission) wrote to Mr. Collin asking him to clarify his statement and to say exactly in what way he wished to modify Dr. Hardy’s proposal. “4. Mr. Collin’s letter received on 30 January 1960: ‘In regard to my criticism of Dr. Hardy’s proposals for dealing with the generic names of Prothechus and Alloneura, I certainly consider that they are names which should be preserved. 232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ‘Of course the matter is primarily one of misidentified species quoted by name as ‘Types’. In the case of the above-quoted genera all the published facts and descriptions prove conclusively that the two species quoted by Rondani as ‘Types’ were misidentified. This has indeed been accepted universally by all students of the Pipunculidae. Apparently it is still necessary for the Commission formally to agree that the species were misidentified, and therefore I would certainly request them to pass the necessary resolution to that effect. ‘Presumably this would leave Rondani’s two generic names as having been proposed for two genera based upon certain described distinctive characters without mention by name of any included species. ‘I would suggest that advantage should be taken of the fact that the new genus Prothechus so proposed by Rondani was based upon precisely the same described distinctive characters as the later proposed new genus Cephalo- sphaera Enderlein (1936) with Pipunculus furcatus Egger validly designated as its type, in order to promulgate a proposal that these two genera be accepted as described with identical original limits, and consequently with the same type- species. ‘Also that a similar proposal should be promulgated in the case of the new genus Alloneura Rondani, as having been described with the same identical original limits as the new genus T'émésvdryella Aczél (1939) with Pipunculus sylvaticus Meigen validly designated as its type. ‘Incidentally Pipunculus furcatus, a species possessing all the necessary distinctive characters described by Rondani for species belonging to his new genus Prothechus, was the first species to be correctly associated (by Mik in 1899) with that generic name. While Pipunculus sylvaticus Meigen, possessing all the necessary distinctive characters described by Rondani for species belonging to his new genus Allonewra was the first species to be associated (again by Mik in 1899) with that generic name. ‘With the elimination, as misidentified, of the ‘ type ’ quoted by Rondani for his genus Prothechus, that generic name and Verrallia could no longer be regarded as ‘ objective synonyms ’. ‘Finally I would point out that the mere quotation of a specific name (especially if the author quoting that name was not himself the author of the quoted name) represents a personal identification of the species represented by that name, which may or may not be correct, but is always accepted as correct until proved to be incorrect. But when proved to be incorrect, all nomenclatural consequences of the misidentification must be corrected or the fundamental principal of zoological nomenclature will have been ignored.’ “5. The alternative proposals which follow from Mr. Collin’s suggestions may be formally expressed as follows :—The Commission should (1) use its plenary powers : (a) to suppress all designation of type-species for the nominal genus Prothechus Rondani, 1856, made prior to the Ruling now requested and, having done so, to designate Pipunculus furcatus Egger, 1860, to be the type-species of that genus ; hk Ae a: [;,- -'< = Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 233 (b) to suppress all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Alloneura Rondani, 1856, made prior to the Ruling now requested and, having done so, to designate Pipunculus sylvaticus Meigen, 1824, to be the type-species of that genus ; (2) and (3) place the generic names Prothechus, Alloneura and Verrallia, together with their respective type-species, on the relevant Official Lists ; (4) place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Cephalosphaera Enderlein, 1936 (a junior objective synonym of Prothechus Rondani, 1856) ; (b) Témésvdryella Aczél, 1939 (a junior objective synonym of Alloneura Rondani, 1856). “6. Copies of Mr. Collin’s letters were sent to Dr. Hardy, who replied as follows :—(letter received 22 February 1960) ‘ I have checked over Mr. Collin’s objection to my application in the case of Prothechus and Alloneura. These names, based on misidentified genotypes, are always a bit messy and I have tried to follow the available rules as carefully as possible in dealing with them. Under the procedure adopted at Paris, 1949, I understand that the only actual solution is putting it before the Commission for a decision. In doing this, I decided that it would be far better to preserve the two most commonly used names rather than to revert to names which have received little attention in the literature. This is especially true of Tomésvdryella vs. Alloneura. My only thought is concerning the economic worker who objects rather violently to us taxonomists changing names so frequently.’ “7, (Letter received 11 March 1960): In the cases at hand, he [Collin] is fighting a one-man battle, since he is the one person who has used Prothechus and Alloneura in the sense in which he uses them. This amounts to but a small fraction of the literature—only one paper plus a note, to my knowledge. I do not agree with him that it is at all possible to be certain of the species with which Rondani was dealing. To the contrary, I feel that it is quite impossible to be sure.’ ‘8. The Commission thus has to choose between the original proposals in this case—which, according to Dr. Hardy, will uphold the existing usage of two generic names well known to economic entomologists—and Mr. Collin’s proposals, which Dr. Hardy says will cause confusion in the economic literature.” DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 31 May 1960, Voting Paper (60)7 was circulated to members of the Commission with the above report, and the members were invited to vote in Part 1 of that Voting Paper either for or against the use of the plenary powers in the present case, and in Part 2, either for Alternative A (the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 28-29) or for Alternative B (the proposals set out as points (1) to (4) of paragraph 5 of the Secretary’s Report). At the close of the Voting Period on 31 August 1960 the state of the voting was as follows :— Part 1. Affirmative Votes—twenty (20) received in the following order : Hering, Holthuis, Brinck, Dymond, Riley, Obruchev, Jaczewski, Prantl, Lemche, 234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Miller, Vokes, Stoll, Tortonese, do Amaral, Mayr, Key, Mertens, Poll. Negative Votes—none (0). Part2. For Alternative A—sixteen (16) : Hering, Holthuis, Brinck, Dymond, Riley, Jaczewski, Prantl, Lemche, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Miller, Vokes, Stoll, Tortonese, Key, Poll. For Alternative B—four (4) : Obruchev, do Amaral, Mayr, Mertens. Votes not returned—four (4) : Boschma, Cabrera, Hemming, Uchida. On Leave of Absence—one (1): Bradley. With his Voting Paper Commissioner Mayr sent this statement of his views of the case :—‘“‘ I vote for Alternative B on this proposal “1. Because it is not true that the generic names Prothecus and Alloneura are ‘nomina dubia’ as implied in the original application and in the Voting Paper. On the contrary, the two genera on which these names were based were well characterized by certain characters which permitted identification by subsequent authors. As a consequence a number of revisers in the eighty years following the original publication have accepted the names for the taxa characterized by the original describer. This is clearly a case of generic names based on misidentified type-species and it would be a simple matter for the Commission to designate type-species consistent with the generic characters given by Rondani. Such designations have indeed already been proposed by subsequent revisers. “2. Because the two replacement names for Rondani’s generic names, Cephalosphaera 1936 and Témésvdryella 1939 are too recent to benefit from the fifty years’ rule. To revoke the priority of two adequately characterized generic names which have been used on and off in the literature for the last 100 years in favour of names proposed only 24 and 21 years ago, could be justified only in the case of frequently used names, in order to preserve stability and universality. Hardy has not submitted evidence that these names are frequently used in the entomological literature except by himself. The last ten years of the Index of American Economic Entomology (1948-1957) and of the Review of Applied Entomology, Series A (1945-1956) contain nota single reference to Cephalosphaera and only two to T'émésvaryella. This is clearly not a case where stability would be threatened by following the mandate of priority. Under the circumstances I find no justification under the rules to invoke the plenary powers to suppress Rondani’s available names.” ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Alloneura Rondani, 1856, Dipt. Ital. Prodr. 1 : 140 aucta, Cephalops, Fallén, 1817, Dipt. suec. 1 (Syrphici) (6) : 61 Cephalosphaera Enderlein, 1936, Dipt. Thierw. Mitteleurop. 6 : 3 furcatus, Pipunculus, Egger, 1860, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 10 : 347 Prothechus Rondani, 1856, Dipt. Ital. Prodr. 1 : 139 (as Prothecus in index : 220) sylvaticus, Pipunculus, Meigen, 1824, Syst. Beschr. zweifl. Ins. 4 : 20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 235 Tomésvaryella Aczél, 1939, Zool. Anz. 125 : 20, 22 Verrallia Mik, 1899, Wien. ent. Zig. 18 : 137 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (60)7 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. 597. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 20 January 1961 236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 598 HANSENIA KIRKALDY, 1902 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA) ; ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL LIST RULING.—(1) It is hereby ruled that Melichar’s monograph contained in Heft 34 of Band XVI of Ann. naturh. Hofmus. Wien is to be considered to have been published on [23 May 1902]. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified :— (a) Hansenia Kirkaldy, January 1902 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation, Poeciloptera glauca Kirby, 1891 (Name No. 1415) ; (b) Ormenoflata Melichar, 1923 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation, Poeciloptera pulverulenta Guérin, 1844 (Name No. 1416). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified :— (a) glauca Kirby, 1891, as published in the binomen Poeciloptera glauca (type-species of Hansenia Kirby, 1902) (Name No. 1728) ; (b) pulverulenta Guérin, 1844, as published in the binomen Poeciloptera pulverulenta (type-species of Ormenoflata Melichar, 1923) (Name No. 1729). (4) The generic name Hansenia Melichar [23 May 1902] (a junior homonym of Hansenia Kirkaldy, January 1902) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1481. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 173) The case was first brought to the notice of the Commission by a letter from Dr. Fennah received on 24 October 1944, and pointing out the supposed wrong usage of the generic name Hansenia for an Old World species. In 1950 an application to the Commission was prepared asking for the use of the plenary powers to suppress the generic name Hansenia Melichar, 1901 for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, in order to validate the current usage of Hansenia Kirkaldy. This application was, however, never published. When in 1958 the situation was again examined, it was discovered that although the part of Melichar’s monograph in question was dated 1901 on the Title Page, the evidence tended to show that it was published later than this. A paper was therefore prepared asking the Com- mission to give a Ruling on the date of the part of Melichar’s monograph in which Hansenia was published. This application was sent to the printer on 7 October 1959 and was published on 8 April 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomenel. 17 : 175-177. No objection to Dr. Fennah’s proposal was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 October 1960 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (60)19 either for or against the Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 4. August 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 237 proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 177. At the close of the Voting Period on 13 January 1961 the state of the Voting was as follows :— Affirmative Votes—twenty-two (22), received in the following order : Hering, Holthuis, Riley, Mayr, Prantl, do Amaral, Dymond, Lemche, Vokes, Obruchev, Key, Uchida, Stoll, Mertens, Evans, Kihnelt, Bonnet, Brinck, Jaczewski, Tortonese, Miller, Poll. ~ Negative Votes—one (1): Alvarado. On Leave of Absence—one (1): Bradley. Commissioners Boschma and Hemming returned late affirmative votes. OricInaL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : glauca, Poeciloptera, Kirby, 1891, J. linn. Soc. Lond. 24 : 154, pl. 6, fig. 14 Hansenia Kirkaldy, January 1902, J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 14 + 53 Hansenia Melichar, [23 May 1902], Ann. naturh. Hofmus. Wien 16 : 195, 228 Ormenoflata Melichar, 1923, in Wytsman, Gen. Ins. 182 : 67 pulverulenta, Poeciloptera, Guérin, 1844, Icon. Régne. Anim. Ins. : 361 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (60)19 were cast as set out above, that the proposals set out in that Voting Paper have been duly N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 20 January 1961 238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 599 BOLITOCHARA MANNERHEIM, 1831 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA) : DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Bolitochara Mannerheim, 1831, made prior to the present Ruling, are hereby set aside and the nominal species Aleochara pulchra Gravenhorst, 1806, is hereby designated to be 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) Bolitochara Mannerheim, 1831 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Aleochara pulchra Gravenhorst, 1806 (Name No. 1417) ; (b) Zyras Stephens, 1835 (gender : masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Aleochara haworthi Stephens, 1832 (Name No. 1418). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified :— (a) pulchra Gravenhorst, 1806, as published in the binomen Aleochara pulchra (type-species of Bolitochara Mannerheim, 1831) (Name No. 1730) ; (b) haworthi Stephens, 1832, as published in the binomen Aleochara haworthi (type-species of Zyras Stephens, 1835) (Name No. 1731). (4) The name BOLITOCHARINI (correction of BOLITOCHARIDES) Thomson, 1859 (type-genus Bolitochara Mannerheim, 1831) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 296. (5) 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) the following erroneous subsequent spellings for Bolitochara Manner- heim, 1831: (i) Balitochara Hamilton, 1894 (Name No. 1482) ; (ii) Boletochara Westwood, 1838 (Name No. 1483) ; (iii) Bolitachara Mulsant & Rey, 1872 (Name No. 1484) ; (iv) Bolithochara Laporte, 1835 (Name No. 1485) ; (v) Bolitophaga Mulsant & Rey, 1874 (Name No. 1486) ; (vi) Bolotochara Mulsant & Rey, 1872 (Name No. 1487) ; (b) the following erroneous subsequent spellings for Zyras Stephens, 1835 : (i) Lyrus Brullé, 1837 (Name No. 1488) ; (ii) Zyrus Cameron, 1939 (Name No. 1489). (6) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified :— (a) BOLITOCHARIDES Thomson, 1859 (type-genus Bolitochara Mannerheim, 1831) (an incorrect original spelling for BoLrrocHaRINtI) (Name No. 328) ; (b) BoLtrrocHaRINA Sharp, 1883 (type-genus Bolitochara Mannerheim, 1831) Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 4. August 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 239 (an erroneous subsequent spelling for BoLITOCHARINI) (Name No. 329) ; (c) BoLITOCcHATRES Mulsant & Rey, 1871 (type-genus Bolitochara Manner- heim, 1831) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for BOLITOCHARINI) (Name No. 330) ; (d) BOLITOCHARATES Mulsant & Rey, 1871 (type-genus Bolitochara Manner- heim, 1831) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for BOLITOCHARINI) (Name No. 331). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 243) The present case was submitted in January 1947 by Mr. C. E. Tottenham, through the Committee on Generic Nomenclature of the Royal Entomological Society. An application was prepared which was sent to the printer on 14 July, 1959 and was published on 15 December 1959 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 69-71. Public Notice of the possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers in the present 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). Support for Mr. Tottenham’s proposals was received from E. C. Pelham- Clinton (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 198), A. A. Allen, C. G. Seever and H. Last (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 322). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 October 1960 the Members of the Commission were asked to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (60)15, either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 70-71. At the close of the Voting Period on 13 January 1961 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-two (22), received in the following order: Hering, Riley, Holthuis, Mayr, Prantl, do Amaral, Dymond, Lemche, Vokes, Jaczewski, Obruchev, Key, Alvarado, Uchida, Stoll, Evans, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Brinck, Tortonese, Miller, Poll. Negative Votes—one (1) : Mertens. On Leave of Absence—one (1): Bradley. Late Affirmative Votes were received from Commissioners Boschma and Hemming. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion. Balitochara Hamilton, 1894, Trans. 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 Bolitochara Mannerheim, 1831, Mém. Acad. imp. Sci. St. Pétersb. 1(5) : 489 BOLITOCHAIRES Mulsant & Rey, 1871, Ann. Soc. linn. Lyon (2) 19 (1872) : 91 BOLITOCHARATES Mulsant & Rey, 1871, Ann. Soc. linn. Lyon (2) 19 (1872) : 92 240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature BOLITOCHARIDES Thomson, 1859, an incorrect original spelling for BoLITO- CHARINI BOLITOCHARINA Sharp, 1883, Biol. centr.-Amer. 1(2) : 240 BOLITOCHARINI Thomson, 1859, Skand. Col. 1 : 31 Bolitophaga Mulsant & Rey, 1874, Ann. Soc. agric. Lyon (4) 6 : 295 Bolotochara Mulsant & Rey, 1872, Hist. nat. Col. France (Brév., Aléo.) : 210 haworthi, Aleochara, Stephens, 1832, Jil. brit. Ent. (Mand.) 5 : 126 Lyrus Brullé, 1837, Hist. nat. Ins. 6 (Col. 3) : 108 pulchra, Aleochara, Gravenhorst, 1806, Mon. Coleopt. micr. : 164 Zyras Stephens, 1835, Ill. brit. Ins. (Mand.) 5 : 430 Zyrus Cameron, 1939, Fauna brit. Ind., Col. Staph. 4(2) : 688 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (60)15 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. 599. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 23 January 1961 ‘ ii i ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 241 OPINION 600 ISCHNOPODA STEPHENS, 1835, AND TACHYUSA ERICHSON, 1837 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA); DESIGNATIONS OF TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers : (a) all designations of type- species for the nominal genera Ischnopoda Stephens, 1835, and Tachyusa Erichson, 1837, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside ; (b) the nominal species Staphylinus leucopus Marsham, 1802, is hereby designated to be the type-species of Ischnopoda Stephens, 1835 ; (c) the nominal species Tachyusa constricta Erichson, 1837, is hereby designated to be the type-species of Tachyusa Erichson, 1837. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Ischnopoda Stephens, 1835 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designa- tion under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Staphylinus leucopus Marsham, 1802 (Name No. 1419) ; (b) Tachyusa Erichson, 1837 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designa- tion under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above, Tachyusa constricta Erichson, 1837 (Name No. 1420) ; e (c) Thinonoma Thomson, 1859 (gender : feminine), type-species, by mono- typy, Aleochara atra Gravenhorst, 1806 (Name No. 1421) ; (d) Atheta Thomson, 1858 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Aleochara graminicola Gravenhorst, 1806 (Name No. 1422) ; (e) Acrotona Thomson, 1859 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Aleochara aterrima Gravenhorst, 1802 (Name No. 1423). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) leucopus Marsham, 1802, as published in the binomen Staphylinus leucopus (type-species of Ischnopoda Stephens, 1835) (Name No. 1732) ; (b) constricta Erichson, 1837, as published in the binomen Tachyusa constricta (type-species of Tachyusa Erichson, 1837) (Name No. 1733) ; (c) atra Gravenhorst, 1806, as published in the binomen Aleochara atra (type-species of Thinonoma Thomson, 1859) (Name No. 1734) ; (d) graminicola Gravenhorst, 1806, as published in the binomen Aleochara graminicola (type-species of Atheta Thomson, 1858) (Name No. 1735) ; (e) aterrima Gravenhorst, 1802, as published in the binomen Aleochara aterrima (type-species of Acrotona Thomson, 1859) (Name No. 1736). (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) Pischnopoda Tottenham, 1939 (a junior objective synonym of Ischnopoda Stephens, 1835) (Name No. 1490) ; (b) Chyusata Tottenham, 1945 (a junior objective synonym of Tachyusa Erichson, 1837) (Name No. 1491). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 4. August 1961. 242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 244) The present case was submitted in January 1947 by Mr. C. E. Tottenham, through the Committee on Generic Nomenclature of the Royal Entomo- logical Society. An application was prepared which was sent to the printer on 14 July 1959, and was published on 15 December 1959 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 72-75. Public Notice of the possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers in the present 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). Support for Mr. Tottenham’s proposals was received from E. C. Pelham- Clinton (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 198), A. A. Allen, C. H. Seever, and H. Last (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 322). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 October 1960 the Members of the Commission were asked to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (60)16, either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 74-75. At the close of the Voting Period on 13 January 1961 the state of the Voting was as follows : _Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order: Hering, Riley, Holthuis, Mayr, Prantl, do Amaral, Dymond, Lemche, Vokes, Jaczewski, Obruchev, Key, Alvarado, Stoll, Mertens, Evans, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Brinck, Tortonese, Miller, Poll, Uchida. Negative Votes—none (0). On Leave of Absence—one (1): Bradley. Commissioners Boschma and Hemming returned late affirmative votes. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : Acrotona Thomson, 1859, Skand. Coleopt. 1 : 38 aterrima, Aleochara, Gravenhorst, 1802, Coleopt. micr. : 83 Atheta Thomson, 1858, Ofvers. K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Férhandl. 15 : 36 atra, Aleochara, Gravenhorst, 1806, Mon. Coleopt. micr. : 162 Chyusata Tottenham, 1945, Proc. roy. ent. Soc. Lond. (B) 14 : 70 constricta, Tachyusa, Erichson, 1837, Kaf. Mark. Brandenb. 1 : 307 graminicola, Aleochara, Gravenhorst, 1806, Mon. Coleopt. micr. : 176 Ischnopoda Stephens, 1835, Ill. brit. Ins. (Mand.) 5 : 430 leucopus, Staphylinus, Marsham, 1802, Coleopt. Brit. : 506 Pischnopoda Tottenham, 1939, Proc. roy. ent. Soc. Lond. (B) 8 : 226 Tachyusa Erichson, 1837, Kdf. Mark. Brandenb. 1 : 307 Thinonoma Thomson, 1859, Skand. Coleopt. 1 : 35 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 243 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (60)16 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. 600. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 24 January 1961 244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 601 AVENAE (HETERODERA SCHACHTII VAR.) WOLLENWEBER, 1924 ; ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC NAMES (CLASS NEMATODA) RULING.—(1) It is hereby ruled 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 Wollen- weber, 1924, as published in the combination Heterodera schachtw var. avenae, by those zoologists who consider that all of these names apply to the same taxon. (2) The specific name avenae Wollenweber, 1924, as published in the com- bination Heterodera schachtii var. avenae, and as interpreted by the neotype designated by Franklin, Thorne & Oostenbrinck, 1959, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1737. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S8.) 375) The problem was first brought to the attention of the Commission by a query received from Dr. Mary T. Franklin in November 1948, as to the correct name to be used for the cereal-root eelworm. At that time those authors who used the name avenae dated it from Mortensen, Rostrup and Kolpin Ravn, 1908, but since the only identification of the species provided in that paper was the citation of the host species, Dr. Franklin was informed by the Secretary of the Commission that the name avenae was unavailable from this date. In February 1958, Dr. Franklin again wrote to the Commission explain- ing that the question had unfortunately been raised again by the discovery of a paper by Wollenweber, 1924, in which the name avenae was used, this time accompanied by a table giving comparative sizes of the cysts of various species of Heterodera, including Heterodera schachtii var. avenae. In June 1958, Dr. Gerald Thorne and Dr. M. Oostenbrinck jointly asked the Commission for a ruling on the availability of the specific name avenae. After some correspondence these three authors agreed upon the form of a joint application to the Commission. This application was sent to the printer on 14 July 1959 and was published on 15 December 1959 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 76-85. Dr. J. J. Duggan objected to the proposals made by Franklin, Thorne and Oostenbrinck on the grounds that the specific name major was in much more common use for the species, and that avenae was an unsuitable name for an organism which attacked not only oats, but other cereal crops as well. No other comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 October 1960, the Members of the Commission were asked to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (60)17 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 79-80. At the close of the Voting Period on 13 January 1961 the state of the voting was as follows : Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 4. August 1961. ie. ~ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 245 Affirmative Votes—nineteen (19), received in the following order : Hering, Riley, Holthuis, Mayr, Prantl, do Amaral, Dymond, Lemche, Vokes, Jaczewski, Obruchev, Key, Alvarado, Stoll, Mertens, Evans, Bonnet, Brinck, Miller. Negative Votes—four (4) : Uchida, Kiihnelt, Tortonese, Poll. On Leave of Absence—one (1): Bradley. Late Affirmative Votes were returned by Commissioners Boschma and Hemming. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following is the original reference for a name placed on the Official List by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : avenae, Heterodera schachtii var., Wollenweber, 1924, Illustr. Landwirtsch. Z. 12 : 101 The following is the original reference for the designation of a neotype for the species involved in the present Ruling: For Heterodera schachtii var. avenae Wollenweber, 1924: Franklin, Thorne & Oostenbrinck, 1959, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 79, 85. CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (60)17 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 Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 601. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 24 January 1961 246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 602 DELPHAX FABRICIUS, 1798 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA) ; INTERPRE- TATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Delphax Fabricius, 1798, prior to that made by Van Duzee, 1912, are hereby set aside. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified :— (a) Asiraca Latreille, 1796 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation by Latreille, 1810, Cicada clavicornis Fabricius, 1794 (Name No. 1424) ; (b) Delphax Fabricius, 1798 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designa- tion under the plenary powers in (1) above, Cicada crassicornis Panzer, 1796 (Name No. 1425). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) clavicornis Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Cicada clavicornis (type-species of Asiraca Latreille, 1796) (Name No. 1738) ; (b) crassicornis Panzer, 1796, as published in the binomen Cicada crassicornis (type-species of Delphax Fabricius, 1798) (Name No. 1739). (4) The generic name Araeopus Spinola, 1839 (a junior objective synonym of Delphax Fabricius, 1798) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1492. (5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) DELPHACIDAE (correction of DELPHACIDA) [Leach], [1815] (type-genus Delphax Fabricius, 1798) (Name No. 297) ; (b) ASIRACINAE (correction of astRAcIDES) Motschulsky, 1863 (type-genus Asiracus Latreille, 1796) (Name No. 298). (6) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) DELPHACIDA [Leach], [1815] (type-genus Delphax Fabricius, 1798) (an incorrect original spelling for DELPHACIDAE) (Name No. 332) ; (b) asrractDEs Motschulsky, 1863 (type-genus Asiracus Latreille, 1796) (an incorrect original spelling for astRAcINAE) (Name No. 333). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 47) The present case was first brought to the attention of the Commission as long ago as 1932 by the late Professor Z. P. Metcalf, who proposed to reject the generic name Delphax Fabricius as a junior homonym of Delphax Walbaum, 1792 (quoted from Klein, 1744). The Commission had already, however, in Opinion 21, ruled that the generic names of Klein did not gain availability by virtue of being quoted by Walbaum in 1792. From 1944 until 1951, Mr. Hemming, then Secretary to the Commission, was in correspondence with Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 4. August 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 247 several specialists in the Hemiptera, including Mr. R. G. Fennah, Dr. W. E. China and Dr. W. Wagner in order to gather the facts in the case. In 1959, Mr. R. V. Melville presented these facts to the Commission in the form of a Secretary’s report. This report was sent to the printer on 7 July 1959 and was published on 8 April 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 163-169. Public Notice of the possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers in the present 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 seven entomological serials. No comment was received from any source. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 October 1960 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (60)18 either for or against the use of the plenary powers to conserve the generic name Delphax Fabricius, 1798, in Part 1, and for either Alternative B (as set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 167) or for Alternative C (as set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 168) in Part 2. A vote against the use of the plenary powers in Part 1 of V.P.(60)18 was equivalent to a vote for Alternative A in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 167. At the close of the Voting Period on 7 January 1961 the state of the Voting was as follows :— Part 1, Affirmative Votes—eighteen (18), received in the following order : Hering, Riley, Mayr, Prantl, do Amaral, Dymond, Lemche, Vokes, Obruchev, Key, Stoll, Evans, Bonnet, Brinck, Alvarado, Jaczewski, Tortonese, Boschma. Negative Votes—six (6) : Holthuis, Mertens, Kiihnelt, Miller, Poll, Uchida. Part 2, Alternative B—three (3) : Hering, Stoll, Tortonese. Alternative C—twelve (12): Riley, Mayr, Prantl, do Amaral, Lemche, Vokes, Obruchev, Key, Evans, Brinck, Alvarado, Jaczewski. On Leave of Absence—one (1) : Bradley. Commissioners Dymond, Bonnet and Boschma did not vote on Part 2 of the Voting Paper. Commissioner Hemming returned a late vote in favour of Alternative C. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : Araeopus Spinola, 1839, Ann. Soc. ent. France 8 : 336 Asiraca Latreille, 1796, Précis Caract. Ins. : xii, 202 ASIRACIDES Motschulsky, 1863, an incorrect original spelling for ASTRACINAE q.v. ASIRACINAE Motschulsky, 1863, Bull. Soc. Nat. Moscou 36 : 108 clavicornis, Cicada, Fabricius, 1794, Ent. Syst. 4 : 41 crassicornis, Cicada, Panzer, 1796, Fauna Ins. germ. 35 : 19 DELPHAOCIDA [Leach], [1815], an incorrect original spelling for DELPHACIDAE q.v. DELPHACIDAE [Leach], [1815], in Brewster’s Edinb. Ency. 9 : 125 Delphax Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 511 248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The following are the original references for the designations of type-species for two genera involved in the present Ruling : For Asiraca Latreille, 1796 : Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arachn. Ins. : 434 For Delphax Fabricius, 1798: Van Duzee, 1912, Bull. Buffalo Soc. nat. Sct. 10(2) : 505 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (60)18 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. 602. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 24 January 1961 has = Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 249 OPINION 603 MACROPSIS LEWIS, 1834 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA) ; DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers : (a) the specific name virescens Gmelin, 1790, as published in the binomen Cicada virescens, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (b) all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Macropsis Lewis, 1834, made prior to the present Ruling, are hereby set aside and the nominal species Jassus (sic) prasina Boheman, 1852, is hereby designated to be 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) Macropsis Lewis, 1834 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Jassus prasina Boheman, 1852 (Name No. 1426) ; (b) Elymana de Long, 1936 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation, Thamnotettix inornatus Van Duzee, 1892 (Name No. 1427) ; (c) Mesopodopsis Czerniavsky, 1882 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, through Macropsis Sars, 1876, Podopsis slabberi Van Beneden, 1861 (Name No. 1428) (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) ; (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) prasina Boheman, 1852, as published in the binomen Jassus (sic) prasina (type-species of Macropsis Lewis, 1834) (Name No. 1740) ; (b) sulphurella Zetterstedt, 1828, as published in the binomen Cicadula sulphurella (Name No. 1741) ; (c) slabbert Van Beneden, 1861, as published in the binomen Podopsis slabberi (type-species of Mesopodopsis Czerniavsky, 1882) (Name No. 1742) (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). (4) The generic name Macropsis Sars, 1876 (a junior homonym of Macropsis Lewis, 1834) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1493. (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) virescens Gmelin, 1790, as published in the binomen Cicada virescens (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above) (Name No. 663) ; (b) virescens Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Cicada virescens (a junior primary homonym of Cicada virescens Gmelin, 1790) (Name No. 664). (6) The family-name mMacropsiDAE Evans, 1938 (type-genus Macropsis Lewis, 1834) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 299. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 4. August 1961. 250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 456) The present case was submitted to the Commission by Professor W. Wagner on 8 March 1950. After correspondence with the Secretary of the Commission and some emendation of Dr. Wagner’s proposals the application was sent to the printer on 14 July 1959 and was published on 8 April 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 185-188. Public Notice of the possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers in the present 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). Dr. Wagner’s proposals were supported by Dr. Frej Ossiannilsson (Bull. 17 : 89). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 October 1960 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (60)20 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 187-188. At the close of the Voting Period on 13 January 1961 the state of the Voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order: Hering, Holthuis, Riley, Mayr, Prantl, do Amaral, Dymond, Lemche, Vokes, Obruchev, Key, Uchida, Stoll, Mertens, Evans, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Brinck, Alvarado, Jaczewski, Tortonese, Miller, Poll. Negative Votes—none (0). On Leave of Absence—one (1): Bradley. Commissioners Boschma and Hemming returned late affirmative votes. On 18 October 1960 Commissioner Holthuis wrote as follows to the Secretary of the Commission: “As the generic name Macropsis Lewis, 1834, is to be placed on the Official List, should not Macropsis Sars, 1876, be placed on the Official Index ? As Sars’s genus is that of a Mysid Crustacean, I will be happy to go deeper into this question and provide you with the necessary data and also with the generic name (Mesopodopsis) which at present is currently used for Sars’s genus”. In a letter dated 30 November Commissioner Holthuis supplied the promised information, giving the original references for the generic names concerned and said that the type-species of Macropsis Sars was Podopsis slabberi Van Beneden, 1861. Upon receipt of Dr. Holthuis’s letter a short note was sent to Members of the Commission, in which it was proposed : “(1) that the generic name Macropsis Sars, 1876 (a junior homonym of Macropsis Lewis, 1834) be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (2) that the generic name Mesopodopsis Czerniavsky, 1882 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, through Macropsis Sars, 1876, Podopsis slabberi Van Beneden, 1861, be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) that the specific name slabberi Van Beneden, 1861, as published in the binomen Podopsis slabberi (type-species of Mesopodopsis Czerni- avsky, 1882) be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ”’. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 251 On 21 December 1960 Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the One-Month Rule on Voting Paper (O.M.) (60)1 either for or against these supplementary proposals set out in an accompanying note. At the close of the Voting Period on 21 January 1961 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order : Evans, Riley, Dymond, Holthuis, Key, Brinck, Vokes, Prantl, Mayr, Lemche, Hering, Miller, Stoll, Jaczewski, Poll, Bradley, Tortonese, Uchida, Alvarado, Kiihnelt, Boschma, Mertens, Obruchev. Negative Votes—none (0). Voting Papers not returned—two (2) : Bonnet, Hemming. A late affirmative vote was returned by Commissioner do Amaral. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : Elymana de Long, 1936, Ohio J. Sci. 36 : 218 MACROPSIDAE Evans, 1938, Proc. roy. Soc. Tasmania, 1988 : 43 Macropsis Lewis, 1834, Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1 : 49-51, pl. 7, figs. 3, 4 Macropsis Sars, 1876, Arch. Math. Natur-vidensk. Christiania 1 : 35 Mesopodopsis Czerniavsky, 1882, Trudui St. Peterb. Obschest. Estest. 12(2) : 145, 148 prasina, Jassus, Boheman, 1852, K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Handl. 1851 : 122 slabberi, Podopsis, Van Beneden, 1861, Mém. Acad. roy. Belg., Cl. Sci. 38 : 18, 0 ie sulphurella, Cicadula, Zetterstedt, 1828, Ins. lapp. : 297 virescens, Cicada, Gmelin, 1790, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1(4) : 2111 virescens, Cicada, Fabricius, 1794, Ent. syst. 4 : 46 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Papers (60)20 and (O.M.)(60)1 were cast as set out above, that the proposals set out in those Voting Papers were 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. 603. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 25 January 1961 252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 604 KORYNETES HERBST, (1792), AND NECROBIA OLIVIER, 1795: ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL LIST (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA) RULING.—(1) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Korynetes Herbst, (1792) (gender : masculine), type-species, by designa- tion by Lacordaire, 1857, Clerus caeruleus De Geer, 1775 (Name No. 1429) ; (b) Necrobia Olivier, 1795 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation by Latreille, 1810, Dermestes violaceus Linnaeus, 1758 (Name No. 1430). (2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) caeruleus De Geer, 1775, as published in the binomen Clerus caeruleus (type-species of Korynetes Herbst, (1792)) (Name No. 1743) ; (b) violaceus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Dermestes violaceus (type-species of Necrobia Olivier, 1795) (Name No. 1744). (3) The generic name Corynetes Paykull, 1798 (an unjustified emendation of Korynetes Herbst, (1792)) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1494. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 471) The present case was first submitted to the Commission by Professor H. Boschma and the late Dr. K. W. Dammerman as an application for the validation under the plenary powers of the unjustified emendation, Corynetes, of Korynetes Herbst, (1792). The authors also pointed out that Corynetes was currently in use with the wrong type-species, making it an objective synonym of Necrobia Olivier, 1795, and asked that the names of both these genera be added to the Official List with their correct type-species. In 1959, Dr. Boschma had further correspondence with the Secretary of the Commission and emended his application by asking that the correct spelling Korynetes, which was now spreading rapidly in the literature owing to its use by Corporaal, 1950 in the Coleopterorum Catalogue, be added to the Official List. This revised applica- tion was sent to the printer on 7 July 1959 and was published on 8 April 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 189-190. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 October 1960 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (60)21 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 190. At the close of the Voting Period on 13 January 1961 the state of the Voting was as follows : Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 4. August 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 253 Affirmative Votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order : Hering, Holthuis, Riley, Mayr, Prantl, Dymond, Lemche, Vokes, Jaczewski, Obruchev, Key, Uchida, Stoll, Mertens, Evans, Kihnelt, Bonnet, Alvarado, Tortonese, Miller, Poll. Negative Votes—two (2): do Amaral, Brinck. On Leave of Absence—one (1): Bradley. Late affirmative votes were returned by Commissioners Boschma and Hemming. OricInaL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : caeruleus, Clerus, De Geer, 1775, Mém. Hist. Ins. 5 : 164 Corynetes Paykull, 1798, Fauna Suecica 1 : 274 Korynetes Herbst, (1792), Kafer 4 : 148 Necrobia Olivier, 1795, Entomologie, Coleopt. 4, No. 76 bis violaceus, Dermestes, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 356 The following are the original references for designations of type-species for two genera involved in the present Ruling : For Korynetes Herbst, (1792) : Lacordaire, 1857, Gen. Coleopt. 4 : 489 For Necrobia Olivier, 1795 : Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arachn. Ins. : 427. CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (60)21 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 Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 604. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 25 January 1961 254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 605 PROMECOPSIS DUMERIL, 1806 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA) ; SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Promecopsis Duméril, 1806, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Typhlocyba Germar, 1833 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designa- tion by Woodworth, 1899, Cicada quercus Fabricius, 1777 (Name No. 1431) ; (b) Promecodes Balfour-Browne, 1960 (gender: masculine), type-species, by original designation, Promecops leucothyreus Fahraeus, 1840 (Name No. 1432) (Insecta, Coleoptera). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) quercus Fabricius, 1777, as published in the binomen Cicada quercus (type-species of T'yphlocyba Germar, 1833) (Name No. 1745) ; (b) leucothyreus Fahraeus, 1840, as published in the binomen Promecops leucothyreus (type-species of Promecodes Balfour-Browne, 1960) (Name No. 1746) (Insecta, Coleoptera). (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Promecopsis Duméril, 1806 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) (Name No. 1495) ; (b) Promecopsis Champion, 1911 (a junior homonym of Promecopsis Duméril, 1806) (Name No. 1496). (5) The family name TYPHLOCYBIDAE Kirschbaum, 1868 (type-genus T'yphlo- cyba Germar, 1833) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 300. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 483) The present case was first brought to the attention of the Commission in September 1950 by a request from Professor W. Wagner for advice. After some correspondence between Dr. Wagner and the Secretary to the Commission, the form of an application was agreed upon. This application was sent to the printer on 7 July 1959 and was published on 8 April 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomenel. 17 : 191-192. Public Notice of the possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Bull. zool. Nomenel. 4: 51-56) and to seven entomological serials. Dr. Wagner’s proposals were supported by Dr. Frej Ossiannilsson (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 84). _ After the publication of Dr. Wagner’s application, Mr. R. V. Melville, then Assistant Secretary to the Commission, had correspondence with Mr. Balfour- Browne concerning the name Promecopsis Champion, 1911. This is explained Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 4. August 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 255 in the following Secretary’s Report which was circulated to the Commission with Voting Paper (60)22 :— “Since the proposal to suppress under the plenary powers the generic name Promecopsis Duméril was published, it has been discovered that that name has a junior homonym, Promecopsis Champion, 1911, in the Order Coleoptera. Mr. Melville sought the advice of Mr. J. Balfour-Browne (British Museum (Natural History), London) on whether or not Promecopsis Champion was in current use. The correspondence on this subject is given below. “2. Mr. Melville (21.iii.60)—‘While I was with the Commission I completed an application on behalf of Professor Wagner of Hamburg dealing with the name Promecopsis in Hemiptera. It is proposed to suppress it as of Dumeéril, 1806, for priority but not homonymy. ‘I have only just noticed that this will not have the effect of validating Promecopsis Champion, 1911 (Biol. Centr.-Amer. Zool. Col. 4(3) : 312). This junior homonym seems already to have been replaced by Promecodes Marshall, 1939 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (11) 3 : 582) and I take it that coleopterists would not like to see Champion’s name revived. The question remains, however, whether it would be desirable to place Promecodes on the Official List and I should be most grateful if you could give or procure any advice on this point.’ “3. Mr. Balfour- Browne (23.iii.60)—‘As Marshall (1939, loc. cit.) expressly proposed the new name Promecodes for Promecopsis Champion, 1911, nec. Duméril, 1806, my colleagues and I are not at all anxious to have the Champion name revived. ‘We, therefore, approve the proposal to suppress Promecopsis Duméril, 1806, for priority but not for homonymy. We also approve the suggestion that Promecodes Marshall, 1939, should be put on the Official List. A pre- liminary investigation has, however, failed to elicit any type-designation by any author either for Promecopsis Champion or for Promecodes Marshall, and since eight species were originally included by Champion it is very advisable that a type should be expressly designated.’ “4, Mr. Balfour-Browne (31.iii.60)—‘ Further to my letter of 23rd March, we have now confirmed that no type-species has ever been selected. It is desirable that in the application to place this name on the Official List the most common and best known species Promecops leucothyreus Fahraeus, 1840 [in Schoenherr, Gen. et Sp. Curc. 6(1) : 328] should be designated as the type- species “ by present selection ”’.’ “5. It has since been agreed that Mr. Balfour-Browne should, at some date prior to publication of the Opinion upon this case, publish in an entomo- logical serial a note designating Promecops leucothyreus Fahraeus as the type- species of Promecodes Marshall. The reference to this type designation will be given in this Opinion when published. “6. The Commission is therefore asked to amend the proposals given on page 192 of Bull. 17 by the addition of the following :— (6) to place the generic name Promecodes Marshall, 1939 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation by Balfour-Browne, Promecops leuco- thyreus Fabraeus, 1840, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; 256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (7) to place the specific name leucothyreus Fahraeus, 1840, as published in the binomen Promecops leucothyreus (type-species of Promecodes Marshall, 1939) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (8) to place the generic name Promecopsis Champion, 1911 (a junior homo- nym of Promecopsis Duméril, 1806) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.” DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 October 1960, Voting Paper (60)22 was circulated to the Members of the Commission with the above report. On this Voting Paper Commissioners were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 192 “and as amended in the accompanying report’. At the close of the Voting Period on 13 January 1961 the state of the Voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order : Hering, Riley, Mayr, Prantl, do Amaral, Dymond, Lemche, Vokes, Obruchev, Key, Holthuis, Uchida, Stoll, Mertens, Evans, Kihnelt, Bonnet, Brinck, Alvarado, Jaczewski, Tortonese, Miller, Poll. Negative Votes—none (0). On Leave of Absence—one (1): Bradley. Late affirmative votes were received from Commissioners Boschma and Hemming. On 23 October 1960, the Secretary to the Commission received the following letter from Commissioner Holthuis: ‘‘ The suppression of the name Promecopsis Duméril, requested by Dr. Wagner seems perfectly justified to me and I gladly vote for it. I do not think, however, that the name Promecodes Marshall, 1939, can be placed on the Official List. It is not an available name as Marshall, when introducing it did not cite a type-species, while the generic name which it was to replace belongs to a genus for which no type-species has been indicated either. According to the Rules ‘ A genus- group name published after 1930 must . . . be accompanied by the definite fixation of a type-species.’ The name Promecodes thus only becomes an available name by the action of Mr. Balfour-Browne, who evidently is the first to select a type-species for it. Consequently the name should be known as Promecodes Balfour-Browne, 1960.” Commissioner Holthuis is of course quite right in saying that Promecodes Marshall is unavailable, and this point has been corrected in the Ruling in the present Opinion. 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 : leucothyreus, Promecops, Fahraeus, 1840, in Schoenherr, Gen. Spec. Curc. 6(1) : 328 Promecodes Balfour-Browne, 1960, Entomologist 93 : 240 Promecopsis Champion, 1911, Biol. Centr.-Amer., Zool. Coleopt. 4(3) : 312 ee eee se ee ——— - ae Vr Tee ee Oe ee ee eee pS eee iPr +7 ™ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 257 Promecopsis Duméril, 1806, Zool. anal. : 167 quercus, Cicada, Fabricius, 1777, Gen. Ins., Chilonii : 298 Typhlocyba Germar, 1833, Rev. Ent. Silbermann 1 : 180 TYPHLOCYBIDAE Kirschbaum, 1868, Jahrb. nassau. Ver. Naturk. 21/22 : 16 The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species for a genus concerned in the present Ruling : For T'yphlocyba Germar, 1833 : Woodworth, 1899, Psyche 5 : 211 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (60)22 were cast as set out above, that the proposal set out in that Voting Paper was 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. 605. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 26 January 1961 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME IDOTEA FABRICIUS, 1798, AND MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH. Z.N.(S.) 412 (see Volume 17, pages 178-184) By Per Brinck (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) Mesidotea entomon is an often quoted name in literature on glacial relics, particularly so in the countries round the Baltic (Denmark, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Esthonia, Finland and Sweden). In textbooks as in high school and university teaching it is a well-known species frequently dealt with as a characteristic element of certain stages or types of lakes or brackish seas in the North. It would be confusing to change the generic name of this animal for a name which has been used very rarely in this century. Therefore, I support Dr. Lemche’s proposal which means that Mesidotea be preserved as the generic name of Oniscus entomon Linnaeus, 1758. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES FOR NEMOURA LATREILLE, 1796 (see this volume, pages 155-156) By Per Brinck (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) The generic name Nemoura occurs frequently in literature on Plecoptera, since 1842 stabilized with WN. cinerea Retzius, (1783) (variegata auct.) as the type-species. It would cause great confusion to change the name by fixation of the type-species available according to Latreille (1810). Therefore I fully support Dr. Kimmins’s application to stabilize the current use of the generic name Nemoura. This is in agreement with the decision of the first Symposium on Plecoptera in Lausanne, in 1956 (cf. Mitt. Schweiz. Ent. Ges. 29 : 447). 258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 606 DENTIPES (GEN. ALPHEUS) GUERIN, 1832 (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA) ; VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name variegata Risso, 1816, as published in the binomen Nika variegata, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The specific name dentipes Guérin, 1832, as published in the binomen Alpheus dentipes, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1747. (3) The specific name variegata Risso, 1816, as published in the binomen Nika variegata (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above), is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 665. (4) The following erroneous subsequent spellings of Hippolyte [Leach], [1814], are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Hyppolyte Leach, 1815 (Name No. 1497) ; (b) Hippolytes Risso, 1826 (Name No. 1498) ; (c) Hippolytus Guérin, 1832 (Name No. 1499) ; (d) Hippolite J. C. Ross, 1835 (Name No. 1500) ; (e) Hippolyta Burmeister, 1837 (Name No. 1501) ; (f) Hippolithe Brullé, 1839 (Name No. 1502) ; (g) Hyppolite Veranyi, 1846 (Name No. 1503) ; (h) Hypolyte Newcombe, 1898 (Name No. 1504) ; (i) Hyppolytte Valdés Ragués, 1909 (Name No. 1505) ; (j) Ippolyte Magri, 1911 (Name No. 1506) ; (k) Hyppolythe Borcea, 1934 (Name No. 1507). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 643) The present case was submitted by Dr. L. B. Holthuis to the Office of the Commission on 5 February 1952. It was sent to the printer on 7 October 1959 and was published on 8 April 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 197-198. Public Notice of the possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers in the present 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). Support for Dr. Holthuis’s proposal was received from Dr. R. Zariquiey (Barcelona, Spain). No objection was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 1 December 1960 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (60)24 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 198. At the close of the Voting Period on 1 March 1961 the state of the voting was as follows : Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 4. August 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 259 Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order : Holthuis, Riley, Hering, Mayr, Vokes, Lemche, Kiihnelt, Jaczewski, Bonnet, Dymond, Obruchev, Brinck, Prantl, Alvarado, Key, Boschma, Hemming, Stoll, do Amaral, Mertens, Poll, Bradley, Evans. Negative Votes—none (0). Late affirmative votes were returned by Commissioners Miller, Uchida and Tortonese. 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 : dentipes, Alpheus, Guérin, 1832, Hxpéd. sci. Morée, Zool. 2 : 39 Hippolite J. C. Ross, 1835, J. Ross’s App. Narrat. 2nd Voy. N.W. Pass. : |xxxiii Hippolithe Brullé, 1839, in Webb & Berthelot, Hist. nat. Iles Canaries 2 (2, Entomol.) : 18 Hippolyia Burmeister, 1837, Handb. Naturgesch. 2 : 565 Hippolytes Risso, 1826, Hist. nat. Europ. mérid. 5 : 78 Hippolytus Guérin, 1832, Expéd. sci. Morée, Zool. 2 : 41 Hypolyte Newcombe, 1898, Cat. Coll. Prov. Mus. Brit. Columb. : 79 Hyppolite Veranyi, 1846, Cat. Anim. Golfo Genova : 8 Hyppolyte Leach, 1815, Trans. linn. Soc. London 11 : 346 Hyppolythe Borcea, 1934, Ann. Univ. Jassy 29 : 405 Hyppolytte Valdés Ragués, 1909, Mis. Trabajos Acad. : 182 Ippolyte Magri, 1911, Atti Accad. gioen. Sci. nat. Catania (5) 4(14) : 25 variegata, Nika, Risso, 1816, Hist. nat. Crust. Nice : 86 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (60)24 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. 606. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 17 March 1961 260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 607 ARCHAEOPTERYX VON MEYER, 1861 (AVES) ; ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST RULING.—(1) The generic name Archaeopteryx von Meyer, 1861 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1433. (2) The specific name lithographica von Meyer, 1861, as published in the binomen Archaeopteryx lithographica (type-species of Archaeopteryx von Meyer, 1861) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1748. (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) Griphosaurus Wagner, (1862) (a junior objective synonym of Archaeop- teryx von Meyer, 1861) (Name No. 1508) ; (b) Griphornis (Owen MS.) H. Woodward, 1862 (a junior objective synonym of Archaeopteryx von Meyer, 1861) (Name No. 1509) ; (c) Archaeopteriz (Anon), 1861 (an erroneous subsequent spelling for Archaeopteryx von Meyer, 1861) (Name No. 1510) ; (d) Archeopteryx Owen, 1863 (an erroneous subsequent spelling for Archaeopteryx von Meyer, 1861) (Name No. 1511) ; (e) Gryphosaurus Lambrecht, 1933 (an erroneous subsequent spelling for Griphosaurus Wagner (1862)) (Name No. 1512) ; (f) Gryphornis Lambrecht, 1933 (an erroneous subsequent spelling for Griphornis (Owen MS.) H. Woodward, 1862) (Name No. 1513). (4) The following specific names, junior objective synonyms of Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) problematicus H. Woodward, 1862, as published in the binomen Griphosaurus problematicus (Name No. 666) ; (b) longicaudatus (Owen MS.) H. Woodward, 1862, as published in the binomen Griphornis longicaudatus (Name No. 667) ; (c) macrurus Owen, 1863, as published in the binomen Archeopteryx (sic) macrurus (Name No. 668) ; (d) owent B. Petronievics, 1921, as published in the binomen Archaeopteryx owent (Name No. 669). (5) The family name ARCHAEOPTERYGIDAE T. H. Huxley, 1871 (type-genus Archaeopteryx von Meyer, 1861) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 301. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1084) The case for the addition of the generic name Archaeopteryx to the Official List was first put forward by Dr. W. E. Swinton in 1956. The application Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 4. August 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 261 was sent to the printer on 14 July 1959 and was published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 224-226 on 8 April 1960. No objection to the proposal was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 1 December 1960 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (60)29 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 226. At the close of the Voting Period on 1 March 1961 the state of the Voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order : Holthuis, Riley, Hering, Mayr, Vokes, Lemche, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Dymond, Obruchev, Brinck, Prantl, Alvarado, Jaczewski, Key, Boschma, Hemming, Stoll, do Amaral, Mertens, Poll, Bradley, Evans. Negative Votes—none (0). Commissioners Miller, Uchida and Tortonese returned late affirmative votes. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : Archaeopterix (Anon), 1861, Neues Jahrb. Min. 1861 : v ARCHAEOPTERYGIDAE T. H. Huxley, 1871, Man. Anat. vert. Anim. : 233 Archaeopteryx von Meyer, 1861, Neues Jahrb. Min. 1861 : 578 Archeopteryx Owen, 1863, Proc. roy. Soc. London 12 : 272 Griphornis (Owen MS.) H. Woodward, 1862, Intellectual Observer 2 : 317, plate. Griphosaurus Wagner, (1862), Sitzungsber. bayer. Akad. Wiss. Miinchen 1861(2) : 153 Gryphornis Lambrecht, 1933, Handb. Paleorn. : 80 Gryphosaurus Lambrecht, 1933, Handb. Paleorn. : 80 lithographica, Archaeopteryx, von Meyer, 1861, Neues Jahrb. Min. 1861 : 578 longicaudatus, Griphornis, (Owen MS.) H. Woodward, 1862, Intellectual Observer 2: plate macrurus, Archeopteryx, Owen, 1863, Proc. roy. Soc. London 12 : 272 oweni, Archaeopteryx, B. Petronievics, 1921, Uber das Becken, den Schulter- girtel und einige andere Teile der Londoner Archaeopteryx : 10 problematicus, Griphosaurus H. Woodward, 1862, Intellectual Observer 2 : 317, plate. CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (60)29 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 Present Opinion No. 607. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 21 March 1961 262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 608 SPATAGUS O. F. MULLER, 1776 (ECHINOIDEA) ; SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers : (a) the generic name Spatagus O. F. Miiller, 1776, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (b) it is hereby directed that the nominal species Spatagus flavescens O. F. Miiller, 1776, is to be interpreted by reference to the neotype designated by R. V. Melville, 1960. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Laganum Link, 1807 (gender : neuter), type-species, by absolute tautony- my, Echinodiscus laganum Leske, 1778 (Name No. 1434) ; (b) Micraster J. L. R. Agassiz, 1836 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation by Forbes, 1850, Spatangus coranguinum Leske, 1778 (Name No. 1485) ; (c) Peronella Gray, 1855 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, ~ Laganum peronii J. L. R. Agassiz, 1841 (Name No. 1436) ; (d) Maretia Gray, 1855 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Spatangus planulatus Lamarck, 1816 (Name No. 1437) ; (e) Metalia Gray, 1855 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Spatangus sternalis Lamarck, 1816 (Name No. 1438). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) flavescens O. F. Miiller, 1776, as published in the binomen Spatagus flavescens, and as defined by the neotype designated under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above (Name No. 1749) ; (b) laganum Leske, 1778, as published in the binomen Echinodiscus laganum, (type-species of Laganum Link, 1807) (Name No. 1750) ; (c) coranguinwm Leske, 1778, as published in the binomen Spatangus coranguinum (type species of Micraster, J. L. R. Agassiz, 1836) (Name No. 1751) ; (d) peronit J. L. R. Agassiz, 1841, as published in the binomen Laganum peronti (type-species of Peronella Gray, 1855) (Name No. 1752) ; (e) planulatus Lamarck, 1816, as published in the binomen Spatangus planulatus, (type-species of Maretia Gray, 1855) (Name No. 1758) ; (f) sternalis Lamarck, 1816, as published in the binomen Spatangus sternalis (type-species of Metalia Gray, 1855) (Name No. 1754) ; (g) spatagus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Hchinus spatagus (Name No. 1755). (4) The generic name Spatagus O. F. Miller, 1776 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1514. (5) 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. 18, Part 4. August 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 263 (a) SPATANGIDAE Gray, 1825 (type-genus Spatangus Gray, 1825) (Name No. 302) ; (b) ECHINOCARDIINAE Wythe Cooke, 1942 (type-genus Echinocardium Gray, 1825) (Name No. 303) ; (c) MARETIINAE (correction of MARETINAE) Lambert, 1905 (type-genus Maretia Gray, 1855) (Name No. 304) ; (d) LAGANIDAE (correction by A. Agassiz, 1873, of “Les Laganes”’) Desor, 1858 (type genus Laganum Link, 1807) (Name No. 305). (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) MARETINAE Lambert, 1905 (type-genus Maretia Gray, 1855), an incorrect original spelling for MARETONAE (Name No. 334) ; (b) ‘‘ Les Laganes’’ Desor, 1858 (type-genus Laganum Link, 1807), an incorrect (vernacular) original spelling for LacanipAE (Name No. 335). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(8.) 1195) The present case was first submitted by Mr. R. V. Melville in January 1957 in response to a request by Mr. Francis Hemming, then Secretary to the Commission, for a report on the status of the name Spatagus. After some emendation the application was sent to the printer on 27 October 1959 and was published on 8 April 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 214-219. Public Notice of the possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers in the present 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). Support for Mr. Melville’s proposals was expressed by Dr. H. Engel (Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam, Netherlands). No adverse comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 1 December 1960 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (60)27, either for or against the - proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 218-219. At the close of the Voting Period on 1 March 1961 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order: Holthuis, Riley, Hering, Mayr, Vokes, Lemche, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Dymond, Obruchev, Brinck, Jaczewski, Prantl, Alvarado, Key, Boschma, Hemming, Stoll, do Amaral, Mertens, Poll, Bradley, Evans. Negative Votes—none (0). Commissioners Miller, Uchida and Tortonese returned late affirmative votes. 264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : coranguinum, Spatangus, Leske, 1778, Addit. Kleinii nat. Disp. Ech. : 221 ECHINOCARDIINAE Wythe Cooke, 1942, J. Paleont. 16 : 59 flavescens, Spatagus, O. F. Miller, 1776, Zool. dan. Prodr. : 236 LAGANIDAE Desor, 1858, Syn. Ech. foss. : 216-217 laganum, Echinodiscus, Leske, 1778, Addit. Kleinii nat. Disp. Ech. : 204 Laganum Link, 1807, Beschr. Nat.-Samml. Univ. Rostock : 161 “Les Laganes”’ Desor, 1858, loc. cit., an incorrect original spelling for LAGANIDAE Maretia Gray, 1855, Cat. rec. Ech. B.M.(1) Ech. Irreg. : 48 MARETINAE Lambert, 1905, in Doncieux, Ann. Univ. Lyon (17) : 162 MARETINAE Lambert, 1905, loc. cit., an incorrect original spelling for MARETIINAE Metalia Gray, 1855, Cat. rec. Ech. B.M. (1) Ech. Irreg. : 51 Micraster J. L. R. Agassiz, 1836, Mém. Soc. nat. Neuchatel 1 : 184 Peronella Gray, 1855, Cat. rec. Ech. B.M. (1) Ech. Irreg. : 13 peronii, Laganum, J. L. R. Agassiz, 1841, Mon. Ech. 2 : 123 planulatus, Spatangus, Lamarck, 1816, Hist. nat. Anim. s. Vert. 3 : 31 SPATANGIDAE Gray, 1825, Ann. Phil. 26 : 430 spatagus, Echinus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 665 Spatagus O. F. Miiller, 1776, Zool. dan. Prodr. : xxix, 236 sternalis, Spatangus, Lamarck, 1816, Hist. nat. Anim. s. Vert. 3 : 31 The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species for a nominal genus concerned in the present Ruling : For Micraster J. L. R. Agassiz, 1836 Forbes, 1850, Mem. geol. Surv. U.K. Dec. 3: pl. 10, p. 2 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (60)27 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. 608. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 21 March 1961 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 265 OPINION 609 LONGICORNE (ACRYDIUM) LATREILLE, 1804 (INSECTA, ORTHOPTERA) ; SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name longicorne Latreille, 1804, as published in the binomen Acrydium longicorne, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Chorthippus Fieber, 1852 (gender : masculine), type- species, by designation by Kirby, 1910, Acrydium albomarginatum De Geer, 1773, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1439. (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified :— (a) albomarginatum De Geer, 1773, as published in the binomen Acrydium albomarginatum (type-species of Chorthippus Fieber, 1852) (Name No. 1756) ; (b) parallelus Zetterstedt, 1821, as published in the binomen Gryllus parallelus (Name No. 1757) ; (c) montanus Charpentier, 1825, as published in the binomen Gryllus montanus (Name No. 1758). (4) The specific name longicorne Latreille, 1804, as published in the binomen Acrydium longicorne (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 670. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 675) The case was first submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. D. K. McE. Kevan on 5 May 1952. In 1959, after correspondence with Mr. R. V. Melville, then Assistant Secretary to the Commission, an application was prepared and was sent to the printer on 7 October 1959 and published on 8 April 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 203-204. Public Notice of the possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers in the present 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 seven entomological serial publications. No objection was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 1 December 1960 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (60)26 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 203-204. At the close of the Voting Period on 1 March 1961 the state of the voting was as follows : Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 4. August 1961. 266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Affirmative Votes—twenty-two (22), received in the following order: Holthuis, Riley, Hering, Mayr, Vokes, Lemche, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Dymond, Obruchev, Brinck, Prantl, Alvarado, Key, Boschma, Hemming, Stoll, do Amaral, Mertens, Poll, Bradley, Evans. Negative Votes—one (1): Jaczewski. Late affirmative votes were returned by Commissioners Miller, Uchida and Tortonese. 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 : albomarginatum, Acrydium, De Geer, 1773, Mém. Hist. Ins. 3 : 480 Chorthippus Fieber, 1852, in Kelch, Grund. Orth. Oberschles. : 1 longicorne, Acrydium, Latreille, 1804, Hist. nat. Crust. Ins. 12 : 159 montanus, Gryllus, Charpentier, 1825, Hor. Ent. 1825 : 173 parallelus, Gryllus, Zetterstedt, 1821, Orth. svec. : 85 The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species for a nominal genus concerned in the present Ruling : For Chorthippus Fieber, 1852 Kirby, 1910, Syn. Cat. Orthopt. 3 : 185 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (60)26 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. 609. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 21 March 1961 + free Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 267 OPINION 610 DREPANIDIDAE AND DREPANIDAE (AVES AND INSECTA) ; ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Drepanis Brisson, 1760, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Drepanis Temminck, 1820 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designa- tion by G. R. Gray, 1840, Certhia pacifica Gmelin, 1788 (Aves) (Name No. 1440) ; (b) Riparia Forster, 1817 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Hirundo riparia Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves) (Name No. 1441) ; (c) Drepana Schrank, 1802 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation by Westwood, 1840, Phalaena falcataria Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) (Name No. 1442). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) pacifica Gmelin, 1788, as published in the binomen Certhia pacifica (type-species of Drepanis Temminck, 1820) (Aves) (Name No. 1759) ; (b) riparia Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Hirundo riparia (type-species of Riparia Forster, 1817) (Aves) (Name No. 1760) ; (c) falcataria Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Phalaena falcataria (type-species of Drepana Schrank, 1802) (Insecta, Lepi- doptera) (Name No. 1761). _ (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) Drepanis Brisson, 1760 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) (Name No. 1515) ; (b) Platypteryx Laspeyres, 1803 (a junior objective synonym of Drepana Schrank, 1802) (Name No. 1516) ; (c) Drepanis Rafinesque, 1815 (a nomen nudum) (Name No. 1517) ; (d) Drepania Hiibner, [1819] (an unjustified emendation of Drepana Schrank, 1802) (Name No. 1518) ; (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) DREPANIDIDAE Gadow, 1891 (type-genus Drepanis Temminck, 1820) (Aves) (Name No. 306) ; (b) DREPANIDAE (correction of DREPANULIDI) Boisduval, [Nov. 1828] (type- genus Drepana Schrank, 1802) (Insecta, Lepidoptera) (Name No. 307). (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 : Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 4. August 1961. 268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (a) DREPANIDAE Sushkin, 1929 (type-genus Drepanis Temminck, 1820) (an unjustified emendation of DREPANIDIDAE Gadow, 1891) (Name No. 336) ; (b) DREPANIIDAE Mayr, 1943 (type-genus Drepanis Temminck, 1820) (an unjustified emendation of DREPANIDIDAE Gadow, 1891) (Name No, 337) ; (c) DREPANULIDI Boisduval, [Nov. 1828] (type-genus Drepana Schrank, > 1802) (an incorrect original spelling for DREPANIDAE) (Name No. 338); (d) PLATYPTERICIDAE [sic] Stephens, 1829 (type-genus Platypteryx Laspeyres, 1803) (a junior objective synonym of DREPANIDAE) (Name No. 339). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 901) The application for the addition to the Official List of the family names based on Drepanis Temminck and Drepana Schrank was first submitted by Dr. Dean Amadon in January 1955, Professor L. W. Grensted, Classical Adviser to the Commission, was consulted on the correct form of these family names and Dr. John Franclemont was invited to provide the necessary informa- tion about the moth name Drepana. A comprehensive application was eventually drafted and was sent to the printer on 14 July 1959 and published on 8 April 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 220-223. Public notice of the possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers in the present 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 12 ornithological serial publications. Support for the majority of the proposals made in the present case was expressed by Dr. A. Wetmore (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.). Dr. Wetmore, however, objected to the proposal to suppress the “generic name Drepanis Brisson, 1760-”, on the grounds that the name in question is a name on the species level only, and has no generic significance. In a note on the Voting Paper concerned with Drepana and Drepanis, Mr. N. D. Riley, Secretary of the Commission, pointed out that “It has for some time been proposed that Opinion 37 (dealing with the availability of Brisson, 1760) be revised by the Commission as there is doubt as to which names in that work are truly generic names. Pending a decision on this matter, it is suggested that Drepanis Brisson be treated as a generic name and suppressed under the plenary powers.” DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 1 December 1960 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (60)28 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 222-223. At the close of the Voting Period on 1 March 1961 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order: Holthuis, Riley, Hering, Mayr, Vokes, Lemche, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Dymond, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 269 Obruchev, Jaczewski, Brinck, Prantl, Alvarado, Key, Boschma, Hemming, Stoll, do Amaral, Mertens, Poll, Bradley, Evans. Negative Votes—none (0). Commissioners Miller, Uchida and Tortonese returned late affirmative votes. OrIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : Drepana Schrank, 1802, Fauna Boica 2(2) : 155 Drepania Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (10) : 140 DREPANIDAE Boisduval, [Nov. 1828], Hur. Lep. Ind. meth. : 55 DREPANIDAE Sushkin, 1928, Verh. VI Int. Ornith. Kongr., Kopenhagen : 375 DREPANUDAE Mayr, 1943, Condor 45 : 46 DREPANIDIDAE Gadow, 1891, in S. B. Wilson & A. H. Evans, Aves Hawaiienses (2) : 235 Drepanis Brisson, 1760, Ornithologie 2 : 506 Drepanis Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse Nature : 69 Drepanis Temminck, 1820, Man. d’Orn. (ed. 2) 1 : Ixxvi DREPANULIDI Boisduval, [Nov. 1828], an incorrect original spelling for DREPANIDAE falcataria, Phalaena, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 519 pacifica, Certhia, Gmelin, 1788, in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1(1) : 470 PLATYPTERICIDAE Stephens, 1829, Nomencl. brit. Ins. : 45 Platypteryx Laspeyres, 1803, N. Schrift. Ges. naturf. Freunde 4 : 29 Riparia Forster, 1817, Syn. Cat. brit. Birds : 17 riparia, Hirundo, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 192 The following are the original references for the designation of type-species for two genera concerned in the present Ruling : For Drepanis Temminck, 1820 G. R. Gray, 1840, List Genera Birds : 12 For Drepana Schrank, 1802 Westwood, 1840, Introd. mod. Classif. Ins., Synopsis : 104 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (60)28 were cast as set out above, that the proposal set out in that Voting Paper was 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. 610. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 22 March 1961 270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CLATHURELLA CARPENTER, 1857 (GASTROPODA); PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 518 By Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) The object of this application is to ask the Commission to designate as the type-species of the genus Clathurella Carpenter, 1857, either Clavatula rava Hinds, 1843, or Defrancia pagoda Millet, 1826. Both these species have been designated as the type and the validity of either designation depends upon the interpretation of the original publication of the generic name Clathurella. 2. The genus Defrancia Millet, 1826 (Mém. linn. Soc. Paris 5 : 437) was published with a list of included species, one of which was the new species Defrancia pagoda (: 439, pl. 9, figs. la, b). No type-species was designated for this nominal genus as such until 1908, since it is a junior homonym of Defrancia Bronn, 1825 (Syst. urw. Pflanz.:13), a name proposed to replace Pelagia Lamouroux, 1821 (Zxp. Méth. polyp. : 78, in Bryozoa), the latter name being itself a junior homonym of Pelagia Peron & Lesueur, 1810 (Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris 14: 349, Scyphozoa), type-species, by designation by Meyer, 1910 (Medusae of the World: 570) Medusa noctiluca Forskal, 1775 (Deser. Anim. : 109), a junior subjective synonym of Medusa pelagica Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 660). Defrancia Bronn, 1825 is not in use in the Bryozoa since it is a junior subjective synonym of Apsendesia Lamouroux, 1821 (op. cit. : 81), type-species, by monotypy, Apsendesia cristata Lamouroux, 1821 (op. cit. : 82, Tab. 80, figs. 12, 13, 14). 3. The genus Clathurella was published by Carpenter (1857, Cat. Coll. Mazatlan Shells B.M. : 399) in the following terms : “ Genus Clathurella* Defrancia, Millet, Ann. Soc. Linn. Par. 1826—Gray, Fig. Mill. An. p. 73.— Phil. Handb. Conch. p. 137—H. & A. Ad. Gen. vol. 1, p. 95—(non Defrancia, Mull. Ind. Mobl. Groenl. p. 12—Bela Leach :—nec Defrancia Bronn, 1825) Clavatula, pars, Hinds.—The Lamarkian genus is restricted by Gray to the species which have a Purpuroid operculum. These shells are said to have none. * This name is proposed for a convenient group of the Mangelia tribe ; the name Defrancia, previously in use, being preoccupied, v. supra. p. 6.” 4. It is clear that the name Defrancia cannot be used for the Toxoglossate Prosobranch Gastropod to which it was applied by Millet, and Carpenter was quite correct in thinking that the name had to be replaced. If Carpenter had published nothing but the footnote following the asterisk, there would be no doubt that Clathurella was proposed by him as a replacement of Defrancia, and therefore must take the same type-species. Millet cited no type for Defrancia and at the time that Carpenter published Clathurella no type had as yet been designated for it ; the first and only type designation for Defrancia having been made as late as 1908 by Dall (Bull. Mus. comp. Zool., Harvard Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 4. August 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 271 43 : 260) who designated Defrancia pagoda on the grounds that this species was one of the few in Millet’s original list that can be recognized so that its identity is assured beyond all reasonable doubt. Since this species is mentioned in Millet’s original publication the designation is legal, and Dall’s choice seems to have been a wise one. 5. But Carpenter has complicated the situation by including in the synonymy of Clathurella not only Defrancia but also Clavatula, which he credits to Hinds. Actually this last name was published by Lamarck, 1801 (Syst. Anim. s. Vertébr. : 84) with Clavatula coronata Lamarck, 1801, as the type-species by monotypy. Hinds never described a new genus bearing the name Clavatula ; what he did was to describe a new species which he called Clavatula rava, and which he assigned to Lamarck’s genus in the belief that it belonged there. Carpenter believed instead that it belonged with Millet’s genus Defrancia, and his inclusion of Clavatula in the synonymy of his new generic name Clathurella was intended to apply only in so far as the species were inoperculate ; his crediting the genus to Hinds instead of to Lamarck, and his use of the Latin word “ pars’ is to indicate that only the species Clavatula rava, and possibly related species, were included. 6. So Clathurella is not an exact equivalent of Clavatula. Neither does it appear to be an exact equivalent of Defrancia, although Carpenter’s footnote states that it is. Carpenter, of course, thought that Clathurella rava was congeneric with the species listed by Millet, but today these are placed in separate genera—and by most systematic malacologists in separate sub- families. It is clear that Clathurella cannot be used for both groups, a choice must be made and that choice depends largely in Carpenter’s intention. 7. The first writer to designate a type-species for Clathurella was Cossman, 1896 (Lssai Paleont. Comp. 2:121), who chose one of the two originally included species Clavatula rava Hinds, 1843 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. : 39). Since then there has been no agreement as to whether Clathurella should be used for the group of Clavatula rava or that of Defrancia pagoda, and the two leading malacologists of the first half of this century in the United States were on opposite sides of the controversy. Dall, 1918 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 54: 321), stated that since Clathurella was proposed as a replacement name for Defrancia it must take the same type-species (i.e. Defrancia pagoda) and therefore the group to which Clavatula rava is now assigned must be given a new name. In this case Clathurella would fall as a junior objective synonym of Pleuroto- moides Bronn, 1831 (Ergeb. nat. Reisen 2 : 555), an earlier replacement name for Defrancia Millet. That other writers have agreed with Dall is evidenced by the fact that several of them have sought to give the Clavatula rava group a new name. Dall considered the claims of these and rejected all of them except one on technical grounds. That one is Philbertia Monterosato, 1884 (Nom. Gen. Spec. Conch. Medit. : 132) which according to Dall must be used for the group typified by Clavatula rava. 8. On the other hand Pilsbury (1932, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 84 : 55) argued that since Clavatula was included by Carpenter in the synonymy of Clathurella, species of Clavatula cited by Carpenter are equally eligible for designation as type, and since one of these, Clavatula rava, was selected by 272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Cossman some years before Dall selected Defrancia pagoda, the type must be Clavatula rava, and the name must be used for this group. 9. Both these courses are consistent with the rules but the actual rules to be applied must be determined by Carpenter’s intention. Since he con- tradicted himself in setting up his new generic name it is impossible to determine what his intention may have been. It would seem therefore that the only solution to this problem is a Ruling by the Commission. In my opinion it would be wiser to declare Clathurella rava as the type-species of Clathurella so that this genus may be placed on the Official List. My reason for requesting this action is that the name Clathurella has more often been used in this sense and less confusion will result from its retention than from its replacement. If Defrancia pagoda were designated the type-species of Clathurella that nominal genus would fall as a synonym of Plewrotomoides and the genus containing Clavatula rava would have to be known as Philbertia. 10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked :— (1) to use its plenary powers, in so far as is necessary, to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Clathurella Carpenter, 1857, made prior to the Ruling now requested and, having done so, to designate Clavatula rava Hinds, 1843, 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) Clathurella Carpenter, 1857 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Clavatula rava Hinds, 1843 ; (b) Plewrotomoides Bronn, 1831 (gender: masculine), type-species, through Defrancia Millet, 1826, by designation by Dall, 1908, Defrancia pagoda Millet, 1826 ; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) rava Hinds, 1843, as published in the binomen Clavatula rava (type-species of Clathurella Carpenter, 1857) ; (b) pagoda Millet, 1826, as published in the binomen Defrancia pagoda (type-species of Plewrotomoides Bronn, 1831) ; (4) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) the following homonyms of Defrancia Bronn, 1825: (i) Defrancia Millet, 1826 ; (ii) Defrancia Moller, 1842 ; (b) the following homonyms of Pelagia Peron & Lesueur, 1810: (i) Pelagia Lamouroux, 1821 ; (ii) Pelagia Quoy & Gaimard, (1833), im d’Urville, Voy. “Astralabe”’, Zool. 2 : 392; (iii) Pelagia Gumppenberg, 1890, N. Acta. Acad. Leop. Carol. 54 : 483 ;58 : 237; (c) Philbertia Monterosato, 1884 (a junior objective synonym of Clathurella Carpenter, 1857). sath Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 273 PROPOSAL TO REPEAL THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 47 AND TO USE THE PLENARY POWERS TO STABILIZE THE GENERIC NAMES CARCHARHINUS BLAINVILLE, 1816, CARCHARODON A. SMITH, 1838, AND ODONTASPIS J. L. R. AGASSIZ, 1838, IN THEIR ACCUS- TOMED SENSES (CLASS PISCES). Z.N (S.) 920 By E. I. White, Denys W. Tucker and N. B. Marshall The “Summary ” of Opinion 47 (Smithson. Inst. Publ. 2060, February 1912 : 108-109) states simply that ‘“‘ Carcharias Rafinesque, 1810, is monotypic, type Carcharias tawrus Rafinesque ”. Apart from the date of the generic name, the statement is true. The “Statement of Case ”, however, contains an error of fact, while the implication of the ruling, that Carcharias is to be used as the valid name for the largest genus, taxonomically speaking, of fossil sharks, known for over 120 years as Odontaspis J. L. R. Agassiz, 1838, has been ignored. The names of two other genera are also involved, namely, those known respectively as Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816 (the largest genus, taxonomically speaking, of living sharks) and as Carcharodon A. Smith, 1838 (the man-eating shark). 2. In 1809, Rafinesque (Caratt. alc. n. gen. e n. spec. danimali e piante della Sicilia : 10) established a new genus Carcharias, with Carcharias taurus Rafinesque, 1809 (ibid.) as the type-species, by monotypy. (The date of this work is usually given as 1810, but Fitzpatrick, 1911, Rafinesque, Life with Bibliography, has shown that pp. 1-69 were published in 1809, and pp. 71-105 in 1810.) In 1810 (Indice Ittiol. Sicilia : 44), Rafinesque referred three species to the genus, namely, C. taurus, C. lamia and C. glaucus. The specific name lamia was proposed to replace carcharias Linnaeus, 1758 (Squalus) (Syst. ‘Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 235), apparently to avoid tautonymy, but it is clear that it is invalid as a junior objective synonym, and that Rafinesque should have used the binomen Carcharias carcharias (Linnaeus, 1758). In the case of the third species, Rafinesque merely transferred Squalus glaucus Linnaeus, 1758 to Carcharias. 3. Squalus carcharias Linnaeus, 1758, is a composite species, for it combines the characters of the two species now known as Carcharodon carcharias (Linnaeus, 1758) and as Carcharhinus longimanus (Poey, 1861) respectively. Current usage of these two names is now well established, but Rafinesque used Carcharias lamia (a junior objective synonym of Linnaeus’s name) in the latter sense in his later works, as also did Cuvier (1817, Régne anim. 2 : 125), Risso (1826, Hist. nat. Eur. mérid. 3: 119), and Miller & Henle ([1839], Syst. Plagiost. : 37). Squalus (Carcharias) longimanus Poey, 1861 (Mem. Hist. nat. Cuba 2 : 338) was made the type-species, by original designation, of a new genus Pterolamia S. Springer, 1950 (Amer. Mus. Nov. 1451 : 7), but this name was found to be a junior homonym of Pterolamia Breuning, 1942, and was accordingly replaced by Pterolamiops S. Springer, 1951 (Copeia 1951 (3): 244). There is no confusion over the interpretation of this name, but with regard to Squalus carcharias Linnaeus, 1758, we propose that the description given by Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 4. August 1961. aA 274 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Bigelow & Schroeder (1948, Fishes of the Western North Atlantic : 134-145, figs. 20-21) be selected as the standard of reference for the interpretation of the specific name. It is impracticable to designate a mature specimen in a collection as neotype of so large an animal. No type-specimen exists in the Linnean Collection. 4. Carcharias taurus Rafinesque, 1809, is also the type-species, by original designation, of Triglochis Miller & Henle, 1837, which is therefore a junior objective synonym of Carcharias Rafinesque, 1809; and both names are subjectively available for the genus long universally known as Odontaspis J. L. R. Agassiz, 1838 (type-species, by monotypy, Carcharias ferox Risso, 1826 (Hist. nat. Hur. mérid. 3 : 122) (not C. tawrus as alleged in the ‘‘ Statement of Case’ in Opinion 47). It is therefore desirable that both these senior synonyms be suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not of the Law of Homonymy, so as to validate Odontaspis. 5. The generic name Odontaspis was first published by Agassiz in the “ Feuilleton ’’ added as a supplement to his Recherches sur les Poissons fossiles, 1833-1834. The name appeared on p. 55 of the Feuilleton, which was published in 1835, according to. W. H. Brown, 1890 (in Woodward & Sherborn, Cat. Brit. foss. Vert. : xxv-xxix), as “ Odontaspis rhaphiodon Ag—lLewes— Mastricht—” without any other data accompanying either the new generic or the new specific name, each of which is therefore a nomen nudum. The generic name was first made available in 1838, in Rech. Poiss. foss. 3 : 87, where it is mentioned as “Le genre Odontaspis Ag. (T'riglochis Miller & Henle, Carcharias ferox Risso)” and accompanied by a brief description of the genus. It is in this passage that the type-species is indicated by monotypy, for later pages in the same volume (: 293 et seq.), where further species were referred to the genus, were not published until 1843 (Brown, loc. cit.). 6. Meanwhile, the generic name T'riglochis had been established in a paper published twice in 1837 by Miller & Henle, namely, in Arch. Naturg. Jahrg. 3, 1 : 396, and in Ber. Verh. preuss. Akad. Wiss. 1837 : 113. The latter reference relates to the Monatsbericht reporting the meetings of July 1837, but there is no evidence that either publication appeared before the other, and for the purposes of nomenclature, both are to be dated 31 December 1837. The following words are identical in both versions: “‘. . . fiihren die Verf. 2 neue Gattungen an, T’riglochis und Triaenodon. Der Typus der ersten ist Carcharias Taurus Raf. .... * In the same papers, Odontaspis is mentioned (: 397, : 114) as follows : ‘‘ Die Gattung Zamna Cuv. mit den Untergattungen Lamna (2 Spp.), Odontaspis Agass. (1 Sp.), Oxyrhina Agass. (1 Sp.) besitzt lange, spitze Zaihne mit oder ohne Nebenzacken . . .”’, but no independent description, definition, or indication is given for Odontaspis, which therefore remains a nomen nudum. 7. Since the respective nominal type-species of Carcharias Rafinesque, 1809, and Odontaspis J. L. R. Agassiz, 1838, are congeneric, it is the latter name which is threatened by the former. It has always been held, however, that Rafinesque’s taxonomic intention in proposing his new name was to provide a new genus for Squalus carcharias Linnaeus, and since that species has in the past been interpreted in two different ways, Carcharias has been > Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 275 held to be a senior synonym both of Carcharodon A. Smith, 1838, and of Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816. This dilemma is confusedly set forth in the “Statement of Case’’ in Opinion 47, and it is now necessary to consider the status and circumstances of these two generic names. 8. Carcharodon was first published, with a brief description, in Miiller & Henle, 1838, Mag. nat. Hist. (n.s.) 2 : 37, and was attributed to Andrew Smith. The genus was stated to contain one species, but none was mentioned by name. The first author to refer any species to the genus was Bonaparte, 1839 (Faun. Ital. (24) punt. 126, 126*, pl. 135), who cited Carcharodon lamia, with Squalus carcharias Risso (1810, Ichth. Nice: 25) and Carcharias lamia Risso (1826, loc. supra cit.) in the synonymy. The nominal species in question must be taken to be Carcharias lamia Rafinesque, 1810, which is, as has been seen, a junior objective synonym of Squalus carcharias Linnaeus, 1758. This is therefore the valid name of the type-species of Carcharodon. In [1839], Miiller & Henle (Syst. Beschr. Plagiost. (2): 70) referred the single species Carcharodon Rondeleti to the genus, citing Carcharodon lamia Bonaparte, 1839, among the synonyms. It follows that their work must be assumed to have been published later than Bonaparte’s, and that Carcharodon rondeleti is another junior objective synonym of Carcharodon carcharias (Linnaeus, 1758). This fact is well known. 9. Carcharias, as used by several authors subsequent to Rafinesque, 1809, seems to have been proposed deliberately as a new (and homonymous) generic name rather than as a citation of Rafinesque’s name. Cuvier (1817, Régne anim. 2 : 125) included three species in the genus, one of which was cited as “ Squalus carcharias’”’ (to be read as of Linnaeus, 1758), and is therefore the type-species by absolute tautonymy. Carcharias Risso, 1826 (Hist. nat. Eur. mérid. 3 : 119) included five species, one of which was C. lamia : Squalus carcharias is therefore also the type-species of this genus. Carcharias Miller & Henle, [1839] (Syst. Beschr. Plagiost.: 37) was divided into five subgenera, none of which was given the generic name as itsown. The subgenus Prionodon, however, contains ‘‘ Carcharias (Prionodon) lamia Risso” of which “ Squalus carcharias Risso ”’ is cited as a synonym. Under the Rules, therefore, Squalus carcharias Linnaeus, 1758, is the type-species of Carcharias Miiller & Henle, [1839], and Prionodon of those authors becomes the nominate subgenus. Thus there is no difference in the nomenclatorial status of any of these uses of the generic name Carcharias subsequent to Rafinesque, 1809. They all apply to a genus other than that to which the original monotypical type-species of Carcharias Rafinesque belongs, and they all rank as senior objective synonyms of Carcharodon A. Smith, 1838. For this reason, Carcharias Rafinesque, 1809 (which itself threatens Odontaspis J. L. R. Agassiz, 1838), must be suppressed only for the purposes of the Law of Priority, while retaining its rights under the Law of Homonymy, so as to prevent any of the junior homonyms cited above from displacing Carcharodon A. Smith, 1838. 10. Prionodon Miiller & Henle, [1839], is automatically invalidated as a junior homonym of Prionodon Horsfield, 1822 (Mammalia) ; and it has in fact been expressly replaced by Prionace Cantor, 1850 (J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal 18(2) : 1381. The type-species of Prionace must, therefore, be that of 276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Prionodon, namely, Squalus carcharias Linnaeus, 1758, so that the name falls as a junior objective synonym of Carcharodon. The name is, however, in well-established use for a different genus, that which contains the Blue Shark, Squalus glaucus Linnaeus, 1758 ; and this species, which is one of those originally included in Prionodon Miiller & Henle, was designated as type-species of Prionace by Jordan in 1919 (Genera of Fishes (Stanford Univ. Publ., Univ. Series) (2) : 242). Stability of nomenclature would be seriously damaged by the strict application of the Rules in this case, and we therefore ask that the plenary powers be used to designate S. glaucus Linnaeus, 1758, as the type- species of Prionace. 11. Carcharhinus was first published by Blainville in August 1816 (Bull. sci. Soc. philomath. Paris 1816 : 121), and later in the same year in J. Phys. 83 : 264. Fourteen species were cited as belonging to the genus, but nine of these (including C. commersonii, the first species) are based only on nomina nuda. The other five nominal species are : Carcharias lamia Rafinesque, 1810, Squalus glaucus Linnaeus, 1758, Squalus cornubicus Gmelin, 1789, Squalus monensis Shaw, 1804, and Squalus vulpes Gmelin, 1789. No type-species was designated or indicated. 12. Bose (1816, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. 5 : 277) said of Carcharhinus : “Le Squale-Requin ou Lamie. Squalus carcharias lui sert de type”. Since this must be taken to mean Squalus carcharias Linnaeus, 1758, which is a senior objective synonym of Carcharias lamia Rafinesque, 1810 (which was one of the nominal species originally included in Carcharhinus), Bosc’s designa- tion of the type-species is valid under Declarations 21 and 25. Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816, thus becomes itself a senior objective synonym of Carcharodon A. Smith, 1838. Bosc’s designation has, however, never been adopted. Jordan & Gilbert (1883, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 16 : 22) designated C. com- mersonit as type-species of Carcharhinus, but this specific name was not available at the time when the genus was established. It was not in fact validated until 1825 (Blainville in Vieillot, Fawne de France : 90), where it was said to be based on Lacépéde, 1798, Hist. nat. Poissons 1 : 169, pl. 5, fig. 1. The reference is clearly erroneous, for the figure illustrates a skate and not a shark. Assuming, on grounds of probability, that pl. 8, fig 1 was meant, there is still uncertainty as to the meaning of the specific name, for neither the figure (although it certainly represents a species of Carcharhinus as generally understood) nor the measurements given with it enable the species to be identified. Thus Carcharhinus commersonii Blainville, 1825, even if eligible, would not be a suitable type-species for the genus. 13. If Carcharhinus is to be stabilized in accordance with current usage, it is clear that Bosc’s valid type-designation must be set aside. In looking for a suitable substitute type-species, it is necessary first to ignore the other four nominal species originally included in the genus, since these are distributed among other genera whose names are in general use. Two of these genera are junior to Carcharhinus and one is senior. In any case, the designation of any of the four species concerned as the type-species of Carcharhinus would have disastrous effects on the stability of the generic names involved. In searching elsewhere for a suitable species, we consulted Dr. W. C. Schroeder (Woods Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 277 Hole Oceanographic Institution, Mass., U.S.A.), who is co-author with Dr. H. B. Bigelow of the standard work in English bearing on the present issue (Bigelow & Schroeder, 1948, Fishes of the western North Atlantic, Sears Found. Publ.1). Dr. Schroeder replied : “ Dr. Bigelow and I agree with you that stabilization of the genus name Carcharhinus is most desirable, not only because its nomenclatural history is confused but because it includes a larger number of closely related species than does any other genus of modern sharks and many of the most familiar of the large sharks of temperate and warm seas. In our opinion, Jordan & Gilbert’s designation of C. commersonii Blainville, 1816, was valid on nomenclatural grounds. But the type-specimen of commersonii is notinexistence. And while Lacépéde’s illustration of it, with the accompanying measurements, seems certainly to have been based on a member of the genus as subsequently understood, they are not sufficiently detailed to place it in any particular species in the light of later knowledge. Since no acceptable revision of Blainville’s species (many of them only nominal) has appeared, and since Garman does not help us at all, we believe the most promising solution to the dilemma is to follow the suggestion in paragraph 3 of your letter, i.e. to propose as the type of Carcharhinus some species which is not only clearly congeneric with the illustration on which Blainville based the genus, but the type-specimen of which is available for study in some well-established museum. In our opinion, the most suitable species for this purpose (perhaps the only suitable species) is Carcharias (Prionodon) milberti Miiller & Henle, [1839] (Syst. Beschr. Plagiost. : 38-39), which was based on a specimen in the Paris Museum, from New York, collected by Milbert, combined with one in Berlin and a third in Leiden. Since the Berlin specimen may not be in existence still and since the number of teeth in the Leyden specimen was different from that in the Berlin and Paris specimens, would it not be in order to designate the Paris specimen as the type of the species? There are specimens of milberti in the Museum of Comparative Zoology, in the U.S. National Museum and doubtless in the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia.”’ 14. The above suggestion provides by far the most certain and effective solution to the problem of the type-species of Carcharhinus, and we are glad to adopt it, with grateful acknowledgments to Dr. Schroeder and Dr. Bigelow. We next proceeded to enquire as to the suitability of the Paris specimen of Carcharhinus milberti referrred to. Dr. J. Guibé (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris) kindly provided the particulars of this specimen, which we here select as lectotype of the species, given in the Appendix. 15. Three family-group names are involved in the present case. Miiller & Henle (op. cit. [1839] : xvii) proposed a family CARCHARIAE, based on Carcharias, but this name is to be automatically rejected upon the suppression under the plenary powers of the name of its type-genus. Its place is taken by ODONTASPIDES (an incorrect original spelling of ODONTASPIDIDAE) Miiller & Henle, [1839], ibid. The name CARCHARHINIDAE Garman, 1913, The Plagio- stoma : 106, is based on Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816. The two latter names should be placed on the Official List. 16. We therefore propose that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should : (1) repeal the ruling given in Opinion 47; 278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2) use its plenary powers : (i) to suppress the generic name Carcharias Rafinesque, 1809, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (ii) to suppress the generic name T'riglochis Miiller & Henle, 1837, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (iii) to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816, made prior to the ruling now asked for, and to designate Squalus (Carcharias) milberti Miller & Henle, [1839], as the type-species of that genus ; (iv) to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Prionace Cantor, 1850, made prior to the ruling now asked for, and to designate Squalus glaucus Linnaeus, 1758, as the type-species of that genus ; (3) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (2)(ili) above, Squalus (Carcharias) milberti Miller & Henle, [1839] ; (b) Carcharodon A. Smith in Miller & Henle, 1838 (gender : masculine), type-species, by subsequent monotypy, through Carcharias lamia Rafinesque, 1810, Squalus carcharias Linnaeus, 1758 ; (c) Odontaspis J. L. R. Agassiz, 1838, (gender: feminine), type- species, by monotypy, Carcharias ferox Risso, 1826 ; (d) Prionace Cantor, 1850 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designa- tion under the plenary powers in (2)(iv) above, Squalus glaucus Linnaeus, 1758 ; (c) Pterolamiops S. Springer, 1951 (gender : masculine), type-species, by original designation, through Pterolamia S. Springer, 1950, squalus (Carcharias) longimanus Poey, 1861 ; (4) place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) milberti Miller & Henle, [1839], as published in the binomen Carcharias (Prionodon) milberti and as defined by the lectotype selected in the present application (type-species of Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816) ; (b) carcharias Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Squalus carcharias, and as interpreted by Bigelow and Schroeder, 1948, Fishes of the western North Atlantic : 134-135, figs. 20-21 (type- species of Carcharodon A. Smith in Miiller & Henle, 1838) ; (c) ferox Risso, 1826, as published in the binomen Carcharias ferox (type-species of Odontaspis J. L. R. Agassiz, 1838) ; (d) glaucus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Squalus glaucus (type-species of Prionace Cantor, 1850) ; (e) longimanus Poey, 1861, as published in the combination Squalus Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 279 (Carcharias) longimanus. Poey, 1861 (type-species of Ptero- lamiops 8. Springer, 1951) ; (5) place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Carcharias Rafinesque, 1809 (suppressed under the plenary powers in (2)(i) above) ; (b) Triglochis Miller & Henle, 1837 (suppressed under the plenary powers in (2)(ii) above) ; (b) the following junior homonyms of Carcharias Rafinesque, 1809 : (i) Carcharias Cuvier, 1817; (ii) Carcharias Risso, 1826 ; (iii) Carcharias Miller & Henle, [1839]; (c) Prionodon Miiller & Henle, [1839] (a junior homonym of Prionodon Horsfield, 1822) ; (d) Pterolamia 8S. Springer, 1950 (a junior homonym of Pterolamia Breuning, 1942) ; (6) place the following specific name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Species Names in Zoology : lamia Rafinesque, 1810, as published in the binomen Carcharias lamia (a junior objective synonym of carcharias Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Squalus carcharias) ; (7) to place the following family-group names on the Official List of Family- group Names in Zoology : (a) ODONTASPIDIDAE (correction of ODONTASPIDES) Miiller & Henle, [1839] (type-genus Odontaspis J. L. R. Agassiz, 1838) ; (b) CARCHARHINIDAE Garman, 1913 (type-genus Carcharhinus Blain- ville, 1816) ; (8) place the following family-group names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-group Names in Zoology : (a) cARCHARIAE Miiller & Henle, [1839] (type-genus Carcharias Rafinesque, 1809 (invalid through the suppression under the plenary powers in (2) (i) above of the name of the type-genus) ; (b) opontasPipES Miiller & Henle, [1839] (type-genus Odontaspis J. L. R. Agassiz, 1838) (an incorrect original spelling of ODONTASPIDIDAE). APPENDIX The following are the particulars of the lectotype chosen in the present application (Paragraph 14) for Carcharias (Prionodon) milberti Miller & Henle, [1839] supplied by Dr. J. Guibé : “Un specimen ¢, numéro 1142 Coll. Mus. Paris. Provenant de la céte de l’Etat de New York ; récolté par Milbert ; conservé en alcool ; en bon état. millimétres Longueur totale oF ¥ at rs = 605 Hauteur du tronc ae a a ee ats 75 280 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Epaisseur du trone =: bh, Long, de la téte (de I’ extrémité da museau & ls premiére fente branchiale) .. a3 e - 125 Largeur de la téte fe os i ve xr 68 Diamétre oculaire me i Jt “ 5 16.5 Espace préorbitaire as ae me Be oe 45.5 Espace interorbitaire .. ae 3 a ot 65.5 Longueur de la narine .. : 11.5 Espace internasal (pris 4 Vangle eherns ‘des narings).. 36 Longueur du rostre (a partit de la machoire supérieure) 47 Largeur de la bouche .. 49 Longueur de la caudale (pie al apdonits du lave inférieur) oe bh Re 17.5 Idem (prise 4 l’aplomb da lobe supérieur) me a 16.5 Longueur de la pectorale wi ae Ee a 101 Longueur museau-premiére dorsale_ .. of A 180 Longueur museau-deuxiéme dorsale .. e Bs 371 Longueur museau-anale ou “ <2 32 440 Longueur museau-pectorale .. Ji iy ne 150 Longueur museau-pelvienne .. PS 294 Nombre de dents 4 la machoire sapeeicures 29 a la machoire inférieure : 29 Il est difficile de dénombrer avec exactitude le nombre des dents, toutefois le nombre ci-dessus ne comporte pas une erreur de plus de une ou deux unités.”’ COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF THE GENERIC NAME PERLA GEOFFROY, 1762 (see this volume, pages 87-89) By Otto Winkler (Prague, Czechoslovakia) The proposal made by Mr. Kimmins is doubtless very right and useful. The fundamental aim of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is to do away with nomen- clatorial difficulties ; the rigorous application of the Rules would be harmful in this case, because it would produce a lot of new confusion and complication in the future. Therefore I agree with all items of Mr. Kimmins’s proposal. es a ee (a, Pa ed ee ee ee a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 281 LYGUS HAHN, 1833 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA) ; PROPOSED DESIGNA- TION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF A TYPE-SPECIES IN HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED USAGE. Z.N.(S.) 1062 By José C. M. Carvalho (Museum Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil), H. H. Knight (Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa, U.S.A.), and R. L. Usinger (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) Because of their economic importance ‘“‘ Lygus bugs” have attracted considerable attention throughout the world and a great deal has been published on their biology and control. Taxonomically, the group is complex, with upwards of 350 described species, which have been referred to seven subgenera. Until recently, the problem of type designation was largely academic because the name Lygus was applicable regardless of which subgenus proved to be the “typical” one. However, in 1941 Knight (Bull. Ill. nat. Hist. Surv. 22(1) : 154) raised his subgenus Neolygus (1917) to full generic rank and the “ pratensis group’’, for which Wagner (1949) proposed the subgeneric name Hxolygus, has been elevated (Kelton, 1955, Canad. Ent. 87 : 277-301) under the name Liocoris Fieber, 1858. It is this last change that precipitates the question of type designation and changes the generic name of the tarnished plant bug and several other important pests of agri- cultural crops in Europe and North America. In the present application the Commission is requested to act under its plenary powers in order to preserve as far as is possible the accustomed usage of generic names within this group. Pertinent data are given below. 2. The genus Lygus was proposed by Hahn, 1833 (Die iiaieneata oe Insecten 1 : 147-148) with nine species—pabulinus Linnaeus, icterocephalus Hahn, contaminatus Fallén, limbatus Fallén, nassatus Fabricius, melanocephalus Linnaeus, rubricatus Fallén, floralis Hahn, and tenellus Fallén. 3. Reuter, 1875 (Bih. svensk.-Vetensk. Akad. Handl. 3(1) : 16-18) recognized three subgenera: Lygus for eleven species including limbatus and pratensis ; Iygocoris for three species including pabulinus ; and Orthops for four species. No types were designated for these subgenera. This classification was generally followed by subsequent workers and was not seriously questioned for sixty-six years. 4. As shown by China, 1941 (Proc. R. Ent. Soc. Lond. (B)10 : 60) the first valid type selection for Lygus was Cimex pabulinus Linnaeus, 1761 (Fauna svec. (ed. 2) : 253) by Distant, 1904 (Fauna Brit. India, Rynch. 2 : 454). Distant’s type-selection was rejected by Kirkaldy, 1906 (Trans. Amer. ent. Soc. 32 : 139) with the statement that ‘“‘ Distant . . . falsely cites pabulinus as type, this species not belonging to the typical subgenus’. Presumably, Kirkaldy was referring to Reuter’s subgeneric classification though, as pointed out above, types were not designated by Reuter. Kirkaldy (loc. cit.) designated Phytocoris limbatus Fallén, 1829 (Hemipt. svec.: 92), as the type-species of Iygus and in this he was followed by the two leading cataloguers of Europe and North America—Oshanin, 1912 (Kat. pal. Hemipt. : 64) and Van Duzee, Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 4. August 1961. 282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1917 (Cat. Hemipt. America N. Mexico : 339) and by all later workers, until China’s (loc. cit.) paper appeared in 1941. 5. China, 1941, accepting the consequences of the long ignored type designation by Distant, synonymized Lygocoris Reuter, 1875, with Cimex pabulinus as type, under Lygus Hahn, 1833, and proposed the new name, Apolygus, for Lygus of Oshanin, Van Duzee and others with Phytocoris limbatus Fallén, 1829, as its type. China followed Kirkaldy, Oshanin, Van Duzee, and others in assuming that Cimex pratensis Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 448) and limbatus Fallén belonged to the same subgenus and, therefore, that fixation of limbatus Fallén as type in effect provided a name for the “pratensis group”. Unfortunately for the stability of the names of our commonest economic species, this is not the case. 6. In 1949, Wagner (Verh. Ver. naturw. Heimatf. Hamburg 30 : 26-40) showed that limbatus Fallén and pratensis Linnaeus, belong to different sub- genera and proposed the subgeneric name Hzolygus with Cimex pratensis Linnaeus as its type. 7. Leston, 1952 (Entom. Gaz. 3 : 214-215) showed that limbatus Fallén is actually very close to Neolygus Knight so that Apolygus China fell in synonymy under Knight’s genus, but recent studies (Kelton, 1955) indicate that Apclygus and Neolygus Knight can be maintained as distinct subgenera of Lygus (=Lygocoris) teste Kelton or of Neolygus teste Leston. With the removal of Lygus (Apolygus) limbatus (Fallén) from the “‘ pratensis group ”, Exolygus Wagner, 1949, became the valid subgeneric name for pratensis and its allies. 8. Leston, 1955 (Hntomologist 88 : 114-115) has settled the question of the type-specimen of Cimex pratensis Linnaeus, designating one of the original specimens in the Linnean Collection as lectotype. This specimen is stated to agree in all characters that are apparent with the current understanding of this species (Wagner, 1949). 9. Kelton (1955) published a world-wide revision of the ‘“‘ Lygus complex ” and gave a key to genera and subgenera. In this work most of the subgenera are raised to generic rank, the “ pratensis group” is called Liocoris Fieber, 1858 (Wien ent. Monatschr. 2 : 309) (=Haolygus Wagner) and the important economic pests of Africa (subgenus T'aylorilygus Leston) are raised to generic rank. In a footnote, reference is made to the present petition and the names that would result if the petition receives favourable action. 10. The case presented above seems perfectly clear and leads inevitably to the conclusion that the name of the tarnished plant bug and its allies will have to be changed from Lygus to Liocoris. Lygus s. str. applies only to one species, the green plant bug, Lygus pabulinus Linnaeus, which is a common and wide- spread species but with only a fraction of the economic literature that exists for the members of the “‘ pratensis group”. We accordingly recommend that the International Commission designate, under its plenary powers, the species Cimex pratensis Linnaeus, 1758, as type-species of Lygus Hahn, 1833. 11. Favourable action on the above recommendation will have the following results. The name Lygus will be retained for the European Lygus pratensis (Linnaeus), L. rugulipennis Poppius, the North American L. lineolaris Palisot de Beauvois (~oblineatus Say), L. hesperus Knight, and 42 other species, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 283 several of which are of economic importance. There are over 100 classical taxonomic citations to Lygus pratensis Linnaeus alone and many hundreds of references in the economic literature. Furthermore, the generic name has been generally adopted by economic entomologists and farmers in many parts of North America as part of the common name “ Lygus bugs”. The name Liocoris Fieber, 1858, having been used only once (Kelton, 1955) for ‘‘ Lygus bugs” will become a subjective synonym of Lygus. The name Exolygus Wagner, 1949, never having been used above the subgeneric level, will become an objective synonym of Lygus, the two names having the same type-species. 12. The name Lygocoris Reuter (1875) previously used in a subgeneric sense will still be associated with pabulinus Linnaeus, but will be raised to generic rank. This group in the strict sense is monotypic but is so closely related to Knight’s (1917) Neolygus and China’s Apolygus that Kelton considers them as subgenera (Neolygus is considered as a distinct genus by Knight and Leston). The subgenera Agnocoris Reuter (1875), Orthops Fieber (1858) and Taylorilygus Leston (1952) are recognized as full genera (Kelton, 1955). Related genera such as Plesiocoris Fieber, Dagbertus Distant, Cyphodema Fieber, Sabactus Distant, Proba Distant, contain certain species formerly included in Lygus, but these have no bearing on the present petition. 13. The one negative result of the present petition will be the unfortunate change in the generic name of one important species, Lygus pabulinus (Linnaeus), though the change would not involve a switch in names but only the elevation of a long accepted subgeneric name. In addition, 40 names in Neolygus and Apolygus would be changed to Lygocoris (unless they are maintained as separate genera). Also, the names of 22 species of Taylorilygus must be changed, but the change is required not for nomenclatorial reasons but because T'aylorilygus has been raised from subgenus to genus (Kelton, 1955). Carvalho and China have reasons to suspect that a further change will be necessary when the type-species of Gutrida Kirkaldy (1902) and Taylorilygus Leston are compared. 14. From the foregoing it is clear that some name changes are inevitable whether or not this petition is approved. However, the weight of opinion appears to be in favour of fixing Lygus in the sense in which it was first restricted by Reuter 80 years ago. If this is done, the name Lygus will be retained for by far the most important economic species of Europe and North America and, as shown above, many other economic species, including the important African pests of coffee and cotton, will have to be changed in any case. Numerous economic entomologists have been consulted and have given their informal approval to the recommendations now put before the Commission. In addition, all of the known specialists in the taxonomy of Lygus have read the present petition in manuscript form and have made valuable suggestions which have been incorporated in the final copy. Moreover the preparation of this petition has done much to further the knowledge of the heretofore confused taxonomy of Lygus through personal conferences in London, Ottawa, Washington, D.C., Storrs, Connecticut, Gainesville, Fla., and Berkeley, Calif. The result is a petition which has the unanimous support of the following specialists: W. E. China (British Museum (Nat. Hist.) London, S8.W.7) ; R. H. Cobben (Landbouwhogeschool, Wageningen, Netherlands) ; L. Hoberlandt 284 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Narodni Museum, Praha, Czechoslovakia) ; Roland F. Hussey (University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, U.S.A.); L. A. Kelton (Canadian National Museum, Ottawa, Canada) ; Dennis Leston (44 Abbey Road, London, N.W.8, England) ; R. I. Sailer (U.S.National Museum, Washington 25, D.C.); J. A. Slater (University of Connecticut, Storrs, Conn., U.S.A.) ; T. R. E. Southwood (Imperial College of Sci. and Tech., London, 8.W.7, England) ; E. Wagner (Hamburg-Lgh. 1, Moorreyhe 103, West Germany). 15. The International Commission is therefore requested :— (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Lygus Hahn, 1833, made prior to the ruling now requested, and, having done so to designate Cimex pratensis Linnaeus, 1758, 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) Lygus Hahn, 1833 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designa- tion under the plenary powers in (1) above, Cimex pratensis Linnaeus, 1758 ; (b) Apolygus China, 1941 (gender : masculine), type-species, by original designation, Phytocoris limbatus Fallén, 1829 ; (c) Lygocoris Reuter, 1875 (gender: masculine), type-species, by subsequent designation by Kirkaldy, 1906 (Z'rans. Amer. ent. Soc. 32 : 139), Cimex pabulinus Linnaeus, 1761 ; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) pratensis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cimex pratensis (type-species of Lygus Hahn, 1833) ; (b) limbatus Fallén, 1829, as published in the binomen Phytocoris limbatus (type-species of Apolygus China, 1941) ; (c) pabulinus Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the binomen Cimex pabulinus (type-species of Lygocoris Reuter, 1875) ; (4) to place the generic name Hxolygus Wagner, 1949 (a junior objective synonym of Zygus Hahn, 1833) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 285 TRITONIA CUVIER, [1797] (GASTROPODA); PROPOSED DESIGNA- TION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1215 By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) The generic name T'ritonia was first proposed by Cuvier ({1797], T'abl. elem. : 387) with a very clear diagnosis : ““ qui ont, comme les limaces, le corps rampant et convexe sur le dos. Le nombre des tentacules qui entourent la bouche varie de deux & huit : les organes de la respiration sont des espéces de panaches portés par les pédicules, ou des faisceaux de fibre régnant tout le long du dos ”’. There cannot be the slightest doubt as to what genus was intended but since no species were cited the genus was left without a type until Lamarck (1801, Syst. Anim. s. Vertébr. : 65) cited as the sole example of the genus the species Doris clavigera Miiller, 1776 (Zool. dan. Prodr.: 229). This species does not conform to the original description of the genus and is now referred to the genus Limacia Miiller, 1781 (Zool. Dan. (ed. 2) 1 (Danish text) : 65). 2. In 1803 (Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris 1 : 483) Cuvier again used the generic name T'ritonia, including only one species, T'ritonia hombergw Cuvier, 1803 (loc. cit.) This species was universally accepted as the type-species of Tritonia Cuvier, and that genus was in general use until 1918, when Iredale (Proc. malac. Soc. London 18 : 29) rejected T'ritonia Cuvier on the grounds that it was a junior homonym of T'ritoniwm Miller, 1776 (Zool. dan. Prodr. : 243). In 1923 Iredale and O’Donoghue (Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 15 : 229) rejected Tritonia Cuvier on the grounds that it was not available since there were no species included by Cuvier. On this occasion these authors adopted instead the generic name Sphaerostoma McGillivray, 1843 (Hist. Moll. Anim. Aber. : 335), of which the type-species by monotypy is Sphaerostoma jameson Macgillivray, 1843 (ibid. : 336)—undoubtedly a junior subjective synonym of T'ritonia hombergii Cuvier, 1803. According to Iredale and O’Donoghue, 1923, there are two other later synonyms of T'ritonia, namely, Necromantes Gistl, [1847] (Naturgesch. Thierr. Schulen : XI), as replacement name for T'ritonia Cuvier, 1803, and Liriope Gistl, [1847] (ibid.:171), type by monotypy Tritonia hombergii Cuvier, 1803. The last name is one of three junior homonyms of Liriope Lesson, 1837—a name in use in the Class Scyphozoa (see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 40 and 44, where it is proposed that Liriope Gistl be placed on the Official Index). 3. After the rejection of T'ritonia in 1923 by Iredale and O’Donoghue most authors changed to other names. Some, however, were reluctant to change. Pruvot-Fol (1954, Fawne de France 58 : 346) still uses T’ritonia, and the late R. Winckworth was of the opinion that Tritonia ought to be protected and intended to ask the Commission to place T'ritonia on the Official List of Generic Names (in litt. 15.i.49). 4. The present position is therefore that the generic name T'ritonia has been used for many years with T'ritonia hombergii Cuvier, as the type-species, whereas the true type by subsequent monotypy is Doris clavigera Miller, and Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 4. August 1961. 286 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature has finally been rejected for an invalid reason. T'ritonia is used in almost all the literature up to 1923, and some modern authors stick to it, and there are several generic names derived from it. There is, moreover, a family-group name based on 7'ritonia Cuvier, namely, TRITONIDAE H. & A. Adams, 1858 (Gen. rec. Moll. 2 : 62), later misspelt TRITONIADAE by Bergh, 1884 (Semp. Reis. Philip 11, Malac. Unters. III (15) : 698). 5. There are three junior homonyms of T'ritonia Cuvier, the first being Tritonia Meigen, 1800, proposed to be placed on the Official Index in the application dealing with the names of Meigen, 1800 (see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 25). In the same application (bid. : 48) it is also proposed that T'ritonia Turton, 1825, and T'ritonia Geyer, 1832, be placed on the Official Index. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked :— (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus T’ritonia Cuvier, [1797], and having done so, to designate T'ritonia hombergii Cuvier, 1803, to be the type-species of that genus ; (2) to place the generic name T'ritonia Cuvier, [1797], (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Tritonia hombergii Cuvier, 1803, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name hombergii Cuvier, 1803, as published in the binomen J'ritonia hombergii (type-species of T'ritonia Cuvier, [1797]), on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the generic name Necromantes Gistl, [1847] (a junior objective synonym of T'ritonia Cuvier, [1797]), on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (5) to place the name TRITONIIDAE H. & A. Adams, 1858 (type-genus Tritonia Cuvier, [1797]) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ; (6) to place the name TRITONIADAE Bergh, 1884 (type-genus T'ritonia Cuvier, [1797]) (an incorrect spelling of rrrronmpAE H. & A. Adams, 1858), on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. ——— es eae ee ee itis Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 287 MYODOCHA LATREILLE, 1807 (HEMIPTERA) ; PROPOSED DESIGNA- TION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1431 By James A. Slater (University of Connecticut), the late Harry G. Barber and Reece I. Sailer (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.) The correct use of the generic name Myodocha Latreille has been the subject of controversy for many years even though it is well established as the name of a genus of LYGAEIDAE. There has been good reason to question the current use of the name. It is evident that strict compliance with the International Rules would make the generic name Myodocha available for use either in the family COREIDAE or in the lygaeid subfamily BLISsINAE, but that it could not be retained for use in its current sense. The pertinent nomenclatorial data are as follows :— 1. Latreille (1807, p. 126) founded Myodocha to include three species, Cimex tipuloides De Geer, Cimex trispinosa De Geer and Cimex fulvipes De Geer. 2. The generic diagnosis does not agree well with any of these species and most subsequent authors have agreed that the manuscript was probably mixed. This seems likely, since Latreille himself in 1810 (pp. 255, 433) named a lygaeid, Myodocha serripes, as type-species. This is, of course, an invalid fixation as serripes was not an originally included species and in fact had not then been described. 3. Olivier (1811, pp. 104, 106) redescribed Latreille’s genus Myodocha as Myodochus (an unwarranted emendation), included the three originally included species noted above and in addition described Myodochus serripes. 4. Kirkaldy (1900, p. 264) stated that Leach (1815, p. 122) had fixed the type of Myodocha as Cimex tipuloides De Geer. If true this would have caused Myodocha Latreille, 1807, to replace Leptocorixa Berthold, 1827, as the name for an economically important genus of rice bugs in the family coREIDAE. However, Leach did not validly fix the type under the rules but only cited tipuloides as an example, thus not fulfilling the “‘ rigidly construed ” interpretation of the rules relative to type fixation. 5. Since Myodochus serripes Olivier is not an originally included species the genus Myodocha Latreille appears not to have a valid type-species fixation to date. 6. Slater, Barber and Sailer (1959) in a discussion of a proposed petition to the Commission fell into two seriouserrors. First, they stated that Myodochus Olivier was monobasic whereas the actual situation is as noted above. Second, they accepted Kirkaldy’s statement that Leach had validly fixed the type of Myodocha Latreille as Cimex tipuloides De Geer. The substance of error in these inaccuracies is that Myodochus Olivier is not available for the taxon in the LYGAEIDAE now known as Myodocha Latreille (sensu serripes) and that Myodocha Latreille need not supersede Leptocorixa Berthold for the insects now known as “rice bugs ”’ in the family COREIDAE. 7. Since the fixation of any one of the three species originally included in Myodocha by Latreille would cause well-established names to be superseded ~ Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part4. August196l...#2£:£@«€. +. °¢°«=° © ~ ang f ” . Fee sen vg . : a : ¥ Paved») on tar Cares, wag é pea ate wr, tet PUF C Fs StD Sat His Ca 288 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature by a name (Myodocha) used for 150 years in an entirely different context it seems necessary to ask the International Commission to use its plenary powers to settle the nomenclatorial status of this name. We therefore request the Commission to take the following action as best suited to the interests of stability and uniformity in nomenclature. (1) To use its plenary powers : (a) suppress all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Myodocha Latreille, 1807, made prior to the ruling now asked for ; (b) having done so, to designate the nominal species Myodochus serripes Olivier, 1811, as the type-species of that nominal genus ; (2) to place the generic name Myodocha Latreille, 1807 (gender : feminine) with type-species Myodochus serripes Olivier, 1811, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name serripes Olivier, 1811, as published in the binomen Myodochus serripes (type-species of Myodocha Latreille, 1807, under the plenary powers) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the generic name Myodochus Olivier, 1811 (gender : masculine) (an unjustified emendation of Myodocha Latreille, 1807) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (5) to place the family-group name MYODOCHINI Stal, 1872 (Ofvers. K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Férhandl. 29(7) : 51) correction of myopocHartia Stal (by Van Duzee, 1916, Checklist Hemiptera North of Mexico: 21), type-genus Myodocha Latreille, 1807, on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology. REFERENCES Kirkaldy,G.W. 1900. On the Nomenclature of the genera of the Rhynchota, Heteroptera and Auchenorrhynchous Homoptera. Entomologist 33 : 262— 265 Latreille, P. A. 1807. Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum secundum Ordinem naturalem in familias disposita, iconibus exemplisque plurimus explicata. Vol. 3, pp. 1-258. Paris — 1810. Table des genres avec l’indication de l’espéce qui leur sert de type. Considérations générales sur l’order naturel des animaux. 144 pp. Paris Leach, W. E. 1815. Hemiptera, in Brewster’s Edinburgh Encyclopaedia. Vol. 9, 766 pp. Olivier, A. G. 1811. Encyclopedie methodique, dictionnaire des insects, Vol. 8, 722 pp. Paris Slater, J. A., H. G. Barber and R.I. Sailer. 1959. Nomenclatorial Considera- tions relative to the genus Myodocha Latreille, 1807 (Hemiptera). Entomological News 70 : 185-189 INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Trust Chairman: The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. _ Managing Director: Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A. Scientific Controller: W. E. China, C.B.E., Se.D. Bh B. The Members of the Trust t Mr. N. D. Riley, O.B.E. Prof. Dr. R. Sparek Dr. N. R. Stoll a Mr. C. W. Wright i Dr. G. F. de Witte | ,, CONTENTS J (continued from front wrapper) q Decisions of the Commission oy Page j Opinion 597 (Prothecus and Alloneura Rondani, 1856) ... —.... 280 ‘ Opinion 598 (Hansenia Kirkaldy, 1902) igs Riss a feo 4 Opinion 599 (Bolitochara Mannerheim, 1831)... aa) aie isa) ae a Opinion 600 aie ad aa 1835, and wt at Erichson, 1837) 241 t Opinion 601 (avenae CDS schachtii var.) Wollenweber, 1924) 244 Opinion 602 (Delphax Fabricius, 1798) ae se bas aot TAG Opinion 603 (Macropsis Lewis, 1834) .. “s a ths : 249 Opinion 604 (Korynetes Herbst, aus: and Necrobia Olivier, 1795) 252 Opinion 605 (Promecopsis Duméril, 1806)... Me Zi baal Oe _ Opinion 606 (dentipes (Alpheus) Guérin, 1832) ae! oe ee 268 Opinion 607 (Archaeopteryx von Meyer, 1861) a te ..- » 260 _ Opinion 608 (Spatagus O. F. Miiller, 1776)... yee ie dei’ 21; BO Opinion 609 (longicorne (Acrydium) Latreille, 1804) Pa her Opinion 610 (DREPANIDIDAE and DREPANIDAE) ‘53 ay ie. Seer 4 j -. CONTENTS (continued from inside back wrapper) New Cases Clathurella Carpenter, 1857 (Gastropoda) ; Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers (J. L. Baily) : Proposal to repeal the Ruling given in Opinion 47 and to use the plenary powers to stabilize the generic names Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816, Carcharodon A. Smith, 1838, and Odontaspis J. L. R. Agassiz, 1838, in their accustomed sense eee (EK. I. White, D. W. Tucker and N. B. Marshall) t ‘ Lygus Hahn, 1833 (Insecta, Hemiptera) ; Proposed designation under the plenary powers of a type-species in harmony with accus- tomed usage (J. C. M. Carvalho, H. H. eigakars and R. L. Usinger) : ; ae Tritonia Cuvier, [1797] (Gastropoda) ; Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers (H. Lemche) Myodocha Latreille, 1807 (Insecta, Hemiptera) ; Proposed designa- tion of a type-species under the plenary bd (J. A. Sati. the late Harry G. Barber and Reece I. Sailer) .. d ‘, Comments Supplementary note on my application concerning the generic name Gari Schumacher, 1817, and certain matters incidental thereto (L. R. Cox)... Comment on the proposed suppression of Coluber atratus Gmelin, 1788 (Giles W. Mead) ¥y ale zs Comments on the Report on the names published by aa 1800 (C. W. Sabrosky, H. H. Ross and M. T. James)... : Comment on the proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name Idotea Fabricius, 1798, and matters con- cerned therewith (Per. Brinck) ! Comment on the proposed designation of a a a for Nemoura Latreille, 1796 (Per. Brinck) : dies oa i ae Comment on the proposed validation of the generic name Perla Geoffroy, 1762 (Otto Winkler) ade 2H © 1961. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by METCALFE & Cooper LimiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., Londen E C 2 Page 270 273 226 226 227 (257 257 4 280° Ss a -. - Volume 18. Part 5. 10th November, 1961 = pp. 289-352, 1 pl. : | _ THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL ; NOMENCLATURE i The Official Organ of 4 THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ; ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 4 CONTENTS x Page International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Report for 1960 ca) he ome , Personnel of the International Commission sae ie ae ee BOF Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications Asa a in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature “he : Si ee Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 294 (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 1961 Price Three Pounds = 8 DEC 1961 PURCHASED (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Professor James Chester BRADLEY (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. Rizey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) Assistant Secretary: Dr. W. E. Cura 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 Amanat (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12 August 1958) (Vice-President) Professor J. Chester BrapLey (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxss (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Sroxu (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) ak B. Hoxruuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, T'he Netherlands) (12 August 53) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15 October 1954) Dr. Alden H. Mitixrr (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (29 October 1954) Doc. Dr. Verdinand Pranti (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30 October . 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kiunett (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6 November 1954) Professor Ernst Mayr (Musewm of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4 December 1954) geting Enrico TortonzsE (Museo di Storia Naturale “G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16 December 54 Dr. Pe. Brincxk (Lunds Universitets, Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958) Dr. Max Pott (Musée Royal de lV Afrique Centrale, Tervuren, Belgium) (12 July 1958) Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmusewm van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (23 July 1958) Mr. Francis Hrmure (London, England) (23 July 1958) ia Dr. Henning Lemcnn (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958) — Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Mr. Norman Denbigh Ritey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) (Secretary) Professor Dr. Tadeusz JaczEwski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, — Poland) (23 July 1958) 4 Professor Dr. Robert Murrens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt : a.M., Germany) (23 July 1958) . Professor Dr. Erich Martin Herre (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, ~ Germany) (23 July 1958) Dr. D. V. OsrucuEv (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-71, USSR) (5 November 1958) Professor Tohru Ucurpa (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March 1959) Professor Dr. Rafael Atvarapo (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, aa a (31 May 1960) Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), London) (31 May 1960) Dr. E. G. Muyrox, (Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) — (9 June, 1961) me ~ CUCL 0l PURCHASED BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. Volume 18, Part 5 (pp. 289-352) 10th November, 1961 The Code Zoologists will be interested to learn that the text of the new Code of Nomenclature was finally passed for press on September 20th. If no further delays occur, copies should be on sale by early November at a price of £1 Os. Od. post free. INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE REPORT FOR 1960 The Income and Expenditure Account for 1960 shows a picture rather better than was anticipated in the estimates for the year. On the income side receipts from sales of publications are £4,597 compared with £3,020 estimated and an actual of £3,512 in 1959. Interest on investments, as was anticipated, is increased and is a little higher at £434 against the estimate of £412 and an actual for 1959 of £316. The grant from UNESCO at £357 is in accordance with the estimate and donations of £18 completes the total at £5,406. On the expenditure side administrative expenses are a little higher than anticipated at £3,388 against the estimate of £3,034 and an actual in 1959 of £4,916. The cost of publications is almost exactly as estimated at £1,179 against the estimate of £1,200 and a total of £1,849 in 1959. The surplus of income over expenditure for the year is £810 against the deficit of £2,576 in 1959. During 1960 Parts 6 to 11 of Volume 17 were published and Part 1 of Volume 18. The completion of Part 12 of Volume 17 containing the Title Page and Index was unfortunately delayed and in fact appeared in January 1961. As a result of the great efforts to increase the number of subscribers to the publications of the Trust it is pleasant to report that the number of orders in hand at 238 is an all time high record. During 1960, 6 complete sets of the Bulletin and 2 complete sets of the Opinions were sold. In addition a large number of copies of back parts were sold. 290 INTERNATIONAL Incorporated under the | o 1959 £ £ s.d. Revenue Reserves (as per separate accounts)— 2,262 “ Official List’ Suspense Account... see aa Apri 7/340 Joi {ao} 8,083 Income and Expenditure Account ... ste ves .. 8,893 3 4 10,345 pete Te 1,200 Special Donation unappropriated Current Liabilities— 1,346 Sundry Creditors £12,891 £14,007 We have obtained the information and explanations which we considered necessary, and in our opinion (1) The above balance sheet and annexed income and expenditure account give a true and fair vi ended on that date. (2) Proper books have been kept and the accounts are in agreement therewith and give, in the pres Fiyspury Circus Houses, BLoMFIELD STREET, Lonpon, E.C.2. 27th March, 1961. 291 SICAL NOMENCLATURE 29 (Limited by Guarantee) cember, 1960 Fixed Assets— Office Equipment— 627 Book Value at Ist July 1948 and additions since at cost ... 626 18 7 337 Less Depreciation and amount written off ... are ben ooo Ss Mi ss ——— 2610) 6 Current Assets— £ sd. Amounts due for ae ee at £850 valuation oes dat .. 900 0 0 124 Sundry Amounts roa cic ob 14 8 0 87 Income Tax Recoverable ‘ies ce 58 12 1 — a 9757 On! Investments at cost— 2,078 £2,500 24% Savings Bonds 1964/67 ... 2,078 10 6 2,249 £2,500 3% Savings Bonds 1955/65... 2,248 16 9 (Market Value at date £4,337) ——_—_—_— (_ Ditto 1959 £4,438) 4,327 4,327 7 3 County Borough of Preston 58% 3,000 Mortgage ... sos 3,000 0 0 a SP TL 8 Balances at Bank— 3,600 Deposit Account nae $s ... 4,500 0 0 676 Current Account ais Pas ee OU Viet 5,411 17 7 Cash in Hand ae ies Res tee See or) 34 3 1 ae 400 Sin (Norz—The Stock of Publications has not been valued.) FRANCIS J. GRIFFIN N. D. RILEY Members of the Committee of Management £14,007 8 0 —— W. B. KEEN & CO., Chartered Accountants, 292 1959 £ £ 3,677 1,178 53 4,908 25 4,883 33 1,138 711 1,849 6,765 £6,765 2,576 8,083 £10,659 1959 £ 25 2,262 £2,287 Income and Expenditure Acec EXPENDITURE Administration Expenses— Salaries and National Insurance Office Expenses Audit Fee Less: Proportion allocated to “ Official List ” Depreciation of Office Equipment Cost of Publications— Opinions and Declarations Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Balance, being Excess of Income over Expenditure for the year, carried down Balance brought down Balance carried forward per Balance Sheet Proportion of Administration Expenses Balance carried forward per Balance Sheet ae aitncipde etcetera seh sep edhee - * he tee ae ea eae a Minis : £ s. d. £ 2,328 18 2 1,021 6 5 5210 0 3,402 14 7 15 0 0 3,387 29 1,178 17 11 1,178 4,595 810 £5,405 8,893 £8,893 “ Official L for the year en £ 15 2,730 1s £2,745 1 a 3 ended 31st December, 1960 1959 INCOME Sales of Publications— 2,016 Opinions and Declarations 1,482 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 14 — Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature Donations ... Interest received on Investments (gross) Interest on Bank Deposit wee Grant from U.N.E.S.C.O. per The Seen Union of Biological Sciences ... a : = coe Balance, being Excess of Expenditure over Income for the year, carried down ... Balance brought forward from 1959 Balance brought down Balance brought forward from 1959 Sales of Publications 879 8 5 3,697 14 5 20 5 10 293 Cougs. ds 4,597 8 8 D779. 302 10 0 131 4 10 357 2 10 a 5,405 15 5 £5,405 15 5 ——————_ 8,088 0 5 810 2 11 £8,893 3 4 ————————_ s «.d. 2,261 15 8 484 3 7 £2,745 19 3 —— an 294 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Personnel of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Resignation Commissioners will learn with regret that Professor J. R. Dymond has submitted his resignation, and that this has been accepted by the Executive Committee. Professor Dymond was elected a Commissioner for Canada in 1939 following the death of Professor Fantham. As long ago as 1956 he expressed a wish to be relieved of his Duties, but, under persuasion consented to carry on until after the Zoological Congress of 1958 and until such time as a successor should have been chosen. Professor Dymond’s resignation accordingly became effective on June 9, 1961. Election of a New Commissioner The following new member has been elected to the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down by the International Congress of Zoology, with effect from the date shown :— Dr. Eugene Gordon Munroe, Research Officer, Entomology Research Institute, Central Experimental Farm, Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada. (9 June 1961.) Nominated by the National Research Council and the Royal Society of Canada. N. D. RILEY 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) Emendation to Scatophaga of Scathophaga Meigen, 1803 (Insecta, Diptera). Z.N.(S.) 191. (2) Validation of GarmDaxE Stoliczka, 1870 (Mollusca, Bivalvia). Z.N.(S.) 1461. (3) Validation of andersoni (Dermacentor) Stiles, 1908 (Acarina). Z.N.(S.) 260. (4) Designation of a type-species for Dendroctonus Erichson, 1836 (Insecta, Coleoptera). Z.N.(S.) 467. (5) Validation of Lebbeus White, 1847, and Eualus Thallwitz, 1892 (Crus- tacea, Decapoda). Z.N.(S.) 618. (6) Emendation to Jousseaumea of Jousseaumia Sacco, 1894 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 624. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 295 (7) Validation of germanica (Blatta) Linnaeus, 1767 (Insecta, Dictyoptera). Z.N.(S.) 680. (8) Designation of a type-species for Xenostegiwm Walcott, 1924 (Trilobita). Z.N.(S.) 914. (9) Validation of Acropora Oken, 1815 (Anthozoa, Madreporaria). Z.N.(S.) 1036. (10) Suppression of four Gastropoda family-group names. Z.N.(S.) 1212. (11) Validation of bicinctus (Crabro) Rossi, 1794 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1440. (12) Validation of Aphanus Laporte, 1833 (Insecta, Hemiptera). Z.N.(S.)1469. (13 Designation of a type-species for Blissus Burmeister, 1835 (Insecta, Hemiptera). Z.N.(8.) 1471. (14) Validation of HETEROGASTRINAE Stal, 1872 (Insecta, Hemiptera). Z.N.(S.) 1474. (15) Validation of Scolopostethus Fieber, [1860] (Insecta, Hemiptera). Z.N.(S.) 1475. c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on 12 September 1961. Zoological Nomenclature 296 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENTS ON THE REPORT ON C. W. SABROSKY’S PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF MEIGEN’S “ NOUVELLE CLASSIFICATION ”, 1800. Z.N.(S.) 191 (see present volume, pages 9-64) By J. R. Vockeroth (Entomology Research Institute, Department of Agriculture, Ottawa) I would request that if the generic name Scathophaga Meigen, 1803 (No. 73 in Appendix V, Part A of the above-mentioned report, p. 29) be included in the Official List under the plenary powers that the emended form Scatophaga be substituted for the original spelling Scathophaga. To the best of my knowledge the spelling Scathophaga has not been used since its original publication. The following is a list of the more important works in which the spelling Scatophaga was used : Meigen, J. W. 1826. Syst. Beschr.5. Hamm Becker, T. 1894. Dipterologische Studien. I. Scatomyzidae. Berl. ent. Z. 39 : 77-196 Becker, T. 1905. Katal. Pal. Dipt.4. Budapest Aldrich, J. M. 1905. Catal. N.A. Dipt. Smithson. misc. Coll. 46 : 1-680 Séguy, E. 1934. Dipteres, Muscidae acalypterae et Scatophagidae. Fauwne Fr. 28 : 1-832 Malloch, J. R. 1935. Exotic Muscaridae (Diptera)—XXXVIII. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist 10(15) : 242-266 Hackman, W. 1956. The Scatophagidae (Dipt.) of eastern Fennoscandia. Fauna Fenn. 2 : 1-67 Collin, J. E. 1958. A short synopsis of the British Scatophagidae (Diptera). Trans. Soc. Brit. Ent. 13 : 37-56 The genus concerned has approximately 50 species, several of which are conspicuous and well known. It occurs throughout the Holarctic Region and has a few species in the Ethiopian and Neotropical Regions. The International Commission is asked : (1) to validate under the plenary powers the emendation to Scatophaga of the generic name Scathophaga Meigen, 1803 ; (2) to place the generic name Scatophaga (emend. of Scathophaga) Meigen, 1803 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Musca merdaria Fabricius, 1794, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the generic name Scathophaga Meigen, 1803 (an invalid original spelling for Scatophaga) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. By H. H. Ross (Illinois State Natural History Survey Division, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) I would like to support the proposal for the suspension of 56 generic names published by Meigen, in 1800 (Insecta, Diptera). The literature in regard to these names is exasperating, to say the least. The specialists in Diptera have advocated using both the 1800 names and the later ones. Textbooks and books dealing with insects as a whole almost uniformly retain the later names which came into universal usage before the exhumation of the 1800 group. It is obvious that the suspension of the 1800 Meigen names would be a far-reaching step toward making scientific names as stable as common names and would bring an end to several decades of controversy and confusion. I strongly recommend the suspension of the Meigen, 1800, names as outlined in Z.N.(S.) 191. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 5. November, 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 297 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL TO PLACE THE GENERIC NAME GARI SCHUMACHER, 1817, ON THE OFFICIAL LIST UNEMENDED. Z.N.(S.) 1461 (see this volume, pages 90-96) By Harald A. Rehder (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) With Dr. L. R. Cox’s basic proposal I am in full agreement, and it is only with his request for the designation of a Neotype for Tellina gari Linnaeus that I differ. To the point raised in paragraph 4, namely, that many leading authorities on Mollusca have used Gari as a generic name, I would add that a check of the Zoological Record over the last thirty years, as well as a careful survey of all books on the shelves of the library of the Division of Mollusks of the U.S. National Museum, reveals the fact that a majority of the authors, 34 in number, have used Gari as a valid name for the group that, as explained below, should be called Psammobia Lamarck, 1818, while 29 have used Lamarck’s name. I mention this because there have been statements made that a majority of recent workers on mollusks have preferred Psammobia over Gari. It is only on the question of the identity of the type-species of Gari, Tellina gari Linnaeus, 1758, that I must differ from him. Furthermore, the genus Psammobia Lamarck, 1818, with the type-species Tellina fervensis Gmelin, 1791, is in my opinion a distinct taxon, subgenerically, and possibly even generically, different from Gari. The original diagnosis of Tellina gari in 1758 is admittedly brief and inconclusive, Linnaeus describing the shell as oval with transverse recurved striae and obsolete laterals. From his diagnoses of other well-established species we see that “‘ striis transversis recurvatis”’ refers to the growth lines, or striae, curving upwards at the posterior end. If the shell had possessed oblique striae running across the shell (as in Cox’s proposed neotype) Linnaeus would surely have mentioned the fact, as he did for Tellina carnaria (“ oblique striata’) or T. digitaria (“ striis obliquis uniformibus”’). Of the two figures cited by Linnaeus, that of Argenville, pl. 25, fig. I, although fairly crude, matches certain specimens of Psammobia vespertina Gmelin, as Hanley (Ipsa Linnaei Conchylia, 1855, p. 34) has pointed out, and the descriptive phrase given by Argenville—streaked with white and purple—does no great violence to this assignation. No locality is mentioned by this author. The other reference, to Rumphius, pl. 45, fig. D, is much more pertinent, for not only did Linnaeus borrow the binomen of his species bodily from Rumphius’s work, as well as the cited locality, but the description in Rumphius is much more extensive, and the figure, though crude, is readily recognizable when studied in conjunction with the description in the text; in the collection of the U.S. National Museum we have a specimen, probably from Samoa, that matches this figure almost exactly. As Linnaeus did not possess a specimen of this species (Hanley, op. cit., p. 35), we must have recourse to the reference cited by him, and for the reasons outlined above it is logical that the name be restricted to the species described and figured by Rumphius. Many authors have identified Rumphius’s species with what Lamarck in 1818 described as Psammotaea violacea and P. serotina (Hanley, op. cit., p. 34; Martens, 1897, Ergebn. Reise Nied. Ost Indien, vol. 4, p. 239 ; Dall, 1900, Trans. Wagner Inst. Sci. Philadelphia, v. 3, p. 970 ; Martens, 1902, Rumphius Gedenkboek, p. 127; Dautzenberg & Fischer, 1914, Jour. de Conch., v. 61, p. 222; van Bentham Jutting in litt. fide Cox, 1960, Bull. Zool. Nomencl., v. 18, p. 91). Some of these authors, although admitting the identity of Linnaeus’s species with Lamarck’s violacea, have advocated the abandonment of the Linnean name because of the confusion brought about by the varying concepts of Linnaeus’s T'ellina gari published by subsequent workers like Spengler, Chemnitz, Born, Schumacher, and Lamarck. A factor that added to, and probably originated much of this confusion, is that Linnaeus in 1764, in the Musewm Ulricae, p. 478, gave an amplified description under the name Tellina gari of a species with oblique striations on the median part of the valves. This is so at variance with the description and references given by Linnaeus in 1758, that it is obvious that it represents a different species. An examina- tion of a photograph of the shell in the Museum Ulricae collection, now housed at the University of Uppsala, shows it to bear a resemblance to the Mediterranean Psammobia intermedia Deshayes ; Dr. Odhner has identified it doubtfully with P. corrugata Desh. Regardless of this confusion, I feel, as I have already stated above, that the Linnean name Tellina gari should be restricted to the species represented by Rumphius’s J'ellina gari, which is, as I believe I have been able to show, a readily recognizable species. There is therefore no need for the designation of a neotype, especially one so at variance with the original description and references given by Linnaeus in 1758. This Western Pacific species will therefore bear the name Gari gari (Linnaeus, 1758). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 5. November, 1961. 298 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature I feel that the conclusion reached above may be the more acceptable because a careful examination of shells of Gari gari and “‘ Tellina ” fervensis Gmelin, the type-species of Psammobia Lamarck, 1818, leads me to believe that we are dealing with two different groups. The latter species, and those related to it, have not only more compressed shells but also a pallial sinus with a smooth surface and with the ventral border confluent throughout almost all its length with the pallial line. Gari gari, on the other hand, has a pallial line for only 1/2 to 3/5 of its length ; the surface of the pallial sinus is noticeably striated. The levator pedis muscle scars under the hinge line consist in the species grouped around Psammobia fervensis, of a conspicuous, irregularly oval scar anterior to the cardinal teeth, and one, or occasionally two, small scars posterior to the cardinal teeth. In Gari gari, these muscle scars consist of a series of smaller, irregular, more or less separated scars anterior to the teeth. All these differences, which may very likely be accompanied by other differences in the soft parts, appear to be sufficient to allow us to recognize two groups of subgeneric, and possibly generic rank, Gari Schumacher, 1817, and Psammobia Lamarck, 1818. The summary of Dr. Cox’s case, as outlined in his paragraph 10, should be approved in all its parts, except that in (3)(a) the last three lines, following “ T'ellina gari”’, should be replaced by the words : “‘ as interpreted by the reference to Rumphius cited by Linnaeus, 1758”. The application for the designation of a Neotype for J'ellina gari Linnaeus, 1758, as outlined in the Appendix to Dr. Cox’s proposal, should be turned down. By Joseph P. E. Morrison (Associate Curator, Division of Mollusks, U.S. National Museum) I have read the comments by Dr. Rehder and am in complete agreement with the views expressed therein and the conclusions reached. By Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., U.A.S.) I agree with Dr. Cox that a decision should be made whether to accept the name Gari Schumacher or Psammobia Lamarck for a group of bivalves to which both of these names have been applied. However, for a series of reasons, I have come to the conclusion that the stability and universality of nomenclature is far better served by placing the name Gari on the Index of Rejected Names. Cox implies that the reason why the name Gari has been rejected by the majority of authors is that these zoologists objected to its genitive form. My own studies have convinced me that the name has been rejected primarily owing to its uncertainty. Gari Schumacher is based by tautonymy on T'ellina gari of Linnaeus and the identification of Gari depends upon the identifica- tion of the Linnean species. The illustration of Rumphius’s J'ellina gari, to which Linnaeus refers, shows a smooth shelled species. The verbal description of Linnaeus refers to a species covered with grooves or ribs. The additional reference to Argenville sheds no additional light on the situation. Subsequent authors have identified Linnaeus’s dubious 7. gari either with Psammobia serotina of Lamarck, or with Psammotaea violacea Lamarck, and possibly even with P. feroensis. A glance through the modern literature indicates that few, if any, of the authors have adopted Tellina gari Linnaeus. The last thorough discussion of this species is that of Dautzenberg and Fischer, 1914, ‘ Journal de Conchyliologie ’, vol. 61, p. 223, who come to the conclusion : “‘il nous semble necessaire d’abandonner le nom Gari comme étant tout-a-fait incertain’’. They use Psammobia pulchella Lamarck for the species which they might have otherwise called gari. From all this, two facts are apparent. (1) That Linnaeus’s species is unidentifiable, and (2) that it does not at all qualify as a species eligible for a neotype designation. As clearly stated in Decision 34, paragraph 3 of the Copenhagen Decisions, “in particular, neotypes are not to be established for nominal species, the names of which are not in general use ”’. The matter is, however, more serious than that. Consultation of the malacological literature has clearly established that the name Psammobia is used by far more authorities, monographs and textbooks than the name Gari. Designating a neotype for the otherwise unidentifiable species J'ellina gari would have precisely the opposite effect of that for which the neotype ruling was adopted at Copenhagen, namely to serve the principles of stability and universality. I might add that there are two further reasons why the resuscitation of the name Gari would be unfortunate. The first one is that a genus Garwm was proposed by Dall in 1900 for some of the species included by previous authors in Gari. To have two such similar names as Gari and Garum in the same major taxon can only lead to confusion. The second reason is that the widely accepted name Psammobia has given its name to the family PsAMMOBIIDAE and that the —— Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 299 restoration of Gari would result in an unnecessary and disturbing discordance between the family name and the name of its type genus. It is for all these reasons that I propose that Dr. Cox’s application be emended to place the names Gari Schumacher, 1817 and Tellina gari Linnaeus, 1758 on the Official Index of rie Names and to place the genus Psammobia on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. By Sieman Wm. Muller (Stanford, California) I wish to urge you that the recent proposal by Dr. Cox be given favourable consideration to place the generic name Gari Schumacher, 1817 on the Official List of Names in Zoology, with the appropriate selection of a neotype for the species, to clarify our concept of this name taxon. I also wish to suggest that the family name should be fixed as GARIDAE rather than as PSAMMOBIIDAE which, according to Dr. Cox, has the priority. 1 hope the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature will give this request a favourable consideration. By R. Stohler (Dept. of Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, Calif., U.S.A.) There is before the Commission on Nomenclature a petition by Dr. L. R. Cox to place the generic name Gari Schumacher, 1817, on the Official List of Names in Zoology, with the selection of a neotype. It is well known that Gari has priority over Psammobia Lamarck, 1818. From this point alone the petition of Dr. Cox has great merit. However, additionally, Gari has been used extensively during the past number of years and it would add unnecessary confusion to the literature—which, admittedly, is confused and confusing enough—if the Lamarckian name were re-activated. I should like, therefore, to add my strongest possible support to the petition of Dr. Cox. But further, I should like to add a request that the family name be stabilized as GARIDAE, rather than as PSAMMOBIIDAE, even though the latter has priority. It would seem only logical to remove the latter name, since the type-genus should be Gari and the name Psammobia is to be relegated to synonymy ; to preserve a family name based on a genus name in synonymy just seems to make not very good sense. By Leo G. Hertein (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco 18, California, U.S.A.) I understand that the question of accepting or rejecting the genus name Gari Schumacher and the family name GaRIDAx will come before the 1.C.Z.N. I would like to state that in my opinion the only certain way to attain stability in biological nomenclature is to adhere to strict priority as to date, page and line. If Gari be acceptable in place of Psammobia then it would logically follow that GARIDAE should replace PSAMMOBUIDAE. There are usually differences of opinion concerning the acceptance of such names but, except in rare cases, my plea is simply for strict adherence to priority. By Kenneth Jay Boss (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) With reference to the proposal of Cox (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18(1) : 90-96) to adopt the generic name Gari Schumacher, 1817, I submit that such an action is undesirable on the grounds that the junior subjective synonym, Psammobia Lamarck, 1818, is presently in far greater usage among taxonomists. Since the name Garum Dall, 1900, has assumed generic standing for a different taxon, the use of the genitive of the same stem for another genus maintains an unnecessary source of complications in the future. Cossman (1886) used not only the genus Gari but employed Psammobia as well ; the former included four species of which one, dutemplet Deshayes has since become the type-species of Garum Dall by original designation ; the three other species, edwardsi, consobrina, and rudis, included in Cossman (1886) under Gari have also since been included in Garum Dall. A cursory unbiased search through about twenty 300 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature systematic and monographic accounts of pelecypod mollusks has shown that the great majority of authors utilize Lamarck’s name, Psammobia ; such acknowledged and oft-used works as those by Thiele, Dall, Chenu, Carpenter, Reeve, Sowerby, etc., present ample evidence that Psammobia should remain in current usage and be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Replacing the currently and widely used name Psammobia by Gari would have the further unfortunate consequence that Gari would displace Psammobia as the name of the type-genus of the valid family psammopnpar. Although valid under the Code, such incongruence should be avoided as often as possible to minimise the complexities of our nomenclature. To the other applications of Cox I hold no objection. By Ruth D. Turner (Musewm of Comparative Zoology, Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) The use of the name Gari is undesirable for three reasons : (a) It has been shown that the type-species of Gari is so unrecognizable that it is necessary to select a neotype in order to establish the species and to place the genus on a firm basis and this, I believe, is in violation of the neotype rules. (b) Psammobia should be preserved for the sake of stability. Dr. Cox states that “it is probable that every taxonomist would include Psammobia . . . in the same zoological genus, namely Gari Schumacher” and a check of the recent literature (i.e. since 1918) has shown that Psammobia is used more often than Gari. (c) Psammobia should be preserved to go with a well established family name—PSAMMOBIIDAE. There would be a most unfortunate conflict of names should Gari be resurrected. The type-species of Psammobia is clearly defined, only the spelling of the name being a problem. However, being a firm believer in original spellings (right or wrong from the classical point of view) unless the author himself corrects it, I feel that the name of the type-species of Psammobia should be written Tellina fervensis Gmelin. By Myra Keen (Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.) I write in support of the petition by Dr. Cox to place the name Gari on the Official List. On one point, however, I am at variance. I should prefer to see the family name GARIDAE placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names, rather than PSAMMOBIIDAE, which has fallen into disuse for the past several years. It would therefore be a step backward to reinstate this name. It is my understanding that a general petition covering a large number of pelecypod family- group names may be drawn up when the manuscripts of the “‘ Treatise of Invertebrate Paleonto- logy ” are completed a few months hence. This would enable the preservation of many currently used family-group names that would have to be abandoned in favour of long-disused earlier names were a literal interpretation of family-group provisions in the new Code maintained. In view of the possibility of such a petition, it would be unfortunate if one name, such as PSAMMOBIIDAE, were already a fait accompli. Therefore, I urge that this part of the present petition be held in abeyance pending further action. By Katherine V. W. Palmer (Paleontological Research Institution, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) I am writing in defence of the petition of Dr. L. R. Cox, Z.N.(S.) 1461 to clarify the position of Gari Schumacher, 1817 (Essais Nouv. Syst. Habit. Vers Test., pp. 44, 131, pl. IX, fig. 2) Mollusca, Pelecypoda. The type-species by tautonymy Gari vulgaris Schumacher, 1817= Tellina gari Linné,—Spengler—and Chemnitz. Gari vulgaris Schumacher, 1817=Tellina fervensis Gmelin, 1791, p. 3235, the type-species of Psammobia Lamarck, 1818 (Hist. Nat. Animaux sans Vert., vol. 5, p. 511) so that Gari Schumacher, 1817 has priority over Psammobia Lamarck, 1818. The name Gari has now become established in molluscan literature. Therefore, Gari Schumacher, 1817, should be retained in usage because of priority of naming and because to revert to the name Psammobia, once in usage but not at present, is contrary to the principle of stability. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 301 By Professor R. Tucker Abbott (Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, U.S.A.) I support Cox’s application in part in that I believe the name Gari Schumacher, 1817 should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 1. Usage of the name. Contrary to what others might state, the name Gari is employed much more frequently and by more workers than Psammobia Lamarck, 1818. A thorough search of the literature reveals the following : (a) The following professional malacologists have in their publications been using Gari for the last 15 years: Altena (Holland), Abbott (U.S.), Myra Keen (U.S.), Rehder (U.S.), K. Palmer (U.S.), Frizzel (U.S.), Habe (Japan), Kuroda (Japan), Oyama (Japan), Powell (N.Z.), Merkel (U.S.S.R.), Fleming (N.Z.), P. H. Fischer (France), R. K. Dell (N.Z.), Soot-Ryen (Norway), L. King (N.Z.), J. Marwick (N.Z.), L. R. Cox (U.K.), W. K. Emerson (U.S.), F. Haas (U.S.). Those workers using Psammobia within the last 15 years are Barnard (South Africa), Nickles (Africa), Papp, Madsen (Iceland), Macpherson (Australia), Cotton (Australia), Viader (Mauritius), Carcelles (Argentina), Malaroda, and Van Bruggen. Clearly, the vast majority of the more active workers are currently using Gart. (b) The majority and the most “ influential ” handbooks and reference books are using Gari : Grassé’s * Traite de Zoologie ’ (1960), Grimpe and Wagler’s ‘ Die Tierwelt der Nord-und Ostsee’ (1940), Winckworth’s 1932 ‘ British Marine Mollusca’, Habe’s (1951) ‘ Genera of Japanese Shells ’, Haas in Bronn’s ‘ Klassen ’, all Japanese handbooks by Kira, Hirase, Kuroda, Habe, etc., all American handbooks (Abbott, Keen, Morris, C. W. Johnson, etc.), all New Zealand handbooks (Powell, Dell, etc.). Those using Psammobia are: Thiele’s ‘Handbuch’ (1934, which also contains many generic names now abandoned, such as Alvodes, Tyndaria, Brachy- odontes, Dolium, Pirula, Galeodes, Pterocera, Scala, ete.) ; Cotton and Godfrey’s 1938 ‘ Mollusks of South Africa’; Barnard’s 1950 ‘ Beginner’s Guide to South African Shells ’ and Jutting’s 1943 ‘ Fauna van Nederland’. (c) Historically speaking, Psammobia was used by most workers until 1917. Dautzenberg, once an advocate for Psammobia, began using Gari in 1917, 1920, 1921, 1923 and 1929. Lamy switched to Gari in 1918, Fischer in 1921, Bartsch in 1938, Tomlin in 1915. Among those making a critical review of the subject (R. Stewart, 1930; Grant and Gale, 1931 and Palmer, 1958) all chose Gari. Acceptance of the name Gari began appearing in non-taxonomic literature in the 1940’s (C. M. Yonge, 1949 ; J. Lucas, 1956 ; J. Brouwer, 1945, etc.). Psammobia rarely appears nowadays and then only by those who rely solely upon Thiele’s Handbuch. 2. I cannot accept Cox’s argument that gari Linné is the type of Gari by tautonymy. I agree with Ralph Stewart (1930, Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., Spec. Publ. 3, 281) and Grant and Gale (1931) that Gari vulgaris Schumacher is validated by his own figured specimen and supplemented by references to Spengler’s gari (not Linné) and to Chemnitz’s figures 92 and 93. See C.D.Z.N., pp. 68-69, par. 128(1) ; amending B.Z.N., pp. 158-159, Concl. 38: “*. . . type species is not to be the nominal species cited . . . but rather the species intended by him... ” In fact, Cox’s “ neotype ” of gari Linné is not gari “ Linne ” Spengler, but is variety B of Spengler (Chemnitz, fig. 92). G. vulgaris Schumacher is a junior synonym of G. fervensis Gmelin, 1791. 3. I agree with Cox’s choice of the neotype specimen of gari Linné. Schréter, 1784, p. 644 and Dillwyn, 1817, vol. 1, p. 77 had already come to this same choice, and are being followed by Iredale and Allan, the latter using Gari gari Linné in 1959. 4, Because the family name PSAMMOBIIDAE has been abandoned by many workers (Stewart, 1930; K. Palmer, 1958 ; C. W. Johnson, 1934 ; Dall, Bartsch and Rehder, 1938 ; Keen, 1958 ; Habe, 1951; Aguayo, 1948; Kuroda ; Abbott, 1954, 1955, 1958, 1961; R. A. McLean, 1951 ; David Nicol, 1958), and because GARIDAE has been used by some of these, I apply hereby to the Commission, as an amendment to Cox’s application, that the following family-group name be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology : GARIDAE Stoliczka, 1870 (ex GARINAE). By Robert Robertson (Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, U.S.A.) I wish to record my support for Cox’s proposal to place the generic name Gari Schumacher, 1817, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and to place the ndme Psammobia Lamarck, 1818, on the Official List of Invalid and Rejected Generic Names. However, I oppose Cox’s proposal to adopt the name PsammMoBIIDAE for the family. Five names have been proposed for the family. Only two of these (‘* PSAMMOBIADAE ” Fleming, 1828, and “ Garmnan” Stoliczka, 1870) are mentioned by Cox. The other three names were proposed, so far as I can determine, in the following order : SOLECURTIDAE A. d’Orbigny, 1846, Voy. Amer. Mérid. 5(3) : 522 302 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SANGUINOLARIIDAE U.S. Grant, IV, & H. R. Gale, 1931, Mem. San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 1: 381 ASAPHIDAE R. Winckworth, 1932, Journ. Conchol. 19(7) : 245. Four names currently are in wide and indiscriminate use : PSAMMOBIIDAE, GARIDAE, ASAPHIDAE, and SANGUINOLARIIDAE. I favour the validation of gaRIDAE if the Commission rejects, as I think it should, Psammobia. Unfortunately, many of the molluscan names in wide use during the nineteenth century were rejected in favour of older names between about 1900 and 1930. Most of the then unfamiliar older names are now in wide use. I strongly oppose adding to the confusion by attempting, at this late date, to revert to nineteenth century nomenclature one generic name at a time. The generic name Psammobia was widely used in the nineteenth century but has gradually been rejected during the present century by specialists on bivalves, who have replaced it by the older name Gari. Some workers even used Gari in the nineteenth century. Those who argue that Psammobia is more widely used than Gari make no distinction between the old and the new literature. Even though the name Psammobia is still used by a few people, most present-day bivalve taxonomists use the name Gari. As a result, Gari is used in most of the recent manuals. For documentation of these facts see letter dated May 23, 1961, to the Commission from Dr. R. Tucker Abbott. Cox’s designation of a neotype of Tellina gari Linnaeus appears unwise to me. The type- species of Gari is Gari vulgaris Schumacher, 1817, by tautonymy, because “ T'ellina Gari Lin. Spengler ... Chemnitz’ was cited as a synonym. Schumacher’s figure represents Tellina fervensis Gmelin, 1791. (Grant & Gale, loc. cit., interpreted this figure wrongly.) Spengler, Chemnitz, Schumacher, and subsequent authors have interpreted T'ellina gari Linnaeus variously ; clearly it is a nomen dubium. However, the identification of the generic name Gari does not depend on the identification of the Linnean species. It depends solely on the shell Schumacher named Gari vulgaris when he described and named Gari. The fact that his synonymy is questionable is irrelevant. Unfortunately, Cox did not refer in this connection to the excellent discussion of Stewart (1930, Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Spec. Publ. 3, pp. 280-281). By Kenneth L. Edwards and 11 other members of a Seminar in Paleontology (Stanford University, California, U.S.A.) We, the undersigned members of a Seminar in Paleontology and Stratigraphy at Stanford University, having considered the case of Gari Schumacher, 1817—as discussed in a petition by Dr. L. R. Cox (Z.N.[S.] 1461)—wish to go on record as favouring the continued use of the name Gari in its accustomed sense as a Latin noun, unemended. We would urge, however, that the plenary powers be invoked for preservation of the family-group name based on Gari rather than the prior PPAMMOBUIDAE, based upon a junior synonym. By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) The proposal presented by Dr. Cox of exchanging the earlier well-established name Psammobia Lamarck for the more recently accepted Gari Schumacher has raised strong adverse feelings in me, even though the facts as presented are quite correct. The decision between these two names depends on two different, conflicting viewpoints, and our decision seems to hang on the relative values to be given to each view. (1) In principle, it is important that the interpretation of Linnaeus’s species Tellina gari, and the subsequent use of this name by other early authors, is very far from being unequivocal. This fact is illustrated by the need for a neotype to create a clear species concept for the type of Gari Schumacher. I agree with Commissioner Mayr that it is very unhappy to introduce neotypes for species such as T'ellina gari with the only purpose of securing a legal basis for a name which has for a long time been rejected because undefinable. We are now told that we shall accept two genera, Gari, and Garum within the same family, although in some cases Gari has been corrected to Garum for linguistic reasons (see Cox—par. 4). The family name is proposed to continue as PSAMMOBIIDAE (see Cox—par. 8). All in all, there has been very strong reason for so many authors to reject the name Gari in the past. It is surprising—and most disheartening—to find that authors of Handbooks in general do not care for such uncertainties. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 303 (2) In practice, the question is how matters look today. In order to get an objective impression of this problem, I have made quite a census through the literature, omitting all works older than 1930 (all of which will have used Psammobia). Of Psammobia, use has been made by Danmarks Fauna 40 : 145, 1934; Fauna van Neder- land 12 : 308, 1943 ; and Thiele, Handb. d. Mollk. 2 : 909, 1935. Gari has been used much more widely : Plymouth List : 224, 1931 ; Moore, Mar. Fauna of Man: 163, 1937; M. Smith, East Coast Mar. Shells: 63, 1937; J. Allan, Austr. Shells: 340, 1950 ; Hirase & Taki, Ill. Handb. Shells pl. 46, 1954; R. Tucker Abbott, Amer. Sea Shells : 441, 1954; A. Myra Keen, Sea Shells Trop. W. Amer. : 190, 1958; A. Franc, Traité Zool. V.2 : 3114, 1960. My conclusion is that the name Gari should never have been allowed to replace Psammobia, but that it is too late now to interfere. Under these circumstances, however, I see no point in retaining the family name PSAMMOBIIDAE, the use of which has never been general. The family has been cited under quite a number of different names, so that I hereby propose the family name PSAMMOBIIDAE be suppressed under the plenary powers, and GARIDAE accepted and placed on the Official List. By Joseph Rosewater (Division of Mollusks, Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Museum, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A.) I wish to express my disapproval of certain portions of the proposal by L. R. Cox concerning the genus Gari Schumacher and the Appendix thereto. Linnaeus’s (1758) reference to Rumphius, pl. 45, fig. D is, I believe, a clear one. The species, Tellina gari L., is recognizable, as suggested by Jutting, Hanley and Martens (par. 6) under the synonyms serotina and violacea Lamarck. The description by Linnaeus, though short, does not indicate any other species, and, in contradiction to Cox’s statement (Appendix, par.1) does not disagree with the figure of Rumphius. The term “ striis transversis recurvatis ” was used three times by Linnaeus on page 674 to indicate the condition of the concentric sculpture, or growth lines, where the posterior slope meets the disc. It is a general term which fits several species of the families PSAMMOBIIDAE and TELLINIDAE. Therefore, I contend that 7’. gari is recognizable on the basis of the reference to Rumphius and that the species must be limited to that reference and the D’Argenville figure may be considered unrecognizable. All subsequent references to Tellina gari L. must be disregarded in order that the species may be validly construed on the basis of the original description or indication. As stated by Cox (par. 2) the genus Gari Schumacher must have as its type, by tautonymy, Tellina gari (L.). If this is the species portrayed by Rumphius and accepted by several workers under the synonyms serotina and violacea Lamarck, then the designation of Neotype and proposal of interpretation of the type-species of Gari presented by Cox are, in effect, incorrect. It is suggested that this is the case and that these portions of the proposal be deleted or changed. The figure of the neotype of Gari gari (L.) proposed by Cox represents the species usually called Psammobia caerulescens Lam. The species Psammobia fervensis (Gmelin), type of Psammobia Lam., evidences differences from Gari gari (L.) sufficient to indicate the possible distinctness of these genera. These differences are evident in such features as the sculpture of the posterior slope, the dentition, the muscle scars, and the pallial sinus. Therefore, the statement of Cox (par. 5) to the effect that P. fervensis and the species figured by Chemnitz, vol. 6, pl. 10, figs. 92 [Gari ? caerulescens (Lam.)], 93 [=Gari gari (L.) (=G. amethystus (Wood)] are congeneric may be tentatively questioned. In summary, it is suggested that the following parts be deleted or changed in Z.N.(S.) 1461 : 1. Amend: Par. 10 Summary. (3)(a) to read: “ gari Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Tellina gari ” (deleting last three lines). 2. Delete : Appendix. Designation of Neotype, etc. ... in preference to accepting a possibly incorrect neotype designation where the original interpretation of the type-species of the genus Gari appears sufficiently clear to enable its identification. 304 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature REPLY TO COMMENTS ON MY PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE GENERIC NAME GARI SCHUMACHER. (Z.N.(S.) 1461) By L. R. Cox I have read with interest the comments on my proposals relating to the generic name Gari Schumacher and incidental matters. The primary object of my petition was to prevent the automatic emendation of the name Gari to the nominative form Garum, as required by the existing Rules. It should be noted, therefore, that not one of those who have written about the case has maintained that this emendation should be made ; nor has there been any support for the emendation of Gmelin’s specific name fervensis to faeroeensis or any of the other three attempted corrections listed on p. 93 of my application. Those who have mentioned this species have acquiesced in the acceptance of the name fervensis by using it themselves. The various comments on my proposals relate to five matters, (a) whether the name Gari or its junior subjective synonym Psammobia has been the more widely used in the literature ; (b) whether the family name should be GARIDAE or PSAMMOBIIDAE if the generic name Gari is accepted ; (c) the type-species of Gari; (d) the identity of Tellina gari Linnaeus ; (e) the propriety of my selection of a neotype for Tellina gari. I will deal with these in turn. (a) While one or two of those who have written criticising my proposals have maintained that Gari should be suppressed on the ground that the use of Psammobia has been more wide- spread, it is evident that they have had the older literature more in mind. The data assembled in the letters of R. Tucker Abbott and H. A. Rehder indicate that Gari is the name more widely used by living specialists. 7 (b) The application for establishment of PsAMMOBIIDAE as the family name was the result of unwilling compliance with the Copenhagen decision that the choice of a family name should be decided by priority even when the generic name on which it is based has been abandoned as a junior synonym. The comments in the various letters received show how strongly workers on Mollusca are opposed to this decision. I should, therefore, like to withdraw the request for the name PSAMMOBIIDAE to be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names, and to say that I support the alternative proposal that the name GARIDAE should be placed on that list by use of the plenary powers. (c) Schumacher referred two nominal species to his genus Gari and gave the following citation in the synonymy of the first of these, his Gari vulgaris :—‘‘ Tellina Gari Lin. Spengl. l.c.4.H.2. pag.70. No. 1. Chemn. 6, pag. 100 Tab. 10. fig. 92. 93.”. The tautonymy rule, therefore, fixes Gari vulgaris as the type-species of Gari, since Tellina Gari is included in its synonymy. As I and (I think) most workers would interpret Schumacher, the species Gari vulgaris was intended to be identical with Tellina gari as understood by Spengler and Chemnitz, the new specific name (vulgaris) being assigned to it to avoid the use of the tautonymous binomen Gari gari. We must not, however, ignore the fact that Schumacher, besides citing the references mentioned, illustrated in his Pl. IX, figs. 2a, b the interiors of two valves of a shell stated on the plate itself to be Gari vulgaris. It has been asserted (Stewart, 1930, Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. Spec. Publ. 3 : 280) that Schumacher’s figures “ evidently represent Tellina faeroensis”, that the identity of Gari vulgaris should be determined by these figures rather than by the references cited, and therefore that Tellina fervensis Gmelin (to use the original spelling of the specific name’ must be accepted as type-species of Gari. This is the conclusion accepted in R. Tucker Abbo t’s letter. ; In my opinion, however, the specific identity of the two valves figured by Schumacher is far from evident. For specific determination in Gari, as in most bivalve genera, it is essential to see the external characters of the shell. Schumacher’s figures merely illustrate the interior and are so poor that they do not even show the pallial line. The hinge-teeth which they show are much larger than in specimens of 7’. fervensis which I have examined or in those represented in the figures of Bucquoy, Dautzenberg and Dollfus (1887-98, Mollusques marins du Roussillon, pl. 70, figs. 12, 13) cited by Stewart in support of his identification. Schumacher’s figures must be dismissed as poor representations, in which the size of the hinge-teeth is much exaggerated, of an indeterminate Gari, and the shell illustrated could equally well have belonged to 7’. gari in the sense of Chemnitz as to T. fervensis. Gari vulgaris must, therefore, be interpreted by the relatively good figures of the exteriors of two shells represented in the figures of Chemnitz cited by Schumacher, and, since these two shells are now considered to belong to distinct species, I take the present opportunity to place the interpretation of Gari vulgaris on an objective basis by designating one of them, (Chemnitz, 1767, Conch. Cab. 6 : pl. 10, fig. 92) as lectotype of this nominal species. This shell, which Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 5. November, 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 305 Chemnitz stated was in Spengler’s collection, belonged to the same species as my proposed neotype of T'ellina gari Linnaeus (see the synonymy on p. 95 of my application). (d) In discussing the identity of the original Tellina gari of Linnaeus we are faced with the initial difficulty of not knowing if Linnaeus founded this species solely on the basis of the poor figures of Rumphius and Argenville which he cited, or if he founded it on actual specimens and considered that the illustrations of these early authors represented the same species. If the former was the case, it would be necessary to attempt to interpret the species on the basis of the figures, and preferably on that of Rumphius, with whom the name Tellina gari had originated. My own inspection of this figure convinced me that the species represented is unidentifiable, but on p. 91 of my application I cited Hanley and Mrs. van Bentham Jutting as respectively identifying it with Psammotaea serotina Lamarck and with Psammotaea violacea Lamarck. These are regarded as synonymous by some workers, including H. A. Rehder and J. Rosewater, who in their letters consider that the Linnean 7’. gari should be identified with this united species. This, however, is not a satisfactory solution of the problem, as serotina and violacea are still regarded as distinct by some authorities (e.g. Adam & Leloup, 1939, Rés. scient. Voyage Indes Orient. Néerland. 2(20) : 92-93). The alternative approach was the one I adopted, namely, to assume that Linnaeus was acquainted with his T'ellina gari and that his Scandinavian contemporary Spengler was in a position to supply Chemnitz with an authoratively identified specimen (the one illustrated in that author’s Pl. 10, fig. 92). My conclusion as to the identity of 7. gari is supported in the letter from R. Tucker Abbott. (e) Two correspondents have maintained that my proposed designation of a neotype for Tellina gari Linnaeus contravenes the regulations governing the establishment of neotypes approved at the Copenhagen Congress. The second of these regulations states that “‘ neotypes are to be designated only in cases in which they are relevant and essential to solving a confused zoological problem, such as the confused identities of closely related species”, and this was precisely the reason why I considered that one should be designated in the present instance. The third regulation states that ‘“‘ neotypes are not to be established for nominal species, the names of which are not in general use’’. If ‘“‘ general use’ means use by 100 per cent. of all authors, the specific name gari cannot be said to have been in general use, but it has probably been used more frequently for the species to which my proposed neotype belongs than any of the other available names (truncata Linn., vulgaris Schumacher, pulchella Lamarck, and bipartita Philippi). J. Rosewater, in his letter, remarks that the most usual name for the species is caerulescens Lamarck, but this usage, which originated with Reeve, is now known to be erroneous, Lamarck having applied the name to an entirely different form. My considered view, after reading the very helpful letters received from various workers by the Secretary of the International Commission, is that the generic name Gari Schumacher should be established with the species J'ellina gari Linnaeus, objectively defined by the proposed neotype, as type-species ; Tellina gari, thus defined, being a senior synonym of Gari vulgaris Schumacher, the nominal type-species of Gari, by reason of the designation of 4 lectotype of G. vulgaris made above. 3 306 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 611 PARAPENAEUS §&. I. SMITH, 1885 (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA) ; VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS AND INTERPRETA- TION OF PENEUS MEMBRANACEUS RISSO, 1816. RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers :— (a) the nominal species Peneus membranaceus Risso, 1816, is hereby identified with the nominal species Peneus siphonoceros Philippi, 1840 1; (b) the generic name Parapenaeus Claus, 1876, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy ; (c) the specific name cocco Prestandrea, 1833, as published in the binomen Peneus cocco, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Parapenaeus S. I. Smith, 1885 (gender: masculine), type-species, by original designation, Peneus longirostris Lucas, 1846 (Name No. 1443) ; (b) Solenocera Lucas, 1849 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Peneus siphonoceros Philippi, 1840 (Name No. 1444). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) longirostris Lucas, 1846, as published in the binomen Peneus longirostris (type-species of Parapenaeus Smith, 1885) (Name No. 1762) ; (b) membranaceus Risso, 1816, as published in the binomen Peneus mem- branaceus, and to be interpreted by the neotype designated by L. B. Holthuis in the present Opinion (Name No. 1763). (4) The generic name Parapenaeus Claus, 1876 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1519. (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) cocco Prestandrea, 1833, as published in the binomen Peneus cocco (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above) (Name No. 671) ; (b) philippii Lucas, 1849, as published in the binomen Solenocera philippii (a junior objective synonym of Peneus siphonoceros Philippi, 1840) (Name No. 672). (6) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : 1 Had the Code as amended at the XVth International Congress of Zoology, 1958, been published when this case was submitted to the Commission this action under the plenary powers would have been unnecessary, a neotype designation for Penews membranaceus being sufficient for the desired result. Bull. zool. Nomenel., Vol. 18, Part 5. November 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 307 (a) PARAPENAEINAE (correction by Ortmann, 1898, of PARAPENAEINA) Wood-Mason & Alcock, 1891 (type-genus Parapenaeus 8. I. Smith, 1885) (Name No. 308) ; (b) SOLENOCERINAE (correction by Ortmann, 1898, of SOLENOCERINA) Wood-Mason & Alcock, 1891 (type-genus Solenocera Lucas, 1849) (Name No. 309). (7) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Numbers specified : (a) PARAPENAEINA Wood-Mason & Alcock, 1891 (type-genus Parapenaeus S. I. Smith, 1885) (an incorrect original spelling for PARAPENAEINAE) (Name No. 340) ; (b) soLENocERINA Wood-Mason & Alcock, 1891 (type-genus Solenocera Lucas, 1849) (an incorrect original spelling for SOLENOCERINAE) (Name No. 341). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 645) The present case was submitted to the Secretary of the Commission by Dr. L. B. Holthuis in February 1952. It was sent to the printer on 14 July 1959 and was published on 8 April 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 199-202. Public Notice of the possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers in the present 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). Support for Dr. Holthuis’s proposals was expressed by Dr. R. Zariquiey (Barcelona, Spain). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 1 December 1960 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (60)25 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 201-202. At the close of the Voting Period on 1 March 1961 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order: Holthuis, Riley, Hering, Mayr, Vokes, Lemche, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Dymond, Obruchev, Brinck, Jaczewski, Prantl, Key, Alvarado, Boschma, Hemming, Stoll, do Amaral, Mertens, Poll, Bradley, Evans. Negative Votes—none (0). Late affirmative votes were returned by Commissioners Miller, Uchida and Tortonese. Two Commissioners enclosed comments with their voting papers as follow : Dr. K. H. L. Key (12.i.61) : “ I enclose Voting paper (60)25 with an affirma- tive vote. “Assuming that the Commission as a whole votes this way the question arises as to the method by which it is to ‘ identify ’ the species membranaceus with the species siphonoceros. The identification of species is a taxonomic judgment, which cannot be directly the concern of the Commission. It seems 308 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature to me that all the Commission can do is to take such action within the nomen- clatural field as will inevitably lead a taxonomist to identify the two species with each other. What this action should be must depend, I think, on the type situation. If types of both nominal species were in existence and were adjudged conspecific, then presumably no action on the part of the Commission would be required. If types of both nominal species were in existence and were adjudged specifically distinct, or if the type of only siphonoceros were in existence, then the Commission could declare the appropriate type to be the type of both species. If, as seems probable in this case (the applicant has nothing to say on the type situation), type material of neither species is extant, the Commission could simply declare siphonoceros to be a junior objective synonym of membranaceus and rule that the latter is to be interpreted in accordance with the original description of the former. “It should be noted that merely to declare the two species objective synonyms, without specifying which original description is to be diagnostic, could, in the hands of a Heller, lead merely to the synonymisation of siphono- ceros (via membranaceus) with longirostris. “Another possibility would be to select for membranaceus a neotype that would guarantee its interpretation in the sense of siphonoceros. This would be in one sense a less radical course, because, unless the neotype were simultane- ously designated neotype of siphonoceros (a procedure contrary to the principle of neotype designation), the latter name would remain available, for instance as a subspecific name. “JT recommend that the applicant be asked to review these considerations and to advise the Commission as to the machinery which, in light of the actual type situation, would in his view be most appropriate for bringing about the identity that he desires. ” Dr. A. do Amaral (6.ii.61): “ Solenocera is a Latinized noun, from the Greek cwAnvo-s+ Ke’ pus (swAnuvoxe’ pas would be neuter in Greek). Should it have been simply transliterated into Latin, it would be neuter (Solénocérds). But as a Latinized noun (Sol“nocérd) it has become feminine (1st decl.) as per Copenhagen Decision 84(3).” Commissioner do Amaral is quite correct in attributing the feminine gender to Solenocera, under the Copenhagen Rule cited. The Ruling in the present Opinion has therefore been corrected on this point. Commissioner Key’s comment was forwarded to the applicant, Dr. Holthuis, who in replying agreed that a neotype selection for Risso’s species would be a more elegant and simpler solution, and agreed to make such a selection. Dr. Holthuis’s designation is made in the Appendix below. ———— rrr cre re Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 309 APPENDIX Designation of a neotype for Peneus membranaceus Risso, 1816 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) In the original application requesting the addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the name membranaceus Risso, 1816 (as published in the combination Peneus membranaceus), it was shown that the identity of Risso’s species has been interpreted in two different ways. Though one of the interpretations, namely the one that considers Risso’s species as belonging to the genus Solenocera Lucas, 1849, is by far the more probable, its correctness cannot be unambiguously proved as Risso’s type material is no longer extant. In order definitely to settle the question of the identity of Peneus membranaceus, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was requested “to identify the nominal species Penews membranaceus Risso, 1816, with the nominal species Peneus siphonoceros Philippi, 1840 ” (1960, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17(6-8) : 201). It was recently pointed out to me by Commissioner Dr. K. H. L. Key that the suggested procedure mentioned above is rather inelegant and that it would be far more simple and efficient to select a neotype for Risso’s species. I fully agree with Dr. Key and the only reason why the neotype procedure was not suggested in the application is that the latter was submitted at a time (February 1952) when neotypes were not officially recognized. My thanks are due to Dr. Key for drawing my attention to the possibility of a neotype selection here, a possibility which I failed to realize even after the introduction of the neotype concept into the Rules. Furthermore I wish to express my gratitude to Messrs. C. Maurin, Institut scientifique et technique des Péches maritimes, Séte, France, and G. Belloc, Institut oceanographique, Monaco, for making it possible for me to obtain topotypical material from which to select the neotype. The specimen here designated as the neotype for Peneus membranaceus Risso, 1816 (Hist. nat. Crust. env. Nice : 98) is an adult male with a carapace length (including the rostrum) of 20 mm. The rostrum does not surpass the eyes. It bears no ventral and six dorsal teeth, three of which are placed behind the orbit. The carapace shows a post-orbital, an antennal and a pterygostomian spine ; there is no branchiostegal spine. The cervical groove extends nearly to the medio-dorsal line of the carapace. A scale is present at the external angle of the ocular somite. The lower antennular flagellum is broad and flattened, being hollowed out inside; the right and left flagella form together a long tube-like structure. Exopodites are present on all pereiopods, epipodites are only absent from the fifth pereiopods. The petasma is as shown in the figure of this organ published by J. H. Heldt (1938, Ann. Inst. océanogr. Paris (n. ser.) 17(2) : 54, fig. 21). The telson bears a pair 310 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of fixed teeth in the distal half of the lateral margin. The outer margin of the uropodal exopod ends in a tooth. The neotype here designated was caught on 15th July 1957 in the Ligurian Sea between Corsica and Nice, France, at 42° 56.5’ N 09° 37.2’ E, at a depth between 310 and 415 m., during the exploration of Corsican waters by the French exploratory vessel Président Théodore Tissier. The original type- locality of the species is given by Risso, 1816, as the “environs de Nice ”’, so that the locality of the neotype may serve as the restricted type-locality. The specimen now selected as the neotype was presented by the Institut scientifique et technique des Péches maritimes of Séte, France, through the good offices of Mr. Claude Maurin, to the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands, and now forms part of the collection of that museum, where it has been allotted the Registered Number Crustacea D.15822. The specimen is preserved in spirit and is labelled as the neotype of Peneus membranaceus Risso. Apart from this indication, the parchment label associated with the specimen bears the modern name of the species : Solenocera membranacea (Risso), and the precise indications as to the locality, depth, date, collecting ship, donor, and registered number which are given in the previous paragraphs. A plate (Plate 4) showing a photograph of the neotype here designated is attached to the present note. This photograph is 2.3 times life size and was made by Mr. H. F. Roman of the Leiden Museum. 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 :— cocco, Peneus, Prestandrea, 1833, Effem. sci. lett. Sicilia 6 : 6 longirostris, Peneus, Lucas, 1846, Explor. sci. Algérie, Crust. : 46 membranaceus, Peneus, Risso, 1816, Hist. nat. Crust. Nice : 98 PARAPENAEINA Wood-Mason & Alcock, 1891, an incorrect original spelling for PARAPENAEINAE q.V. PARAPENAEINAE Wood-Mason & Alcock, 1891, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6) 9 : 271 Parapenaeus Claus, 1876, Untersuchungen zur Erforschung der geneologischen Gundlage des Crustaceen-Systems : 46 Parapenaeus, 8. I. Smith, 1885, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 8 : 170 philippii, Solenocera, Lucas, 1849, Rev. Mag. Zool. (2) 1 : 300 Solenocera Lucas, 1849, Rev. Mag. Zool. (2) 1 : 300 SOLENOCERINA Wood-Mason & Alcock, 1891, an incorrect original spelling for SOLENOCERINAE q.v. SOLENOCERINAE Wood-Mason & Alcock, 1891, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6)9: 271. The following is the original reference for the designation of a neotype for a species concerned in the present Ruling : For Peneus membranaceus Risso, L. B. Holthuis, 1961, Bull. zool. 1816 Nomencl. 18 : 309-310, pl. 4 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (60)25 were cast as set out above, that the proposal set out in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18 Plate 4 Peneus membranaceus Risso, 1816. Figure of neotype x 2.3. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 311 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. 61 r N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 22 March 1961 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL TO SUPPRESS DORALIS LEACH, 1827 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 583 (see this volume, pages 143-145) By H. L. G. Stroyan (Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries, Plant Pathology Laboratory Harpenden, Herts., England) I wish to support the proposals made in the paper cited above, but to add two comments on points that I believe to have been mis-stated in the proposal as published. These are : (1) On pages 144 and 145 the date ascribed to the paper by Stroyan (Trans. 8th Int. Congr. Ent. 1948) in which the identity of Aphis tanaceti Linnaeus was discussed is 1952. The date of publication according to the cover and title-page of the Transactions of the Congress was 1950, and separates of the paper referred to were certainly available and distributed in that year. (2) The nominal typus generis of Metopeurum Mordvilko is so by monotypy, not by subsequent monotypy, since Mordvilko in 1914 gave a figure in which the generic name was used in association with the specific epithet tanaceti Linnaeus, and this figure moreover was adequate to establish the fact that Mordvilko had misidentified the species that he called by this name. It was on the authority of this figure that tanaceti auctt. nec Linnaeus (=fuscoviride Stroyan) was placed in Metopeurum by Stroyan (1950). Had the first association of the names Metopeurum and tanaceti been in Mordvilko’s Food-Plant Catalogue of 1929 the ascription of fuscoviride to Metopeurum would have been less securely based than was in fact the case. By Louise M. Russell (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A.) I recommend that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature act favorably on the request for the rejection of certain Aphid names (including Doralis and Pharalis) and the approval of others, as outlined in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Such action by the Commission will help to stabilize the nomenclature in a group where there is now con- siderable confusion. By Frej Ossiannilsson (Kungl. Lantbrukshégskolan, Institutionen for Vaxtsjukdomslara, Uppsala, Sweden) We can do quite well without the generic names Pharalis Leach and Doralis Leach, and since their presence may cause future confusion, I agree that these names should be suppressed. 312 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 612 JASUS PARKER, 1883 (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA) ; ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL LIST RULING.—The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified :— (a) Jassus Fabricius, 1803 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation by Fallén, 1826, Cicada lanio Linnaeus, 1761 (Insecta, Hemiptera) (Name No. 1445) ; (b) Jasus Parker, 1883 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation by Holthuis, 1960, Palinurus lalandii H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda) (Name No. 1446). (2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) lanio Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the binomen Cicada lanio (type- species of Jassus Fabricius, 1803)’ (Insecta, Hemiptera) (Name No. 1764) ; (b) lalandii H. Milne Edwards, 1837, as published in the binomen Palinurus lalandii (type-species of Jasus Parker, 1883) (Crustacea, Decapoda) (Name No. 1765). (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) Jasus Megerle, 1804 (an incorrect spelling for Jassus Fabricius, 1803) (Name No. 1520) ; (b) Jassus Fallén, 1806 (an incorrect spelling for Jassus Fabricius, 1803) (Name No. 1521); (c) Iasus Balss, 1913 (an incorrect spelling for Jasus Parker, 1883) (Name No. 1522) ; (d) Palinostus Bate, 1888 (an incorrect original spelling for Palinosytus Bate, 1888) (Name No. 1523) ; (e) Palinosytus Bate, 1888 (a junior objective synonym of Jasus Parker, 1883) (Name No. 1524). (4) The specific name lalandei Stimpson, 1860, as published in the binomen Palinurus lalandei (an incorrect spelling for lalandii (Palinurus) H. Milne Edwards, 1837) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 673. (5) The family-group name IASsINAE (correction of sasstipEs) Amyot & Serville, 1843, (type-genus Jassus Fabricius, 1803) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 310. (6) The family-group name gassipEs Amyot & Serville, 1843 (type-genus Iassus Fabricius, 1803) (an incorrect original spelling for IASSINAE) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 342. Bull. zool. Nomencel., Vol. 18, Part 5. November 1961. A ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 313 HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 620) Dr. Holthuis’s application for the addition of Jasus Parker, 1883, to the Official List was first submitted to the Commission Office on 24 September 1951. After some revision the paper was sent to the printer on 30 October 1959 and was published on 8 April 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 193-196. Support for the proposals was received from Dr. J. C. Yaldwyn (Dominion Museum, Wellington, New Zealand) and from Dr. R. Zariquiey (Barcelona, Spain). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 1 December 1960 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (60)23 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 196. At the close of the Voting Period on 1 March 1961 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-two (22) received in the following order : Holthuis, Riley, Hering, Mayr, Vokes, Lemche, Kihnelt, Jaczewski, Bonnet, Dymond, Obruchev, Brinck, Prantl, Alvarado, Boschma, Hemming, Stoll, do Amaral, Mertens, Poll, Bradley, Evans. Negative Votes—one (1): Key. Commissioners Miller, Uchida and Tortonese returned late affirmative votes. The following comments were sent by Commissioners with their votes : Dr. Henning Lemche (15.xii.60) : “‘ Palinosytus Bate, 1888, is to be regarded as an unjustified emendation of Palinostus Bate, 1888, if the introduction was published at a later date than Palinostus. If the names were published simultaneously, Bate seems himself to have acted as ‘ first reviser ’, thereby relegating Palinostus to the synonymy of Palinosytus.” Dr. K. H. L. Key (10.i.61) : “Any paper published as a whole on a single date is a unit publication ; a nomenclatural act has the same status no matter in what part of such a paper it is recorded. Thus if, in his Introduction, Bate states that the name which elsewhere appears as Palinostus should read Palinosytus, this is equivalent to changing Palinostus in proof, or to use of an erratum slip: Palinostus can have no status in nomenclature. It is even doubtful whether the situation can be treated as one of ‘ multiple original spellings’. This interpretation is close to Holthuis’s, as set out in lines 24-27, p. 94. “ Tf the situation must be treated as one of multiple original spellings, then the Code provides that the correct original spelling is the one adopted by the first reviser. According to the application (para. 6) this was Stebbing, who adopted Palinosytus, so that we get the same result. “In any case Palinosytus cannot possibly be treated as an ‘ emendation ’ either justified or unjustified. Since every spelling in the original publication is an ‘ original spelling ’, and an emendation is a ‘ demonstrably intentional change in the original spelling’, it follows that an emendation can only be published in a subsequent publication. 314 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature “Under the rigid construction of the Code, I do not see how the emendation ‘lalandei’ can be accepted. The only mandatory provision covering the case seems to be Art. 31. This does not say that the specific name must be formed by adding -i or -2i to the ‘entire’ name. In any case ‘la Lande’ could be regarded as having been latinised to ‘ Lalandius’, from which lalandii would result. On the grounds of usage lalandii is to be preferred.” In view of Dr. Key’s comment on the invalidity of the emendation lalandet, of the specific name lalandii, the following note was sent to the Commissioners by the Secretary on 17 March 1961: “Since V.P.(60)23 was circulated my attention has been called to the fact that there was an error in this proposal in respect of the spelling of the specific name lalandii. It was overlooked that, since this is in fact the original spelling of this name the proposed emendation to lalandei, being an unjustified emendation, could only be accepted through the exercise of the plenary powers. “ Correspondence with Dr. Holthuis shows that, although, naturally, he would prefer the name to be established as lalandei, he would accept lalandit as providing a more logical and simpler solution. “IT propose therefore that the Opinion on this subject should stabilise the spelling of this specific name in its original correct form, viz. lalandii, unless a majority of Commissioners expresses a preference for the opposite view within the month. In the latter event, the plenary powers will have to be invoked.” In answer to Mr. Riley’s letter only one Commissioner expressed disagree- ment. Professor E. Tortonese wrote on 20 March 1961: “In my opinion as the name lalandii is related to Lalande, it must be spelt lalandei. Therefore, I don’t agree with the stabilizing of the form lalandit.”’ 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 : Iasus Balss, 1913, Denskschr. med.-naturw. Ges. Jena 17 : 108 IASSINAE Amyot & Serville, 1843, Hemipt. : 581 Lassus Fabricius, 1803, Syst. Rhyng. : 85 Jasus Megerle, 1804, Cat. Ins. 4 : [12] Jasus Parker, 1883, Nature (London) 29 : 190 JASSIDES Amyot & Serville, 1843, an incorrect original spelling for IASSINAE q.v. Jassus Fallén, 1806, K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. nya Handl. 27 : 115 lalandei, Palinurus, Stimpson, 1860, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1860 : 24 lalandii, Palinurus, H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 293 lanio, Cicada, Linnaeus, 1761, Fauna suec. (ed. 2) : 892 Palinostus Bate, 1888, an incorrect original spelling for Palinosytus q.v. Palinosytus Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : ix, xxx, lxxv, 56, 76, 85, 937 The following are the original references for the designations of type-species for two genera concerned in the present Ruling : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 315 For Jassus Fabricius, 1803 : Fallén, 1826, Hemipt. suec. Cicad. : 58 For Jasus Parker, 1883: Holthuis, 1960, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 193 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (60)23 were cast as set out above, that the proposal set out in that Voting Paper was duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 612. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 3 May 1961 AMENDMENT TO THE PROPOSAL TO SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAME CERASTES LAURENTI, 1768. Z.N.(S.) 724 (see volume 18, pages 170-171) By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary to the International Commission) It has been pointed out by Dr. L. B. Holthuis, in a letter to the Assistant Secretary, that the applicants in this case have not provided against possible uses of the name Cerastes in the period between Laurenti 1768 and Wagler 1830. In the light of this comment, Dr. Pope has revised his proposals and has asked that Cerastes Laurenti be placed on the Official List of Generic Names with the type-species, to be designated under the plenary powers, Coluber cerastes Linnaeus, 1758. Dr. Pope’s revised proposals are therefore that the Commission should : (1) Use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Cerastes Laurenti, 1768, made prior to the Ruling now requested and, having done so, to designate Coluber cerastes Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type-species of that genus ; (2) place the generic name Cerastes Laurenti, 1768 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Coluber cerastes Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) place the specific name cerastes Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Coluber cerastes (type-species of Cerastes Laurenti, 1758) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 316 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DERMACENTOR ANDERSONI STILES, 1908 (ACARINA): PRO- POSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. REVISION OF OPINION 78. Z.N.(S.) 260 By Cornelius B. Philip and Glen M. Kohls (Rocky Mountain Laboratory, Hamilton, Montana, U.S.A.) In 1943, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature decided that the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology was to be published in book form in order to make it more readily available. The preparation for this publication involved checking the original references of the names concerned and of their type-species and in the course of this work certain errors were discovered in the early Opinions of the Commission. Many of these early Opinions were reviewed by the Commission at their meetings during the XIIIth International Congress of Zoology at Paris in 1948. During these meetings the Commission decided that the Ruling given in Opinion 78 should be reviewed as soon as possible and that interested zoologists should be invited to present to the Commission their views on the action to be taken in revising this Opinion (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4(10/12) : 338). 2. The Ruling of Opinion 78 stated “‘ (a) The name Dermacentor venustus Marx in Neumann 1897 belongs to a form with the specimen Marx No. 122, from Texas as holotype. (b) The name Dermacentor andersoni Stiles 1908 belongs to a form with the specimen U.S.P.H. & N.H.S. 9467, from Woodman, Montana, as holotype.” The pertinent facts of the case are set out below. 3. Neumann in 1897 (Mém. Soc. zool. Fr. 10 : 365) published the name Dermacentor venustus Marx MS. in the synonymy of Dermacentor reticulatus (Fabricius, 1794). No separate indication was provided for the new specific name, but the localities were given as Texas and New Mexico. 4, Stiles, 1905 (U.S. Hyg. Lab. Bull. No. 20: 22 24) published the name Dermacentor andersoni for material from Montana and concluded that the tick did not transmit Rocky Mountain spotted fever. No description of the species was given and the name was therefore a nomen nudum at this date. 5. Banks, June 1908 (U.S. Dept. Agric. Tech. Series No. 15 : 46-47) described Dermacentor venustus n. sp. Banks. He gave a list of localities and said that the species had “ been included in D. occidentalis by Neumann but was separated out by Doctor Marx ” in MS. under the name venustus. Banks adopted the name but did not designate a type-specimen nor mention any corresponding museum numbers. Dermacentor occidentalis was described by Marx (in Curtice, 1892, J. Comp. Med. and Vet. Arch. 13: 226) and was evidently considered by Neumann (op. cit.) to be a synonym of Acarus reticulatus Fabricius. 6. In July 1908, Stiles (U.S. Publ. Health Rep. 23(27) : 949) described Dermacentor andersoni from Montana and stated that the species is easily confused with, amongst others, “ D. venustus of Texas”. In August 1910 (U.S. Hyg. Lab. Bull. No. 62) Stiles used both the names venustus and andersont for what he thought were different species. He wrote (p. 25) that venustus Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 5. November 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 317 Banks was a composite of D. venustus of Texas and D. andersoni of Montana. On page 44, when writing of D. venustus, he gave the type as Marx 122 in U.S. National Museum but on page 45 explained that Marx 122 consisted of 4 specimens—3 males and 1 young female. Since the holotype (as used in Opinion 78) of a species can only be a single specimen, Stiles’s statement obviously cannot be taken as a valid type designation for venustus. 7. It was on the above evidence that the Commission gave its Ruling in Opinion 78. At that time there was no definite provision in the Code covering names published in synonymies, but such names were considered to be available since they were provided with an indication. This view was clarified at the International Congress of Zoology in Copenhagen in 1953 when it was decided that a name published in synonymy was unavailable unless it had been generally accepted, and that a name which had acquired availability through general acceptance was to be considered an objective synonym of the name with which it had been Ssynonymized (Copenhagen Dec. zool. Nomencl., 1953: paragraph 115). In Opinion 78, however, the Com- mission evidently did not consider D. venustus as a junior objective synonym of D. reticulatus but, on the contrary, by taking a type-locality as an indication for D. venustus (Marx MS.) Neumann, completely reversed its previous decision in Opinion 52. The name venustus was never published by Marx ; if it had been, then the Marx specimens would have ranked as syntypes of the species. When the name was published by Neumann these specimens had no such rank since they were not described and the information given consisted only of the citation of two localities and the description of D. reticulatus (Fabricius) with which venustus was synonymized. The only indication which had any validity under the Rules was this synonymization. D. venustus Neumann could, therefore, only be a junior objective synonym of D. reticulatus. 8. Since in the above sense D. venustus Neumann was an available name at the time Opinion 78 was published, D. venustus Banks was invalid as a junior homonym. Under the new rule introduced by the XVth International Congress of Zoology in London in 1958, D. venustus Neumann, being published in a synonymy, is not an available name, and D. venustus Banks is therefore the valid, though little-used name of the species concerned. 9. In 1938, Cooley (Nat. Inst. Hlth. Bull. No. 171: 31) synonymized D. venustus Banks with D. andersoni Stiles stating that ‘“‘ The writer has had the opportunity to examine the available types, and has found that venustus Marx, venustus Banks, and andersoni Stiles are all specimens of one and the Same species. In retaining andersoni Stiles as the name of this important vector of diseases, instead of returning to venustus Banks, the writer has been influenced by the desire to avoid, as far as is possible, further confusion in the literature of human and veterinary medicine and entomology.” 10. Dr. Stiles believed that the names venustus and andersoni were applicable to two different species at least until after the publication of his article in 1924 in J. Amer. Med. Ass. 82 :990. The use of andersoni in much of the U.S. medical literature and Public Health Service reports seems to be based on Dr. Stiles’s remarks in the above paper when he stated, “ The practical effect of this opinion [Opinion 78] is that the correct name for the common Rocky 318 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Mountain spotted fever tick is definitely established to be Dermacentor andersoni instead of Dermacentor venustus.” 11. The name Dermacentor andersoni Stiles is used by practically all veterinary and medical workers in the U.S. as well as by the majority of taxonomists throughout the world. In view of this usage in medical texts and the practising professions, and the confusion which would result if the name of the species were now to be changed to venustus Banks, 1908, the International Commission is asked : (1) to cancel the Ruling given in Opinion 78 ; (2) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name venustus Banks, June 1908, as published in the binomen Dermacentor venustus, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (3) to place the specific name andersoni Stiles, July 1908, as published in the binomen Dermacentor andersoni, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the following specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology : (a) venustus (Marx MS.) Neumann, 1897, as published in the binomen Dermacentor venustus (unavailable because published in a synonymy) ; (b) venustus Banks, June 1908, as published in the binomen Derma- centor venustus (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above). COMMENTS ON PROPOSED VALIDATION OF TROMBIDIUM AKAMUSHI BRUMPT, 1910 (ACARINA). Z.N.(S.) 400 (see this volume, pages 140-142) By Robert Domrow (Queensland Institute of Medical Research, Brisbane, Australia) In the present fluid state of trombiculid taxonomy, Dr. Philip’s proposals regarding the chief vector of mite typhus are timely. The name Yrombicula (Leptotrombidium) akamushi (Brumpt, 1910), (with some subjective differences of opinion at the sub-generic level), has been universally accepted in the voluminous literature, both taxonomic and medical. I have already (Stud. Inst. med. Res, Malaya, 29 : 164, 1960), it would be pointless to resurrect the name Kedania tanaka Kishida, 1909, and completely support Dr. Philip’s proposals. By Tohru Uchida (Zoological Institute, Hokkaido University, Sappora, Japan) Concerning the note of Trombidium akamushi by C. B. Philip, I agree with him because I have never heard that any Japanese zoologist had seen the paper “‘ Notes on the Family Trom- bidiidae of Japan” which is said to have been published in 1909 by Mr. K. Kishida. He himself has said that he has no more new copies on hand. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 319 AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL TO THE SUGGESTED VALIDATION OF MYELOPHILUS EICHHOFF, 1878 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 467 By Stephen L. Wood (Zoology and Entomology Department, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah) 1. History or THE CASE The name Dermestes piniperda Linnaeus (1758) was established in the Tenth Edition of Systema Naturae (p. 355). Since then it has been designated as the type-species of four different genera, all of which can be regarded as being in current use. These genera are Tomicus Latreille, [1802-1803], Dendroctonus Erichson (1836), Blastophagus Eichhoff (1864), and Myelophilus Kichhoff (1878). Latreille ([1802-1803], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 203) described the monobasic genus Tomicus with Hylesinus piniperda Fabricius, which by definition (Fabricius, 1801, Systema Eleutheratorum 2 : 392) was Dermestes piniperda L., as the type-species. Evidently through an unfortunate error in identification, Latreille’s Tomicus became associated with another genus (Ips De Geer, 1775) for more than a hundred years until Hopkins (1915, U.S. Dept. Agric. Tech. Bull. 17(2) : 220) recognized and attempted to correct the error. As originally described by Erichson (1836, Archiv f. Naturgesch. 2(1) : 52), the genus Dendroctonus included five species listed in the following order : (1) Bostrichus micans Kugelmann (1794), (2) Scolytus terebrans Olivier (1795), (3) Dermestes piniperda Linnaeus (1758), (4) Hylesinus minor Hartig (1834), and (5) Hylesinus minimus Fabricius (1801), without the designation of a type- species. Later, Eichhoff (1864, Berlin. ent. Z. 8 : 25) divided the group and described the genus Blastophagus for Dermestes piniperda L. and Hylesinus minor Hartig, and the genus Carphoborus (Eichhoff, 1864, op. cit. : 27) for Hylesinus minimus Fabricius. Since that date there has been no question concerning the identity or availability of the name Dendroctonus and no Synonyms or subgenera have been described. However, everyone treating this genus since its description has overlooked the fact that Westwood (1838, Introd. mod. Class. Ins., Synopsis : 39) designated Dermestes piniperda L. as the type-species (“typical species”) of the genus Dendroctonus just two years after its description. Hopkins’s (1909, U.S. Dept. Agric. Tech. Bull. 17(1) : 5) designation of Bostrichus micans Kugelmann, 1794 (M ag. Lieb. Ent. [Schneider’s] 5 : 523) as the type-species is, therefore, technically invalid. As indicated above, the genus Blastophagus Eichhoff (1864) (nec. Blasto- phagus Gravenhorst, 1827, or Blastophaga Gravenhorst, 1829, order Hymenop- tera) was described to include Dermestes piniperda L. and Hylesinus minor Hartig. Two years later, Lacordaire (1866, Hist. nat. Insectes, Coleoptéres 7 : 360) designated Dermestes piniperda L. as the type-species of this genus. When the apparent prior usage of the name Blastophagus by Gravenhorst (1827) was detected, Eichhoff (1878, Settin. Ent. Ztg. 39 : 400) proposed the new name Myelophilus (nec. Myelophila Treitschke, 1835, order Lepidoptera) Bull. zool. Nomencel., Vol. 18, Part 5. November 1961. 320 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as a replacement. Dermestes piniperda L. automatically became the type- species of this genus. Almost from the date of the original proposal the availability of the name Myelophilus was looked upon with disfavour because of its apparent homonymy with Myelophila. 2. Several proposals treating Eichhoff’s names Blastophagus and Myelophilus have been placed before the International Commission of Zoological Nomen- clature. These were recently discussed in a proposal by Dr. China (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18(1) : 69-72). None of them, however, has considered the involve- ment of the names Tomicus and Dendroctonus in the problem at hand. It should also be pointed out for the record that van der Vecht (as quoted by China, p. 71, paragraph iii) was not correct in his statement that all hymen- opterists have disregarded the older usage of Blastophagus Gravenhorst (1827). Dr. Peck (1951, in Muesebeck, et al., Hymenoptera of North America, Synoptic Catalog. : 519) recognized this name as valid. His usage in this standard reference work possibly has influenced many American hymenopterists. 2. PRESENT POSITION 3. It will be seen from the above that one species, Dermestes piniperda Linnaeus, by definition or by subsequent designation, is the type-species of four different genera. All four names are in current use : for example, T'omicus was used by Chamberlin (1939, The Bark and Timber Beetles of North America : 215) ; Blastophagus by Schedl (1946, Zentralbl. Gesamtgeb. Ent. 1(2) : 50-58) ; Myelophilus by Pfeffer (1955, Fauna C. S. R. 6 : 123); and Dendroctonus, in a completely different sense, by all authors (except Westwood, loc. cit.) throughout its history. Westwood’s (loc. cit.) designation of a type-species, piniperda L., for Dendroctonus has not been recognized or cited by any subsequent writer. The name has been unchallenged throughout its history and has been widely used in the literature to designate an exceedingly important group of insects. It, therefore, is proposed that Dendroctonus be conserved in its usual sense, with Bostrichus micans Kugelmann as designated by Hopkins (1909, loc. cit.) as the type-species, and that it be removed from consideration of the major problem under discussion. Tomicus Latreille (1802) is the oldest generic or subgeneric name available for the allies of piniperda L. Because of an error in identification the name, from about 1807 to 1915, was used to designate the genus now known as Ips De Geer (1775) (nec. Fabricius, 1777). Since 1915 it has been applied as a valid name by North American writers to the allies of piniperda L. ; it has been listed only as a synonym of Jps by European writers. Various names in the family group have been based on this genus, the first being Tomicides Lacordaire (1866, op. cit., p. 372), a tribe. However, it should be mentioned that these subfamily and tribe names were based on the above- mentioned error of identification (= Ips De Geer). Most European writers, presumably influenced by Eggers’s (1929, Ent. Blatt. 25 : 103) treatment of the genus, have used the name Blastophagus for the allies of piniperda L. since 1915. However, in spite of van der Vecht’s (China. loc. cit.) testimony to the Commission, there appear to be reasons for Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 321 questioning the adoption of this name for permanent use, namely, the possible validity of Blastophagus Gravenhorst. 4, Three generic names, all having the same type-species, currently are being used to designate the allies of piniperda L. Because they are objective synonyms of one another only one of them can be used to designate a genus. Some confusion, therefore, must result from the action that must be taken to correct this situation. In order to keep this confusion at a minimum, confined to asingle family of animals, and with the ultimate benefit rather than immediate concern in mind, the following proposals are made : The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1) to exercise its plenary powers to suppress all designations of type- species for the nominal genus Dendroctonus Erichson, 1836, made prior to the present designation and to designate Bostrichus micans Kugelmann, 1794, to be the type-species of that genus ; (2) to place the following generic names on the List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Dendroctonus Erichson, 1836 (gender: masculine), type-species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Bostrichus micans Kugelmann, 1794 (Coleoptera) ; (b) Zomicus Latreille, [1802-3] (gender : masculine), type-species, by monotypy Dermestes piniperda Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) ; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) micans Kugelmann, 1794, as published in the binomen Bostrichus micans (type-species of Dendroctonus Erichson, 1836) (Coleoptera) ; (b) piniperda Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Dermestes piniperda (type-species of Tomicus Latreille, [1802-3] (Coleoptera); (4) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Blastophagus Hichhoff, 1864, a junior objective synonym of Tomicus Latreille [1802-3] ; (b) Myelophilus EKichhoff, 1878, a junior objective synonym of Tomicus Latreille, [1802-3] ; (c) Blastophagus Gravenhorst, 1827, a nomen nudum (Hymenoptera). COMMENT ON PROFESSOR STEPHEN L. WOOD’S ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL TO THE SUGGESTED VALIDATION OF MYELOPHILUS EICHHOFF, 1878 By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Professor Wood’s discovery of the older valid generic name T'omicus Latreille, [1802-1803] entirely alters the Case as set out by mein Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18(1) : 69-72. ‘The Commissioners are therefore requested to vote on his alternative proposal which, if agreed upon, will replace mine for the purposes of promulgating the Opinion. Family-group names will be dealt with under Z.N.(S.) 81 (Scolytus, in press) since TOMICIDAE and IPIDAE are both junior synonyms of sCOLYTIDAE. It has also been found that the oldest available name for Blastophaga grossorum Gravenhorst, 1829 (proposed for addition to the Official List in my application) is Cynips psenes Linnaeus, ZN(8) 1 1 aa requesting the addition to the Official List of Cynips psenes is in press .N.(S. a). 322 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature LEBBEUS WHITE, 1847, AND EUALUS THALLWITZ, 1892 (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA) ; PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S8.) 618 By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) In 1947 the present author published an enumeration of all the then known species of shrimp belonging to the family HrppoLyTIDAE (Holthuis, 1947, Siboga Exped. 39(a8) : 6-25). The generic names used in this list were available names under the then existing International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. The decisions taken during the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology held in Paris in 1948, however, made two of these generic names invalid names. Though one of these names, by subsequent changes in the Rules, enjoyed later a short period of validity, under the new Code both names are definitely invalid. It would be in the interest of nomenclatural stability and uniformity to have both names validated under the plenary powers of the Commission. The original references to the generic names dealt with in the present application are the following : Eualus Thallwitz, 1892 (Abh. Ber. zool.-anthrop. Mus. Dresden, 1890-1891 (3) : 23, 50) (gender: masculine) (type-species, by monotypy : Eualus obses Thallwitz, 1892 (Abh. Ber. zool.-anthrop. Mus. Dresden, 1890-1891 (3): 23) a subjective junior synonym of Hippolyte Gaimardii H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 378)). Hetairus Bate, 1888 (Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : 577, 610) (gender : masculine) (type-species, selected by Stebbing, 1893 (Hist. Crust. : 235) : Hippolyte Gaimardii H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 378)). Lebbeus (Leach MS.) White, 1847 (List Crust. Brit. Mus. : 76, 135) (gender : masculine) (type-species, by monotypy: Lebbeus orthorhynchus (Leach MS.) White, 1847 (List Crust. Brit. Mus.:76) an objective junior synonym of Alpheus polaris Sabine, 1821 (Suppl. App. Parry’s Voy. Discov. N.W. Passage : eeXxXxviii)). Vianellia Nardo, 1847 (Sinon. modern. Spec. Lag. Golfo Veneto : 8) (gender : feminine) (type-species, by monotypy: Vianellia dorsioculata Nardo, 1847 (Sinon. modern. Spec. Lag. Golfo Veneto : 8)). The history of the name Lebbeus White and of its availability is a rather complicated one. The name was published for the first time in 1847, when White cited it in the binominal combination Lebbeus orthorhynchus as a manu- script name of W. E. Leach and placed it in the synonymy of Hippolyte polaris (Sabine). The name Lebbeus remained then practically unobserved for 100 years, being brought to life in 1947 by the present author who applied it to one of the genera split off from the large genus Spirontocaris Bate, 1888. Under the Rules in force in 1947 the name Lebbeus was an available name. One year later, however, it was made unavailable by a decision of the Thirteenth Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 5. November 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 323 International Congress of Zoology held in Paris in 1948, where it was decided that “a generic name is not to be treated as having been published with an indication by virtue only of its having been published as the generic component of a specific name cited in a synonymy given for a nominal species, and accordingly that a generic name so published does not thereby acquire any status in zoological nomenclature ” (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 (13/15) : 351). According to the Bradley draft of the new International Code (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 (1-6): 42) the principle of non-retroactivity of the Code “ appears to have been accepted but not formulated at Copenhagen” in 1953. This principle would have made Lebbeus an available name. During the London Congress in 1958 the principle of non-retroactivity of the Code was adopted as it was there decided that “ If it is known that a name was adopted correctly under provisions of the Rules in effect between 1931 and 1958, it shall not be necessary to change that name to conform to subsequently adopted rules ”’. The Editorial Committee of the new Code and the Commission decided during the final editing of the Code that this provision is highly dangerous and impractical and therefore should be left out of the Code. The moment this decision was taken by the Commission the name Lebbeus, after having enjoyed a period of availability of somewhat more than two years, became again an unavailable name. The second name ever proposed for the genus Lebbeus offers other difficulties. This name is Hetairus Bate, 1888. The first species described by Bate in his genus Hetairus was named by him Hetairus gaimardit (H. Milne Edwards, 1837). In 1893, Stebbing indicated that species as the type of the genus Hetairus. Unfortunately, however, Bate had misidentified his material. His descriptions and figures of Hetairus gaimardii distinctly show that his specimen does not belong to Hippolyte gaimardii H. Milne Edwards, but to Alpheus polaris Sabine. Hippolyte gaimardii in fact belongs to the genus HLualus Thallwitz, 1892, while Alpheus polaris belongs to Lebbeus White, 1847. Bate’s description of Hetairus and the description and figures of the species that he assigned to that genus leave not the least doubt as to the taxonomic identity of his Hetairus with Lebbeus, even though Hetairus nomenclaturally is identical with Eualus. According to Article 70 of the new Code, namely, “ It is to be assumed that an author correctly identifies the nominal species that he. . . designates as the type-species of a new or of an established genus ; therefore a designation or indication of a type-species is not to be rejected on the ground that the species was misidentified”. ‘Article 70(a) continues to say that a zoologist discovering such a case of misidentified type-species is to refer it to the Commission to have designated as the type-species of the genus such a species that the interests of stability and uniformity of nomenclature are best served. Like Lebbeus, the name Hetairus has been used very little in carcinological literature. Before 1947 most authors did not consider the genus distinct from the genus Spirontocaris Bate. The few authors (besides Bate I know of only nine) who actually did consider the genus distinct used for it the generic name Hetairus. Since 1947 the generic name Lebbeus has been adopted by several authors (11 are known to me), this number being far larger than that 324 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of authors using the name Hetairus during the same period (I know of 5). Considering that (1) for making either name available for the present genus the use of the plenary powers is necessary, (2) the name Lebbeus is currently used more often than Hetairus, (3) the name Lebbeus is by far the older of the two, and (4) the name Lebbeus was the valid name when it was reintroduced in 1947 and even was available under the London decisions of 1958, it seems preferable to have the name Lebbeus White, 1847, made an available name so that it can be used for the genus in question. At the same time the plenary powers should be used to correct the mis- identification of the type-species of the genus Hetairus Bate, 1888. This action has two advantages, viz., (1) though becoming a synonym of Lebbeus, the name Hetairus will remain connected to the genus for which it was intended by its author, and (2) it will make the name Hualus Thallwitz, 1892, the valid name of the genus containing the species Hippolyte gaimardii H. Milne Edwards. The latter genus namely has been consistently given the name Eualus by those authors who considered it distinct from Spirontocaris Bate, 1888, while the name Hetairus has never been used for it. In order definitely to stabilize the generic name Eualus, it is necessary to deal also with the generic name Vianellia Nardo, 1847, a nomen dubium, which eventually may become a threat to Eualus. The genus Vianellia was erected by Nardo for the species Vianellia dorsioculata Nardo, of which he had seen no material, but which is based only on a description and a figure found by Nardo in an unpublished manuscript by the Abbé Chiereghin. In his 1847 paper Nardo provided only a very short diagnosis of the species, but in 1869 he published an abbreviated version of Chiereghin’s long description of the species and reproduced Chiereghin’s figure of the type-specimen (Nardo, 1869, Mem. Ist. Veneto Sci. Lett. Art. 14:110, pl. 3, Fig. 6). From the description and figure it still is impossible to tell with certainty the identity of the genus or species, though it is most probable that it is based either on a specimen of Eualus occultus (Lebour, 1936, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1936 : 96) or on that of a species of Thoralus Holthuis (1947, Siboga Exped. 39 (a8): 5, 14, 15). As both the generic names Zualus Thallwitz, 1892, and Thoralus Holthuis, 1947, are younger than Vianellia Nardo, 1847, the identification of Nardo’s genus with either one of the others will upset nomenclatural stability, the more so as the name Vianellia after 1869 has not been adopted by any carcinologist. It seems advisable therefore to have both the generic name Vianellia and the specific name dorsioculata suppressed under the plenary powers of the Commission. No family names are involved here; all genera discussed are currently considered to belong to the family HIPPOLYTIDAE. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclatureis now asked to:— (1) use its plenary powers : (a) to validate the generic name Lebbeus White, 1847 (type-species, by monotypy : Alpheus polaris Sabine, 1821) ; (b) to suppress all type selections or indications for the genus Hetairus Bate, 1888, made prior to the proposed Ruling ; and having done so Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 325 (c) to designate as the type-species of that genus the species Alpheus polaris Sabine, 1821 ; (d) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy : (i) the generic name Vianellia Nardo, 1847 (a nomen dubium) ; and : (ii) the specific name dorsioculata Nardo, 1847, as published in the combination Vianellia dorsioculata (a nomen dubium) ; (2) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names : (a) Zualus Thallwitz, 1892 (gender: masculine) (type-species, by monotypy : Eualus obses Thallwitz, 1892) ; (b) Lebbeus White, 1847 (as validated under (1)(a) above) (gender : masculine) (type-species, by monotypy : Alpheus polaris Sabine, 1821) ; (3) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names : (a) gaimardii H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (as published in the combination Hippolyte gaimardit) (the oldest available name for the type- species of Hualus Thallwitz, 1892) ; (b) polaris Sabine, 1821 (as published in the combination Alpheus polaris) (the name of the type-species of Lebbeus White, 1847) ; (4) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names : (a) Hetairus Bate, 1888 (gender : masculine) (type-species, designated under the plenary powers in (l)(c) above, Alpheus polaris Sabine, 1821) (an objective junior synonym of Lebbeus White, 1847) ; (b) Vianellia Nardo, 1847 (gender: feminine) (type-species, by monotypy : Vianellia dorsioculata Nardo, 1847) (a name sup- pressed under (1)(d)(i) above) ; (5) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the following names : (a) dorsioculata Nardo, 1847, as published in the combination Vianellia dorsioculata (a name suppressed under (1)(d)(ii) above) ; (b) orthorhynchus White, 1847, as published in the combination Lebbeus orthorhynchus (an objective junior synonym of the name polaris Sabine, 1821, as published in the combination Alpheus polaris). 326 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature JOUSSEAUMIA SACCO, 1894 (GASTROPODA) ; PROPOSED EMENDA- TION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS TO JOUSSEAUMEA. Z.N.(S.) 624 L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) In 1894, Sacco (Moll. terz. Piemonte Liguria 15: 8) instituted a new subgenus Jousseaumia of the molluscan genus Cypraea Linnaeus, 1758. Schilder, 1927 (Arch. Natur. 91(A10) : 99) emended the name Jousseaumia to Jousseaumea. As Schilder was, and still is, the foremost authority on the family CyPRAEIDAE, his action seems to have been generally accepted and so the spelling Jousseawmea is also found in Thiele’s fundamental Handbuch der systematischen Weichtier- kunde (1929, 1 : 275). Sacco (1894) did not give the derivation of the subgeneric name Jousseaumia, but it is evident that this name was given in honour of the Cypraeid specialist Jousseaume, whose name was repeatedly used in Sacco’s publication. However, under a strict application of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Schilder’s emendation is invalid, Jousseaumia being the correct name for the genus. This whole question would have been very unimportant were it not com- plicated by the fact that in 1896, Coutiére (1896, Bull. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris 2: 381) described a new genus of Decapod Crustacea, which he named Jousseaumea. The facts that (1) the name Jousseaumia Sacco, 1894, though nomen- claturally correct, actually is improperly formed and should more correctly be spelled Jousseaumea, (2) the emendation of this name to Jousseawmea has been accepted by the leading authorities in the field, and (3) there exists a name Jousseaumea for a totally different genus, cause an undesirable confusion, which should be remedied one way or the other. A strict application of the Code allows the names Jousseawmia for the molluse and Jousseaumea for the crustacean to stand side by side. This situation, already undesirable because of the close similarity of the two names, has become far worse by the acceptance of the emendation of Jousseaumia to Jousseaumea. The best solution of this complicated situation in my opinion is to validate Schilder’s emendation of Jousseaumia to Jousseaumea under the plenary powers of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. This makes Jousseaumea Coutiére, 1896, a junior homonym of Jousseawmea Sacco, 1894. Coutiére’s generic name thereby becomes invalid and has to be replaced by its objective junior synonym Salmoneus Holthuis (1955, Zool. Verhand. Leiden, 26:88). This change will cause hardly any nomenclatural disturbance since the genus involved contains only 11 species, all of which are rare and have been mentioned only very few times in the literature. Furthermore the name Salmoneus has already been used by a few authors. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 5. November 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 327 The concrete proposals now placed before the Commission are that they should : (1) use their plenary powers to validate the emendation to Jousseaumea of the generic name Jousseawmia Sacco, 1894 ; (2) place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Jousseaumea (emendation under the plenary powers under (1) above of Jousseaumia) Sacco, 1894 (Moll. terz. Piemonte Liguria, 15 : 8) (gender : feminine) (type-species, by monotypy : Cypraea sublyncoides d’Orbigny, 1852, Prodr. Paléont. strat. 3 : 48) ; (b) Salmoneus Holthuis, 1955 (Zool. Verhand. Leiden 26 : 88) (gender : masculine) (type-species, by original designation Jousseawmea serratidigitus Coutiére, 1896, Bull. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris 2 : 382) ; (3) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names : (a) Jousseaumea Coutiére, 1896 (Bull. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris 2 : 381) (a junior homonym of Jousseaumea Sacco, 1894) ; (b) Jousseaumia Sacco, 1894 (Ruled under the plenary powers in (1) above to be an Invalid Original Spelling for Jousseauwmea). (4) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names : (a) sublyncoides d’Orbigny, 1852, as published in the combination Cypraea sublyncoides (specific name of the type-species of Jousseaumea Sacco, 1894) ; (b) serratidigitus Coutiére, 1896, as published in the combination Jousseaumea serratidigitus (specific name of the type-species of Salmoneus Holthuis, 1955). AMENDMENT TO THE APPLICATION PROPOSING THE VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF CICADELLA LATREILLE, 1817. Z.N.(S.) 457 (see this volume, pages 163-167) By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Dr. Holthuis has pointed out (in litt.) that it will be necessary in order to validate Cicadella Latreille, 1817, to add to paragraph 11(1) on page 166 an additional phrase requesting the suppression of all usages of the name Cicadella published prior to Latreille, 1817. Under the present wording of the application Cicadella Latreille would be invalidated by Cicadella Froriep, 1806, and possibly by Cicadella Duméril, 1817. He has further suggested that it would be simpler to designate under the plenary powers Cicada viridis Linnaeus, 1758, as the type-species of Cicadella Duméril, 1806. This, however, would change the authorship of Cicadella in current usage. Specialists would prefer to retain Cicadella with authorship Latreille. It is therefore proposed to add to paragraph 11(1) after “ Duméril, 1806”, the phrase “and all usages of the generic name Cicadella prior to Latreille, 1817”. COMMENT By Frej Ossiannilsson (Kungl. Lantbrukshégskolan, Institutionen for Vaxtsjukdomslara) I quite share the attitude taken up by Dr. W. Wagner in the Cicadella case, and therefore I wish to support the present application, as framed by Dr, China. 328 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature NOTONECTA STRIATA LINNAEUS, 1758 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA) : DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE. Z.N.(S.) 640 By T. T. Macan (Freshwater Biological Association, Far Sawrey, Ambleside, Westmorland, England) When establishing the species Notonecta striata in 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 439) Linnaeus referred to three poor figures : Pet. gaz. t.72, f.7 ; Roes. ins. app. l.p. 177 t.29 and Joblot. micr. 1.pp. t.7 fs. 2, 3. Linnaeus also gave the brief diagnosis : ‘‘ Notonecta vulgaris compressa fusca. Habitat in Europae Aquis.” It is quite impossible to identify the species either by the figures or by the description (see China, 1938, Ent. Mon. Mag. T4 : 36). All that can be said is that the species belongs to the family-group CORIXIDAE. Nevertheless the name striata Linnaeus has been applied by workers in the past to a definite European species. 2. Reference to the Linnean Oolecnon preserved by the Linnean Society of London, Burlington House, shows that the pin piercing the label ‘‘ Notonecta striata’? transfixes two female Corixids, neither of which is Corixa striata, as recognised by modern workers. It is not possible to identify these female specimens with any certainty and in any case this Linnean Collection is notoriously unreliable since many of the original specimens brought by James Edward Smith from Sweden in 1784 were replaced later by other specimens. It is clear that syntypes of Notonecta striata no longer exist. 3. The first modern illustrated description of Sigara striata was by T. Jaczewski, 1924 (Ann. zool. Mus. polon. Hist. nat. 3 : 58) under the genus Callicorixa and from this date the identity of Linnaeus’s species may be said to have been fixed. In 1935 this identity was confirmed by R. Poisson (Arch. Zool. exp. gen. 77 : 542). In 1954 (Hydrobiologia 7 : 57-65) Macan showed that the traditional Corixa striata actually comprised two closely allied but distinct species and named one of them Corixa lacustris. The species distributed over most of Britain proved to belong to this new species and in the same year Macan showed (Ent. mon. Mag. 90 : 216) that it had another earlier available name, Corixa dorsalis Leach, 1817 (Trans. Linn. Soc. London 12 : 10-18). 4. It is obvious that these two closely related species require the designation of neotypes to insure future nomenclatorial stability. Syntypes of neither exist. The syntypes of Corixa dorsalis should be in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.), but as shown by Lansbury, 1956 (Ent. mon. Mag. 92 : 14) a thorough search has been made for them without success. In his paper Lansbury designated a neotype specimen from the Stephens Collection in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.), a specimen identified by Jaczewski as Corixa dorsalis Leach during a visit to the Museum in 1937. Lansbury dissected the specimen in order to discover if it was lacustris Macan or striata L. and found that it was indeed lacustris Macan and thereby proved that Macan’s species was a synonym of dorsalis Leach. Lansbury’s neotype designation was not quite in accordance Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 5. November 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 329 with the rules, since he neither gave the character differentiating the taxon concerned nor a reference to Macan’s 1954 paper in which the actual differentia- tion was made. In the circumstances, however, all that is needed to validate the designation is the reference here to Macan’s two 1954 papers mentioned in (3) above. . 5. The neotype of Coriza dorsalis Leach, 1817 (Trans. Linn. Soc. London 12(1) : 17) is therefore a male specimen, pinned to a strip of polyporus, bearing Jaczewski’s identification “ striata’ in pencil on pale blue paper, Lansbury’s label in ink on white paper “‘ Sigara (= Corixa) dorsalis Leach, Neotype, det. I. Lansbury 1954” and a Museum printed white label “J. F. Stephens Coll. B.M. 1853-46”. The specimen also bears a small circular red-bordered British Museum type label with the word “neo” written on it in ink. It is defined by Macan in his original description of Coriwa lacustris. The holotype of the nominal species Corixa lacustris Macan, 1954, which as stated in (3) above was a synonym of Corixa dorsalis Leach, 1817, is also preserved in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.) as stated by Macan, 1954 (Hydrobiologia 7 : 62). 6. No neotype has so far been designated for Corixa striata which was originally described by Linnaeus in the genus Notonecta. Such a neotype designation, when made, must be related to Macan’s 1954 paper. A full description of striata L. was given by Macan in Hydrobiologia 6 : 58- 61, figs. 3-6. The description of the genitalia was based on seven males from Esrom and Lyngby Lakes in Denmark and one male from Hamburg. The shape and colour markings were based on 39 specimens from the Danish lakes and 11 specimens from Hamburg. A microscope slide of a dissected male specimen from Esrom Lake, Denmark, collected by T. T. Macan at Station 11 in September 1950 is hereby designated as the neotype of Notonecta striata Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. ed. 10, 1 : 439). It is deposited in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.) and bears at one end a red-bordered British Museum slide type label with the words ‘“‘ Corixa striata Linnaeus, 1758, Neotype ”’, and at the other a slide label ‘‘ Denmark, Esrom Lake,—9.1950, T. T. Macan Coll. Station 11.” It is placed in a paper envelope which bears the legend “ $ striata (L.) Corixa, Denmark, Esrom Lake, —9. 1950 Coll. T.T. Macan Sta. 11 ; NEOTYPE oF (in red ink) Notonecta striata Linnaeus, 1758 ”’. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) striata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Notonecta striata, as defined by the neotype designated in para. 6 above ; (b) dorsalis Leach, 1817, as published in the binomen Corixa dorsalis, as defined by the neotype designated in para. 5 above. This case was first submitted to the Commission in January 1952. 330 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature BLATTA TRANSFUGA BRUNNICH, 1763 (INSECTA, DICTYO- PTERA); PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 680 By D. K. McE. Kevan (Macdonald College, Province of Quebec, Canada) and K. Princis (Zoological Institute, Lund, Sweden) There seems to be no doubt that the oldest available name for the species widely known as Blattella germanica (Blatta germanica Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(2) : 668) is in fact Blatta transfuga Briinnich, 1763, Kurzgef. Nachr. Naturh. in Dénnem. betreff. : 212, pl. 16). This synonymy, as far as we are aware, was first pointed out by Yakobson (in Yakobson & Bianki, 1902, Pryamokr. i Lozhnosetchatokr. rossiisk. Imp. i sopred. Stran.: 128), who was later followed by Shugurov (1908, Hor. Soc. ent. Ross. 88 : 115; 1910, Zap. novoross. Obshsch. Estestvoispyt. [Mém. Soc. nat. Odessa] 34 : 120-124) and by Kirby (1910, Syn. Cat. Orthopt. : 563). It has also been adopted occasionally by more recent authors. 2. Since Briinnich’s name has undoubted priority over that of Linnaeus, the latter must fall under a strict interpretation of the Law of Priority, but so great a volume of literature exists in which the species is called germanica that it would be most undesirable to have to change such a universally known name for one that is unfamiliar and has remained so long in nearly complete obscurity. The species is one of considerable economic importance and is frequently referred to by others than taxonomic entomologists. It is also widely known by the vernacular name of ‘“‘ German Cockroach” or the equivalent, which reflects the general acceptance of the Linnean name. 3. The nominal species Blatta germanica Linnaeus, 1767, is the type- species, by original designation, of Blattella Caudell, 1903 (Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 5 : 234) and this generic name, which is in general use, should be placed on the Official List. Blattella was proposed to replace the junior homonym Phyllodromia Audinet-Serville, [1838], (Roret’s Suite & Buffon (Orthopt.) : 105) non Zetterstedt, 1837, Isis (Oken) 1837 : 31 (Diptera). 4. The family-group name PHYLLODROMIIDAE (correction by Yakobson & Bianki, 1902, Pryamokr. i Lozhnoset. ross. Imper.:116 of PHYLLODROMIDAE) Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1865, Nouv. Syst. Blatt. : 46, 74 (based on the invalid Phyllodromia Audinet-Serville), was replaced in 1908 by BLATTELLIDAE Karny (Mitt. naturw. Ver. Univ. Wien 6 : 112). In 1910, Burr (Syn. Orth. W. Europe : 152), published the subfamily name PSEUDOMOPINAE, based on the genus Pseudomops Audinet-Serville, 1831 (Ann. Sci. nat. 22 : 41). PSEUDOMOPINAE has been widely used for the subfamily containing the genera Blattella and Pseudomops, but the valid name for this taxon is BLATTELLINAE. The name PSEUDOMOPINI is, however, available at tribe level for those authors who place Blattella and Pseudomops in different tribes. 5. Under the rules as revised by the London (1958) Congress the name BLATTELLIDAE takes the date and priority of the name based on an invalid Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 5. November 1961. n > _ a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 331 generic homonym (i.e. 1865), and the generic name Blattella, being the type- genus of the family-group taxon takes the date and priority of the homonym it replaces (i.e. [1838]). We therefore propose that the generic name Blattella Caudell, 1903, and the family-group name BLATTELLIDAE Karny, 1908, be both placed on the appropriate Official List with endorsements that the first has priority as from [1838] and the'second as from 1865. 6. We therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature : (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name transfuga Briinnich, 1763, as published in the binomen Blatta transfuga, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the generic name Blattella Caudell, 1903 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation by Caudell, 1903, through Phyllodromia Audinet-Serville, [1838], Blatta germanica Linnaeus, 1767, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with priority from [1838] ; (3) to place the specific name germanica Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Blatta germanica (type-species of Blattella Caudell, 1903) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the generic name Phyllodromia Audinet-Serville, [1838] (a junior homonym of Phyllodromia Zetterstedt, 1837) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (5) to place the specific name transfuga Briinnich, 1763, as published in the binomen Blatta transfuga (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ; (6) to place the family-group name BLATTELLIDAE Karny, 1908 (type- genus Blattella Caudell, 1903) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with priority from 1865 ; (7) to place the following family-group name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology : PHYLLODROMIDAE Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1865 (type-genus Phyllo- dromia Audinet-Serville, [1838]) (invalid because based on a junior homonym). 332 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature XENOSTEGIUM WALCOTT, 1924 (TRILOBITA) ; PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 914 By R. J. Ross, Jr. (U.S. Geological Survey, Denver Laboratory, Colorado, U.S.A.) The generic name Xenostegium was proposed by Walcott in 1924 (Smiths. misc. Coll. '75(2) : 60, pl. 18, fig. 5) in a short preliminary paper. The type- species was designated as Asaphus (Megalaspis*?) goniocercus Meek, 1873 (6th Ann. Rept., U.S. Geol. Surv. Territories : 480). 2. Eleven months later Walcott (1925, Smiths. misc. Coll. 75(3) : 124~125) realized an error. He had inadvertently misidentified his chosen type-species as X. goniocercus when the specimens on which he based his concept (or hypodigm) of the type-species were actually the holotype and paratype of Megalaspis belemnurus White, 1874 (U.S. Army, Geogr. Geol. Expl. Surv. W. 100th. Meridian, Prelim. Rept. Invert. Foss.: 11) (compare Walcott’s pl. 13, fig. 5 of 1924 and pl. 24, figs. 3 & 4 of 1925). 3. Under the Rules it must be assumed that the author of a genus has correctly identified the type-species, unless there is evidence to the contrary. In this case the evidence cannot be refuted, for the author himself confesses his error. It is therefore, in my opinion, clear that Xenostegiuwm belemnurus should be regarded as the type-species of Xenostegiwm. 4. If it were insisted that X. goniocercwm be regarded as the type-species, then the genus Xenostegium must from a practical standpoint be considered monotypic. The species goniocercum is known from a single specimen—and that a pygidium. We have no knowledge of its cranidium, hypostome or free cheeks. The type-locality is so loosely described that we probably never will have certain knowledge of these parts. However, Xenostegium as restricted by Ross is fairly well known and is restricted to a given faunal zone. ‘T'rigonocerca Ross, 1951 (Peabody Mus. nat. Hist., Bull. 6 : 104-105, pl. 26, figs. 5-13 ; also Hintze, 1952) is likewise well known and restricted to a very different stratigraphic position. Asaphus goniocercus at present seems to fit into Trigonocerca, but this assignment is very uncertain because of our complete ignorance of the cephalic parts. 5. With the exception of Weller (informal list) all authors since 1925 have accepted M. belemnurus as the type-species of Xenostegium. The International Commission is therefore asked : (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Xenostegium Walcott, 1924, and having done so, to designate Megalaspis belemnurus White, 1874, to be the type- species of that genus ; (2) to place the generic name Xenostegium Walcott, 1924 (gender : neuter) type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Megalaspis belemnurus White, 1874, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 5. November 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 333 (3) to place the specific name belemnurus White, 1874, as published in the binomen Megalaspis belemnurus (type-species of Xenostegiwm Walcott, 1924) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. There are no family-group names based on Xenostegiwm. \ EINSPRUCH GEGEN DIE VORGESCHLAGENE FIXIERUNG DES GENEROTYPUS FUR PTEROPHORUS SCHAEFFER, 1766. (Z.N.(S.) 1463) (siehe vol. 18, pp. 159-160) Von Erich M. Hering (Institut fiir systematische Zoologie wnd Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt- Universitat zu Berlin) Gegen die Festlegung von (Phalaena) pentadactyla Linnaeus, 1758, als Typus generis von Pterophorus Schaeffer, 1766, erhebe ich scharfsten Einspruch. Ein solches Verfahren ist geeignet, weitere Verwirrung in die Nomenklatur der Pterophoridae zu bringen und dem seit mehr als 80 Jahren in einem bestimmten Sinne im Gebrauch befindlichen Namen einen gednderten Begriffs-Inhalt zu geben. Schon Zeller (1852: Linnaea Entomologica 6 : 319-416) hatte Pterophorus nach 1841 in Subgenera, bei ihm “Abtheilungen” genannt, aufgeteilt. Diese “Abtheilungen ” wurden spiter von den meisten Spezialisten als Genera verwendet. In der zitierten Arbeit erscheint pentadactyla Linnaeus, 1758, in dem Subgenus Aciptilia Hiibner, 1825. In Pterophorus im engsten Sinn fiigt er neben einer Anzahl anderer Arten, die spater in Steno- ptilia Hiibner gebracht wurden, auch monodactyla Linnaeus, 1758. M. F. Wocke (1877: in Heinemann und Wocke, Die Schmetterlinge Deutschlands und der Schweiz 2. Abt. II, 2, p. 801) legte (durch Monotypie) als Typus generis fiir Pterophorus (von ihm Wallengren zugeschrieben) monodactyla Linnaeus, 1758, fest. In dieser Typen-Fixierung sind ihm die meisten spateren Spezialisten dieser Familie gefolgt. Eine Aenderung dieser Typen- Fixierung wiirde die bisherige Stabilitat im Gebrauch von Pterophorus zerstoren und weit- reichende Verwirrung in der Nomenklatur der preROPHORIDAE schaffen. Da die Art mono- dactyla Linnaeus, 1758, gleichfalls in der zitierten Arbeit von Fabricius, 1775, angefiihrt ist und dort sogar an erster Stelle steht, schlage ich vor, dass als Typus generis fiir Pterophorus Schaffer, 1776, nicht pentadactyla Linnaeus, 1758, sondern monodactyla Linnaeus, 1775, besigniert und als solcher in die Official List aufgenommen wird. Nur so wird die Stabilitat im bisherigen Gebrauch des Namens Pterophorus wahrend der letzten mehr als 80 Jahre gerantiert. 334 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ACROPORA OKEN, 1815 (ANTHOZOA, MADREPORARIA); PRO- POSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1036 By H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission to validate, under its plenary powers, the generic name Acropora Oken, 1815, a generic name published in a work which was rejected for nomenclatorial purposes by the Ruling given in Opinion 417. 2. Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 792) published the specific name muricata in the genus Millepora. In 1767 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12)1 : 1279) he corrected this to Madrepora muricata. The first person to restrict the genus Madrepora was Lamarck, 1801 (Syst. Anim. sans Vertébr. : 371), but unfortunately he restricted it to only two species—muricata Linnaeus and Madrepora porites Pallas, 1766 (Hlench. : 324)—neither of which was an originally included species. Madrepora Linnaeus, was, however, for many years used for the genus containing Millepora muricata Linnaeus. Madrepora porites Pallas is the type- species by monotypy of the genus Porites Link, 1807 (Beschr. nat. Samml. Univ. Rostock (3) : 163), although Link substituted the name Porites poly- morphus, presumably to avoid tautonymy. 3. The generic name Acropora was proposed by Oken, 1815 (Lehrb. Natur- gesch. 3(1) : 66) to include three species, damicornis Oken (now placed in the genus Pocillopora Lamarck, 1816), porites Pallas, and muricata Linnaeus. No type-species was designated or indicated. Acropora was reintroduced by Verrill, 1901 (Trans. Conn. Acad. Arts. Sci. 11 : 164) to replace Madrepora of Lamarck and authors, and Millepora muricata Linnaeus was designated as the type- species. 4, The generic name Madrepora (in the “ corrected’ spelling Matrepora) was restricted by Oken, 1815 (Lehrb. Naturgesch. 3(1) : 71) to contain the species ramea, prolifera, virginea, and oculata, all of Linnaeus, 1758. Blainville, 1830 (Dict. Sci. nat. 60 : 319) made Madrepora ramea the type of his genus Dendrophyllia ; Lamarck, 1816 (Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vertébr. 2 : 283) placed prolifera, virginea, and oculata in his genus Oculina. Verrill, 1901 (op. cit. : 111) designated Madrepora oculata as the type of the genus Madrepora, an altogether correct procedure as it is one of the original species of the genus. 5. The next name for the taxon represented by the generic name Acropora was Heteropora Hemprich and Ehrenberg (1834) (Ab. K.-preuss. Akad. Wiss., Berlin 1832 : 332) a junior homonym of Heteropora Blainville, 1830 (op. cit. : 381). Then followed Isopora Studer, 1878 (MonatsBer. Akad. Berlin 1878 : 535) including two species Isopora labrosa (Dana, 1848), and Isopora securis (Dana, 1848). Finally, Brook, 1893 (Cat. Madrep. Corals B.M.1 : 23) included Madrepora muricata in the new subgenus Eumadrepora. 6. Isopora, the correct name under the Rules for the taxon in question, has only been so used by Vaughan (1902, Bull. U.S. Fish Comm. 1900 : 312), although it has been used as a subgenus of Acropora Oken. A change to the Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 5. November 1961. ‘ a ee wy ae ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 335 name Isopora for this large and well-known genus would lead to much confusion and must be prevented if at all possible. Both Acropora and Isopora have been used as the basis of family-group names. ACROPORIDAE was introduced by Verrill, 1901 (op. cit. : 163) while the name IsoporIDAE was first used by Vaughan (1902, op. cit.: 312). If the Commission validates Oken’s name Acropora then ACROPORIDAE will become the valid name for the family-group taxon. 7. For the reason given above the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked :— (1) to validate under its plenery powers the generic name Acropora Oken, 1815, and to designate the species Millepora muricata Linnaeus, 1758, as the type-species of that genus; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Acropora Oken, 1815 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designa- tion under the plenary powers in (1) above, Millepora muricata Linnaeus, 1758 ; (b) Madrepora Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation by Verrill, 1901, Madrepora oculata Linnaeus, 1758 ; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) muricata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen WMillepora muricata (type-species of Acropora Oken, 1815) ; (b) oculata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Madrepora oculata (type-species of Madrepora Linnaeus, 1758) ; (4) to place the generic name Heteropora Hemprich & Ehrenberg (1834) (a junior homonym of Heteropora Blainville, 1830) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (5) to place the family-group name ACROPORIDAE Verrill, 1901 (type-genus Acropora Oken, 1815) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 336 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CERATOSTOMA HERRMANNSEN, 1846 (CLASS GASTROPODA) : PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES. Z.N.(S.) 1088 By Clarence A. Hall, Jr. (Department of Geology, University of California, Los Angeles, U.S.A.) The genus in question was first recognized in 1784 by Martyn under the name Purpura. Since the Commission, in Opinion 456 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 393), rejected Martyn’s Universal Conchologist, an alternative name must be sought for this distinctive gastropod group (Family Muricidae). 2. In 1837, Conrad (J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 7 : 263) published the generic name Cerostoma, the type-species by monotypy being Cerostoma nuttalli n.sp. However, Cerostoma Conrad must be rejected as a junior homonym of Cerostoma Latreille, [1802-1803] (Sonnini’s Buffon, Hist. nat. Ins. 3 : 416, Insecta, Lepidoptera). 3. Troschel (Arch. Naturgesch. 1838(2) : 281) erroneously spelled Conrad’s name Cerastoma. Herrmannsen, in 1846, emended the name Cerastoma to Ceratostoma in a nomenclator (Indic. Gen. malac. 1 : 206) as follows : “‘ Rectius Ceratostoma vel Cerastoma’’. Cerastoma cannot be recognized as a replacement name since, as an erroneous subsequent spelling, it has no status in nomen- clature and is, moreover, a homonym of Cerastoma Koch, 1839 (Ubers Arachnidensyst. 2 : 29). 4. The International Commission is therefore asked : (1) to place the generic name Ceratostoma Herrmannsen, 1846 (gender : neuter), type-species, by monotypy, Ceratostoma nuttalli Conrad, 1837, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (2) to place the specific name nuttalli Conrad, 1837, as published in the binomen Cerostoma nuttalli (type-species of Ceratostoma Herrmannsen, 1846), on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Purpura Martyn, 1784 (a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes because non-binominal) ; (b) Cerostoma Conrad, 1837 (a junior homonym of Cerostoma Latreille, [1802-1803]) : (c) Cerastoma Troschel, 1838 (an erroneous subsequent spelling for Cerostoma Conrad, 1837). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 5. November 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 337 FOUR GASTROPOD FAMILY-GROUP NAMES: PROPOSED SUP- PRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. (Z.N.(S.) 1212. By the late J. Brookes Knight (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, U.S.A.)!, Roger J. Batten (University of Wisconsin, U.S.A.) and Ellis L. Yochelson,(U.S. Geological Survey)? In this application the International Commission is asked to use its plenary powers to validate four gastropod family-group names which are junior synonyms, although based on the oldest available names for their type-genera. The authors, in preparing the section “ Gastropoda of the Paleozoic ” which appears in Gastropoda, Part I, of the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology (1960), in the interests of stability and universality of nomenclature, have not followed priority for the family-group names concerned. 2. The generic name Protowarthia Ulrich & Schofield, 1897 (Geol. Minnesota, Final Report 3(2) : 848) was proposed for certain Ordovicial bellerophontid gastropods from the Ordovician of North America. In the same publication, the family-group name PROTOWARTHIIDAE was proposed for this and allied genera. A year earlier Koken (1896, Die Leittfossilien : 393) had proposed the name Sinuwites for congeneric forms from Europe. For many years Protowarthia has been-recognized to be a subjective junior synonym of Sinuites. The family-group name stnurripaE Dall, 1913 (in Eastman-Zittel, Textb. Paleont. 1 : 521) although junior to PROTOWARTHIIDAE has been in common usage since it was first introduced. The type-species of Sinwites is Bellerophon bilobatus Sowerby, 1839 (in Murchison, Silurian System : 643) by designation by Bassler (1915, U.S. nat. Mus. Bull. 92 : 1159). 3. The generic name Maclurite Lesueur, 1818 (J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1 : 312) was evidently a lapsus for Maclurites. As pointed out by Knight, 1941 (Geol. Soc. Amer. sp. Paper 32 : 184) Lesueur had, on the previous page, used the termination -ites for generic names and -ite for the vernacular form of the same names. Lesueur’s name Maclurite has been emended several times— to Maclurita by Blainville, 1823 (Dict. Sci. nat. 27 : 519), to Maclurites by Menke, 1830 (Synopsis meth. Moll. (ed. 2) : 53) and to Maclurea by Emmons, 1842 (Geol. New York (2):312). Blainville’s and Emmons’ emendations are certainly unjustified and rank as junior objective synonyms of Lesueur’s name. Maclurites Menke, however, we consider to be a justified emendation and this form of the name has gained general acceptance. We therefore ask the Commission to rule that Menke’s emendation was a valid one. The type- species of Maclurites is Maclurites magna Lesueur, 1818 (loc. cit.), by designation by de Koninck, 1881 (Ann. Mus. roy. Hist. nat. Belg. (Sér. Palaeont.) 6 : 107). 4. Carpenter, 1861 (Ann. Rept. Smiths. Inst. 1860, appendix : 216) proposed. the family-group name MACLUREADAE, and Gill, 1871 (Smiths. misc. Coll. 227 : 11) proposed the family-group names MACLURAEIDEA and MACLURAEACEA, 1Published by permission of the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. *Publication authorized by the Director, U.S. Geological Survey. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 5. November, 1961. 338 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature all based on the junior objective synonym Macluwrea Emmons, 1842. These names have priority over MACLURITIDAE Fischer, 1885 (Manuel de Conch. (9) : 805) but have been little used. We have not used them in the Treatise. 5. Though EZuomphalus Sowerby, 1814 (Min. Conch. 1 : 97) and Schizostoma Bronn, [1834] (Lethaea Geognostica 1:95) have been considered to be the names of distinct genera by some workers, other workers, particularly in the last twenty years, including the writers, consider them to be synonyms. The family-group EUOMPHALIDAE de Koninck, 1881 (Ann. Mus. roy. Hist. nat. Belg. (Sér. Palaeont.) 6 : 106) has been used by almost all workers. The family-group name SCHIZOSTOMATIDAE Eichwald, 1871 (Geogn.-Palacont. Bemerk. Halbin. Mang. Aleut. Inseln: 119) has been little used and in the Treatise we have abandoned it. The type-species of Huomphalus Sowerby is Euomphalus pentangulatus Sowerby, 1814 (loc. cit.), by designation by Meek & Worthen, 1866 (Geol. Surv. Illinois 2, Palaeontology : 158). 6. The generic name Oriostoma Munier-Chalmas, 1876, was emended to Horiostoma by Fischer, 1885 (Manuel de Conch. (9): 813). Although this emendation was technically an invalid junior objective synonym, it was widely used for some years. During this period Koken, 1897 (Jahrb. Geol. Reich. 46 : 47), proposed the family-group name HORIOSTOMATIDAE based on this emendation. Wenz, 1938 (Handb. Paldozool. 6, Gastropoda 1 : 206) proposed ORIOSTOMATIDAE, based on the valid senior generic name. Although HORIOSTOMATIDAE has priority, we ask that our acceptance of ORIOSTOMATIDAE be stabilized. The type-species of Oriostoma is Oriostoma barrandei Munier- Chalmas, 1876 (loc. cit.), by original designation. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is now asked : (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following family-group names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law Homonymy :— (a) PROTOWARTHUDAE Ulrich & Schofield, 1897 ; (b) MACLUREADAE Carpenter, 1861 ; (c) MACLURAEIDEA Gill, 1871 ; (d) scHIzosTOMATIDAE Hichwald, 1871 ; (e) HORIOSTOMATIDAE Koken, 1897 ; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Sinuites Koken, 1896 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation by Bassler, 1915, Bellerophon bilobatus Sowerby, 1839 ; (b) Maclurites (emend. of Maclurite) Lesueur, 1818 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation by de Koninck, 1881, Maclurites magna Lesueur, 1818 ; (c) Euomphalus Sowerby, 1814 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation by Meek & Worthen, 1866, Huomphalus pent- angulatus Sowerby, 1814 ; (d) Oriostoma Munier-Chalmas, 1876 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation, Oriostoma barrandet Munier-Chalmas, 1876; - —- Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 339 (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) bilobatus Sowerby, 1839, as published in the binomen Bellerophon bilobatus (type-species of Sinwites Koken, 1896) ; (b) magna Lesueur, 1818, as published in the binomen Maclurites magna (type-species of Maclurites Lesueur, 1818) ; (c) pentangulatus Sowerby, 1814, as published in the binomen Luom- phalus pentangulatus (type-species of Huomphalus Sowerby, 1814) ; (d) barrandet Munier-Chalmas, 1876, as published in the binomen Oriostoma barrandei (type-species of Oriostoma Munier-Chalmas, 1876) ; (4) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Maclurite Lesueur, 1818 (an invalid original spelling for Maclurites) ; (b) Maclurita Blainville, 1823 (an invalid emendation of Maclurites Lesueur, 1818) ; (c) Maclurea Emmons, 1842 (an invalid emendation of Maclurites Lesueur, 1818) ; (d) Horiostoma Fischer, 1885 (an invalid emendation of Oriostoma Munier-Chalmas, 1876) ; (5) to place the following family-group names on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology :— (a) SINUITIDAE Dall, 1913 (type-genus Sinwites Koken, 1896) ; (b) MACLURITIDAE Fischer, 1885 (type-genus Maclurites Lesueur, 1818) ; (c) EUOMPHALIDAE de Koninck, 1881 (type-genus Huomphalus Sowerby, 1814) ; (d) ORIOSTOMATIDAE Wenz, 1938 (type-genus Oriostoma Munier- Chalmas, 1876) ; (6) to place the following family-group names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (all suppressed. under the plenary powers in (1) above) :— (a) PROTOWARTHUDAE Ulrich & Schofield, 1897 (type-genus Proto- warthia Ulrich & Schofield, 1897) ; (b) MACLUREADAE Carpenter, 1861 (type-genus Macluwrea Emmons, 1842) ; (c) MACLURAEIDEA Gill, 1871 (type-genus Maclurea Emmons, 1842) ; (d) SCHIZOSTOMATIDAE Eichwald, 1871 (type-genus Schizostoma Bronn, [1834)) ; (e) HORIOSTOMATIDAE Koken, 1897 (type-genus Horiostoma Fischer, 1885). 340 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CRABRO BICINCTUS ROSSI, 1794 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA) ; PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1440 By J. van der Vecht (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to preserve the specific name bicinctus Rossi, 1794, as published in the combination Crabro bicinctus. The details of the case are set out below. 2. The species Crabro bicinctus, described and figured by Rossi, 1794 (Mant. Insect. 2, Appendix : 123, pl. 7, fig. 0) was transferred to the genus Gorytes Latreille by van der Linden, 1829 (Nouv. Mém. Acad. Sci. Bruxelles 5 : 93, no. 7). It has been treated under the specific name bicinctus by all subse- quent authors (35 references in the period 1829-1937, according to Maid] and Klima in Cat. Hymenopt. by H. Hedicke, 8, 1939), either as a species of Gorytes Latreille, 1804, or as one of Lestiphorus Lepeletier, 1832.1 It may be noted that Crabro bicinctus Rossi is the type-species, by monotypy, of Lestiphorus Lepeletier, 1832 (Ann. Soc. ent. France 1 : 56a, 70), a group which is regarded as a separate genus by some authors and as a subgenus of Gorytes by others. 3. Up to the present none of the hymenopterists who have discussed this species, have realized that Crabro bicinctus Rossi, 1794, is an invalid, junior, primary homonym of Crabro bicinctus Fabricius, 1793 (Ent. syst. 2 : 299, no. 21). This appears to be due to the fact that Crabro bicinctus Rossi has nearly always been dated as from 1792. In the Catalogus Hymenopterorum of Dalla Torre (1897, 8 : 537), for example, we find the reference : “‘ Faun. Etrusca 1792 App. p- 123 n. 110” and in that of Hedicke (1939, F. Maidl and A. Klima, 8 : 104) : “ Mant. Ins. v. 2 App. p. 123 t.6 f. 9, 1792”. The only correct reference which I have found is that in Sherborn’s Index Animalium (1) (1902) : 114. 4. Crabro bicinctus Fabricius, 1793, described from Denmark, was placed in the synonymy of Ceropales spinosa Fabricius, 1804, by its author (1804, Syst. Piez. : 186), and has been regarded ever since as a synonym of Nysson spinosus (Forster, 1771). Actually, however, it is not a synonym of this Nysson, but of Argogorytes mystaceus (Linnaeus, 1761), as I ascertained by examination of the type in the collection of Fabricius. This type is a well- preserved specimen, which agrees in all respects with the typical form of Argogorytes mystaceus (Linnaeus) and we may therefore conclude that the name Crabro bicinctus Fabricius is entirely superfluous. 5. It appears highly undesirable that such a valueless and never used name as Crabro bicinctus Fabricius, 1793, should invalidate the name Crabro bicinctus Rossi, 1794, which has been the exclusive name for a palaearctic a — 1 Maidl and Klima (Joc. cit. : 105) list two American species as synonyms of L. bicinctus Rossi, but they overlooked the fact that Pate to whom they ascribe this synonymy, called these species congeneric, not conspecific (see Pate, 1946, Canad. Ent. 17 : 211). Bull. zool. Nomencel., Vol. 18, Part 5. November, 1961. yy ee eee Se 0 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 341 wasp for over 150 years, and which is, moreover, the type-species of a genus or subgenus. It is to prevent the rejection of the specific name bicinctus Rossi that this case is now submitted to the International Commission under the procedure prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology. 6. The action which the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is asked to take is :— (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name bicinctus Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Crabro bicinctus for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the generic name Lestiphorus Lepeletier, 1832 (gender : mascu- line), type-species, by monotypy, Crabro bicinctus Rossi, 1794, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name bicinctus Rossi, 1794, as published in the binomen Crabro bicinctus (type-species of Lestiphorus Lepeletier, 1832) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the specific name bicinctus Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Crabro bicinctus (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. As the genus Lestiphorus Lepeletier, 1832, is currently referred to the family SPHECIDAE (subfam. NYSSONINAE, tribe GORYTINI), no action is required on the family-group name level. 342 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PAMERA SAY, 1831; PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS AND ADDITION OF RHYPAROCHROMUS HAHN, 1826, AND MEGALONOTUS FIEBER, [1860] TO THE OFFICIAL LIST. (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 1469 By James A. Slater (Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Conn., U.S.A.) and W. E. China (British Musewm (Natural History), London) The generic name Pachymerus was first used in the family LYGAEIDAE by Lepeletier & Serville in 1825 (Ency. méth. 10(1) : 322) to contain the following species : Lygaeus echii Panzer, Cimex rolandri Linnaeus, Lygaeus quadratus Fabricius, Cimea pini Linnaeus, Lygaeus urticae Fabricius and Cimex abietis Linnaeus. Unfortunately the name Pachymerus had been previously used by Thunberg (1805, Goett. gelehrte Anz.: 282) in the Coleoptera. Pachymerus Lepeletier & Serville is therefore clearly a junior homonym. This homonymy has been recognized by many authors, but the question of the correct replace- ment name has still not yet been settled. 2. As noted by China (1943, Gen. Names Brit. Ins. (8) Heteroptera : 242) the type-species of Pachymerus Lepeletier & Serville was first fixed by Blanchard (1838, in Cuvier’s Régne Anim. (Disc. ed. 14) Atlas 2: pl. 90, fig. 5) as Pachymerus rolanderi (sic) (Linnaeus). Say (1831, Deser. n. sp. Het. Hemipt. N. Amer., New Harmony, Indiana : 15) definitely proposed Pamera as a new name for Pachymera (sic). China (1943, loc. cit.) believed that Pamera Say, 1831, was preoccupied by Pamera Berthold (1827, in Latreille, Nat. Fam. Thierr. : 398) in the Coleoptera, and consequently used the next available name Aphanus Laporte (1833, Essai Class. syst. Hémipt., Mag. Zool. 2, Suppl. : 35). But Pamera Berthold was only listed with a number of other names followed by a single description and is therefore a nomen nudum. This makes Pamera Say available for use and it actually antedates Aphanus Laporte, which as shown in Direction 63 I.C.Z.N. page 27 was published in 1833. As a replacement name Pamera Say takes the same type-species as Pachymerus Lepeletier & Serville, that is Cimex rolandri Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 448). 3. China also believed that Aphanus Laporte was a replacement name for Pachymerus Lepeletier & Serville and consequently regarded the type-species as the same as that of Pachymerus, viz., Cimex rolandri. Careful examination of Laporte’s Essai shows that Aphanus was actually proposed as a new genus for part of Pachymerus Lepeletier & Serville. In any case, according to the redefinition of Article 30, Rule (g) in the Copenhagen Decisions, 1957 (: 71), it is necessary for an author to state expressly that the generic name which he is publishing is a substitute name for some specified generic name of earlier date. Laporte’s citation of Pachymerus Lepeletier & Serville, 1825, as a synonym of his name Aphanus is not sufficient to establish it as a replacement name for Pachymerus. China was wrong, therefore, in regarding the type- species of Aphanus Laporte as Cimex rolandri Linnaeus, 1758, on this basis. Nevertheless Cimex rolandri is the type-species of Aphanus Laporte by subse- Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 5. November, 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 343 quent designation by Kirkaldy (1900, Entomologist 33 (448) : 241). Distant’s designation of Lygaeus pedestris Panzer as type-species of Aphanus Laporte (1903, Fauna brit. Ind., Rhyn. 2 : 79) is invalid. Pamera Say was, thus, the first valid replacement name for Pachymerus Lepeletier & Serville, 1825. Amyctus Gistl, 1848 (Nat. Thierr. : x) was also published as a new name for Pachymerus and also takes Cimex rolandri Linnaeus as its type-species. 4. In 1865, Douglas & Scott (Brit. Hemipt. 1 : 471) established the nominal genus Calyptonotus for Rhyparochromus sensu Fieber, 1860. The type-species of Calyptonotus was designated by Kirkaldy (1900, Entomologist 33 : 241) as Cimex rolandri Linnaeus. There are thus four nominal genera all with the same type-species, all of which are available as a replacement name for Pachy- merus Lepeletier & Serville. Placed in order of seniority they are Pamera Say, 1831 ; Aphanus Laporte, 1833 ; Amyctus Gistl, 1848 ; and Calyptonotus Douglas & Scott, 1865. 5. Under the Rules the correct replacement name for Pachymerus Lepeletier & Serville, is Pamera Say. But this name was used for many years in the Lygaeid tribe MYODOCHINI in the sense of the taxon currently known as Pachybrachius Hahn, 1826. There are approximately 60 specific names that have been used associated with Pamera in the sense of Pachybrachius Hahn, whereas Pamera has never been used in the sense of Cimex rolandri Linnaeus. To use it so now would be to create confusion in the nomenclature. The next available name Aphanus Laporte, 1833, although it has been used extensively in the sense of Distant’s invalid type-designation Lygaeus pedestris Panzer (=alboacuminatus Goeze) has acquired current usage since China’s 1943 paper, and consequently any suppression of Aphanus Laporte now would create considerable confusion. Amyctus Gistl, 1848, has scarcely been used since it was first proposed, and Calyptonotus Douglas & Scott is regarded by current usage as an objective synonym of Aphanus Laporte. 6. There has been considerable confusion over the family-group names associated with the genus Pachymerus and its replacement names. PACHY- MERIDAE was used by Uhler, 1860 (Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1859 : 227) to cover not only RHYPAROCHROMINAE but members of other subfamilies, and in the same year by Baerensprung as PACHYMERIDES (Berlin Ent. Zeit. 4:9). PACHYMERINI was next used by Puton in 1878 in his Cat. pal. Hemipt. (ed. 2) : 33, and again in his Synops. Hémipt.-Hétérop. France (Mém. Soc. Sci. agr. Lille (4)6 : 280, 309-310 ; 1879) in the modern sense. In 1887, Puton (Rev. d’Ent. 6 : 96-105) corrected PACHYMERINI to APHANINI. Saunders, 1892 (Hem. Het. Br. Isles : 79-81) continued to use PACHYMERINA for the subfamily. Lethierry & Severin, 1894 (Cat. Gén. Hémipt. 2 : 188) used APHANIDAE for the subfamily and this has been regarded by catalogues such as Oshanin, 1912, and Van Duzee, 1917, as the original use of this name for the group. Both PACHYMERINAE and APHANINAE are invalid as family-group names since they are both subjective synonyms of RHYPAROCHROMINAE Amyot & Serville, 1843. 7. China, 1943, believed that Rhyparochromus Curtis, 1836, type-species Lygaeus chiragra Fabricius, 1794 (Hnt. Syst. 4 : 168), was a different nominal genus from Rhyparochromus Hahn, 1826 (type by monotypy, Cimex pini Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)1 : 448), overlooking the fact that Curtis 344 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature had previously, 1831, used the nominal genus Rhyparochromus in his Guide to an Arrangement of British Insects (7) : 199, to include both Cimex pint and Lygaeus chiragra. Although Curtis cited Lygaeus chiragra as the type-species of Rhyparochromus in his British Entomology in 1836, it now seems obvious that Curtis did not intend to regard his Rhyparochromus as a genus distinct from Rhyparochromus Hahn, 1826. 8. In 1957, Slater (Bull. Brooklyn Ent. Soc. 52 : 35) pointed out that the family-group names RHYPAROCHROMINAE and RHYPAROCHROMINI were being used in the sense of Rhyparochromus Curtis as applied by China, 1943, instead of in the sense of Rhyparochromus Hahn, 1826 (Icones Mon. Cimicum : fasc. 1). He pointed out that, according to the Rules, in the case of family-group names based on homonyms the valid name was to be based on the next available name for the type-genus. In this case the valid name was Megalonotus Fieber, [1860] (1861, Hurop. Hemipt. : 181), type-species, by designation by China (1941, Proc. roy. ent. Soc. Lond. (By 10 : 130), Lygaeus chiragra Fabricius. He therefore proposed that the names MEGALONOTINAE and MEGALONOTINI should be used for the family-group concerned. However, since Rhyparochromus Curtis is a synonym of Rhyparochromus Hahn there is no question of hoonymy and consequently no need to use the group name MEGALONOTINAE. But there are two distinct tribes concerned, one based on Lygaeus chiragra Fabricius, and one on Cimex pini Linnaeus. As Rhyparochromus Hahn is based on Cimex pini Linnaeus, this tribe must take the name RHYPAROCHROMINI, while that based on Lygaeus chiragra Fabricius must take the name MEGALONOTINI. 9. In order to stabilize the nomenclature of the family-groups and genera involved the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked to take the following action :— (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Pamera Say, 1831, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Aphanus Laporte, 1833 (gender: masculine), type-species, by subsequent designation by Kirkaldy, 1900, Cimex rolandri, Linnaeus, 1758 ; (b) Rhyparochromus Hahn, 1826 (gender : masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Cimex pini Linnaeus, 1758 ; (c) Megalonotus Fieber, [1860] (gender : masculine), type-species, by subsequent designation by China, 1941, Lygaeus chiragra Fabricius, 1794 ; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) rolandri Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cimex rolandri (type-species of Aphanus Laporte, 1833) ; (b) pint Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cimex pint (type-species of Rhyparochromus Hahn, 1826) ; (c) chiragra Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Lygaeus chiragra (type-species of Megalonotus Fieber, [1860)) ; —————————— se Cl ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 345 (4) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Pamera Say, 1831, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above ; (b) Amyctus Gistl, 1848, a junior objective synonym of Aphanus Laporte, 1833 ; (c) Calyptonotus Douglas & Scott, 1865, a junior objective synonym of Aphanus Laporte, 1833 ; (d) Pachymerus Lepeletier & Serville, 1825, a junior homonym of Pachymerus Thunberg, 1805 ; (5) to place the following family-group names on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology : (a) RHYPAROCHROMINAE Amyot & Serville, 1843 (Hist. nat. Ins., Hémipt. : 251) (type-genus Rhyparochromus Hahn, 1826) ; (b) MEGALONOTINI Slater, 1957 (type-genus Megalonotus Fieber, [1860]) ; (6) to place the following family-group names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology : (a) RHYPAROCHROMIDES Amyot & Serville, 1843 (type-genus Rhyparo- chromus Hahn, 1826) (an incorrect original spelling for RHYPAROCHROMINAE) ; *; (b) RHYPAROCHROMIDA Stal, 1862 Ofvers. K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Forhandl. 1862 : 213) (type-genus Rhyparochromus Hahn, 1826) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for RHyYPAROCHROMINAE; (c) RHYPAROCHROMINA Stal, 1870 (type-genus Rhyparochromus Hahn, 1826) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for RHYPAROCHROMINAE) ; (d) PACHYMERIDES Baerensprung, 1860 (type-genus Pachymerus Lepeletier & Serville, 1825) (invalid because the type-genus is a junior homonym) ; (e) APHANIDAE Lethierry & Severin, 1894 (type-genus Aphanus auct. sensu Lygaeus pedestris Panzer, 1805) (invalid because based on a misidentified type-genus). 346 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature BLISSUS BURMEISTER, 1835 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA) : PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1471 By James A. Slater (University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, U.S.A.) and W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London) The lygaeid genus Blissus was established by Burmeister in 1835 (Handb. Entom. 2: 290) for a single species, Blissus hirtulus, from “‘ Marabut in Habissinia ”’, actual locality Egypt fide Bergroth, 1915, Wien. ent. Zeit. 35 : 217. There has been some confusion as to the correct authorship of this genus and species, some workers giving Klug, some Burmeister, and some Klug & Burmeister. Burmeister referred them both to Klug, citing ‘“‘ Klug, Symbol. physic. etc. dec. V. tab. 43, fig. 10”. Although this work, which commenced in 1828, was in course of publication when Burmeister referred to it, the fifth part of the Insect volume (Ins. decas V) was not published until 1845 [see Woodward in Cat. Library Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.) 2: 515]. Sherborn, Index Animalium 1801-1850, gives Klug as the author of Blissus, but Neave, Zool. Nomencl., gives Burmeister. It is probable that Burmeister was making use of Klug’s unpublished figure (tab. 43, fig. 10) and the fact that he referred the genus and species to Klug appears to indicate Klug’s authorship. But the Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature : 58-59, para. 103(2), definitely states that when a name is published by one author but is attributed by him to another person, then “ that other person can only be regarded as the author of the name if the publishing author gives a clear indication that the name in question was not only proposed by this extraneous author but that the indication, definition or description [on which the availability of the name in question depends] was not written by the author of the book or paper concerned but by the author to whom the name is attributed ”. In the present case there is no evidence that Klug prepared the description even though Burmeister, as noted above, was aware of Klug’s figure. Klug himself in 1845 attributed Blissus hirtulus to Burmeister. 2. Since that time a considerable number of species of generally short, thick bodied, black and white marked blissinids have been assigned to the genus. Several of these are of some economic importance, in particular the “chinch bug” (Blissus leucopterus Say, 1832, N. sp. Het. Hemipt. N. Amer. : 14) of the mid-Western United States which is one of the most serious insect pests attacking corn (Zea mays). 3. Recent taxonomic work on the subfamily BLISSINAE indicates that the species currently placed in the genus Blissus are extremely varied and most importantly that the type-species of the genus B. hirtulus Burmeister, from N. Africa, is almost certainly not congeneric with the American species currently placed in Blissus. While it seems certain that considerable systematic change will take place in this complex for some time to come, it is very unlikely that the Western Hemisphere ‘‘ Chinch Bugs ”’ can ever be retained in the same genus as the type-species Blissus hirtulus. 4. The consequent loss of the name Blissus for the economic species in Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 5. November, 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 347 N. America would be very serious since a vast literature has grown up around the Chinch Bug, Blissus leucopterus, involving not only its economic importance but fundamental papers on physiology, ecology, disease relationships, etc. The Commission is therefore requested to use its plenary powers to designate Lygaeus leucopterus Say as the type-species of Blissus Burmeister in place of Blissus hirtulus Burmeister, type-species by monotypy. The effect of favourable action on the above request would be as follows :— (a) Retention of the generic name Blissus for the American economic species Blissus leucopterus Say and related important species such as Blissus hirtus Montandon, the “ Hairy Chinch Bug ”’, Blissus insularis Barber, the “ Florida Chinch Bug’”’, and Blissus occiduus Barber, the ‘‘ Western Chinch Bug ’’, all of which are species of very considerable economic importance although less so than Blissus leucopterus. (b) Several species in the Eastern Hemisphere, now placed in Blissus, will have to receive other generic names. Some of these, such as Blissus diplopterus Distant, a South African wheat pest and Blissus gibbus Fabricius, an Indian sugar cane pest, are of some economic importance. However none approach the importance of the Western Hemisphere species and, what is of considerably more importance, are probably not congeneric with Blissus hirtulus, the type-species. 5. It is obvious that some change of name is inevitable and it is believed that favourable action by the Commission to fix leucopterus as type- species of Blissus, in place of hirtulus Burmeister, will result in the least confusion. There appear to be several generic names in the synonymy of Blissus which are available for some, at least, of the generic taxa represented currently in Blissus, for example: Geoblissus Hidaka, Esmun Distant and Euhemerus Distant. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked :— (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Blissus Burmeister, 1835, made prior to the Ruling now requested and, having done so to designate Lygaeus leucopterus Say, 1832 to be the type-species of that genus ; (2) to place the generic name Blissus Burmeister, 1835 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Lygaeus leucopterus Say, 1832, 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) leucopterus Say, 1832, as published in the binomen Lygaeus leucopterus (type-species of Blissus Burmeister, 1835) ; (b) hirtulus Burmeister, 1835, as published in the binomen Blissus hirtulus ; (4) to place the family-group name BLISSINAE (correction of BLISSIDA) Stal, 1862 (Ofv. K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Forhandl. 1862 : 210, 212) (type-genus Blissus Burmeister, 1835) on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology ; 348 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (5) to place the family-group name BLissipa Stal, 1862 (type-genus Blissus Burmeister, 1835) (an incorrect original spelling for BLISSINAE) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF TESTU DO TERREST RIS FERMIN, 1765 (REPTILIA). Z.N.(S.) 1459 (see this volume, pages 211-213) By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, N etherlands) In their application for the suppression of certain specific names of turtles Mertens & Wermuth (1961, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18(3) : 211-213) request the use of the plenary powers to suppress the specific name terrestris Fermin, 1765 (Hist. nat. Hollande équinox. : 51) as published in the combination T'estudo terrestris. However, there is no need here for the plenary powers as Testudo terrestris Fermin, 1765, is an unavailable name, being published in a book, the author of which does not consistently apply the principles of binominal nomenclature. For many of the species Fermin used a single name like on p. 121: “‘ Mouches, en Latin Musca ”’, often he used binomina “ Gryllus aquaticus”, ‘‘ Gryllus domesticus”? (p. 118) “‘ Gallina domestica”, “ Gallina sylvatica” (p. 96), but polynomina are no exception “ Serpens ex rubro, albo & nigro (p. 42) ‘‘ Cercopithecus Cinereus Cirratus capite nigro”’ (p. 44), “‘ Tigre en Latin Felis flavescens, maculis nigris orbiculatis, quibusdam rosam referentibus, variegatd (pp. 45, 46), “‘ Testudo marina major” (p. 47). Therefore par. 8(2) of the proposal can be dropped, while at the same time it might by good if the book by Philippe Fermin “‘ Histoire naturelle de la Hollande equinoxiale : ou Déscription des animaux, plantes, fruits, et autres curiosités naturelles, qui se trouvent dans la colonie de Surinam ; avec Leurs Noms différents, tant Francois, que Latins, Hollandois, Indiens & Négre-Anglois ”’, pp. i-xii, 1-240 (Amsterdam, 1765) be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature. oe a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 349 HETEROGASTRINAE STAL, 1872 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA): PRO- POSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1474 By James A. Slater (Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Conn., U.S.A.) and W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London) The taxon currently known as the subfamily HETEROGASTRINAE of the family LYGAEIDAE was first established by Stal, 1862 (Ofvers. K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Forhandl. 1862: 211) under the name pHygapicipa. It was subsequently used by Douglas & Scott, 1865 (Brit. Hemipt. 1 (Heteropt.) : 21, 221 ; List Brit. Hemipt. : 8) and 1876 (Cat. Brit. Hemipt. : 19) as PHYGADICIDAE and by Walker, 1872 (Cat. Hemipt. Brit. Mus. 5 : 26) as PHYGADICIDA. 2. The generic name Phygadicus Fieber, 1851 (Abh. Kénigl.-béhm. Ges. Wiss. (5)7 : 461) was proposed as a replacement name for Phygas Fieber, 1837 (Beitr. Ges. Natur. Heilwiss. 1 : 348) a junior homonym of Phygas Treitschke, 1833. Phygas Fieber was itself proposed as a replacement name for Heterogaster Schilling, 1829 (Uebers. Arb. Verdnder. schles. Ges. vaterl. Cultur, Beitr. Entom. 1 : 37, 84) which was apparently erroneously presumed to be preoccupied by Heterogaster Dejean, 1835. Curtis, 1836 (Brit. Ent. 13 : pl. 597) designated Cimex urticae Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 231) as the type-species of Heterogaster Schilling, 1829. 3. Stal, 1872 (Ofvers. K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Férhandl. 1872: 40, 62) first proposed the name HETEROGASTRINI for the family-group taxon referred to in paragraph 1 and, with the exception of the Douglas & Scott (1876) usage of PHYGADICIDAE, this name has been consistently used since that date. 4. It seems highly undesirable to lose the use of a family-group name that has been in constant use for 89 years and therefore we ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following family-group names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy :— (a) PHYGADIcIDA Stal, 1862 ; (b) PHYGADICIDAE Douglas & Scott, 1865 ; (c) PHyGapic1pA Walker, 1872 ; (2) to place the generic name Heterogaster Schilling, 1829 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation by Curtis, 1836, Cimex urticae Fabricius, 1775, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name wrticae Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Cimex urticae (type-species of Heterogaster, Schilling, 1829) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (4) to place the family-group name HETEROGASTRINAE (correction of HETEROGASTRINI) Stal, 1872 (type-genus Heterogaster Schilling, 1829) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ; (5) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— Bull. zool. Nomencel., Vol. 18, Part 5. November, 1961. 350 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (a) Phygas Fieber, 1837 (a junior homonym of Phygas Treitschke, 1833, and a junior objective synonym of Heterogaster Schilling, 1829) ; (b) Phygadicus Fieber, 1851 (a junior objective synonym of Hetero- gaster Schilling, 1829) ; (6) to place the following family-group names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :— (a) the following names suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above : (i) PHY@aDIcIDA Stal, 1862 ; (ii) PHYGADICIDAE Douglas & Scott, 1865 ; (iii) PHYGADICIDA Walker, 1872 ; (b) HETEROGASTRINI StAl, 1872 (an incorrect original spelling for HETEROGASTRINAE) ; (b) PHYGADICIDAE Douglas & Scott, 1876 (a junior objective synonym of HETEROGASTRINAE Stal, 1872). AMENDMENT TO THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF SILO CURTIS, 1833 (INSECTA, TRICHOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 1455 (see this volume, pages 157-158) By D. E. Kimmins (British Museum (Natural History), London) My attention has been drawn to the fact that in Opinion 488, Curtis, 1837, Guide Arrang. Brit. Ins. (ed. 2) is not to be considered as fixing the type-species of the genera mentioned therein. It will therefore be necessary to amend my application concerning Silo Curtis, although the final result will not be affected. Paragraph 4 should be replaced by the following : “‘ In 1839, Westwood (Introd. mod. Classif. Ins., Gen. Synops. : 50) cites Phryganea pallipes Fabricius as the type-species of the genus Silo Curtis”. Paragraph 5, lines 11-12 should be changed to “‘ (by designation of Westwood, 1839, Introd. mod. Classif. Ins., Gen. Synops. : 50)”. Paragraph 7(2). Change designation to “ Westwood, 1839”. COMMENT By H. H. Ross (State Natural History Survey Division, Urbana, U.S.A.) Mr. Kimmins has outlined the situation well and clearly and I would like to support, whole- heartedly, the request he has made for the suppression of the generic name Silo Curtis, 30. a ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 351 SCOLOPOSTETHUS FIEBER, [1860] (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA) : PRO- POSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1475 By James A. Slater (Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Conn., U.S.A.) and W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London) The genus T'ritomacera was established in 1841 by Costa (Ann. Soc. ent. France (1)10 : 296-297) with Tritomacera aphanoides n. sp. as the type by monotypy. ‘The original description mentions only three antennal segments as being present, a condition unknown except as an abnormality then or now in the family LyGaEImDAE. The position of the genus was questioned by various authors in subsequent years. Stal, 1872 (Ofvers. K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Foérhandl. 1872 (7) : 62) listed it as a probable synonym of Scolopostethus Fieber, [1860] (Europ. Hemipt.: 49, 188). Distant, (1904, Fauna Brit. Ind., Rhynch. 2 : 92) listed T'ritomacera as a synonym of Scolopostethus and designated Scolopostethus cognatus Fieber, [1860] as type of the latter genus. 2. Torre Bueno, 1917 (Ent. News, Philadelphia, 28 : 67) believed that Tritomacera was founded on specimens of Scolopostethus exhibiting antennal oligomery. Such oligomery is of very frequent occurrence in several species of Scolopostethus and Torre Bueno is almost certainly correct in his belief. Oshanin (1906, 1912) and China (1943) place Tritomacera as a questionable synonym of Scolopostethus. 3. Since T'ritomacera Costa, 1841, antedates Scolopostethus Fieber, [1860], by 19 years it appears that under the rules the former name must be used for the taxon currently known under the name Scolopostethus. However, T'rito- macera has never been used for this taxon which now contains 21 species, several of them very common and possessing an extensive literature. There is moreover an emendation of T'ritomacera which is older than Scolopostethus, namely, T'ritomocera, published by Agassiz in 1846 (Nomen. zool. Index. univ. : 376) and in 1848 (another edition of the same work : 1092). 4, In order to preserve the current use of the name Scolopostethus, it therefore seems necessary to ask the International Commission :— (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy :— (a) the generic name T'ritomacera Costa, 1841 ; (b) the generic name T'ritomocera Agassiz, 1846 ; (c) the generic name T'ritomocera Agassiz, 1848; (d) the specific name aphanoides Costa, 1841, as published in the binomen T'ritomacera aphanoides ; (2) to place the generic name Scolopostethus Fieber, [1860] (gender : mascu- line), type-species, by designation by Distant, 1904, Scolopostethus cognatus Fieber, [1860], on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoo- logy ; Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 5. November, 1961. 352 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (3) to place the specific name cognatus Fieber, [1860], as published in the binomen Scolopostethus cognatus (type-species of Scolopostethus Fieber, [1860]) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the following generic names, suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Tritomacera Costa, 1841 ; (b) T'ritomocera Agassiz, 1846 ; (c) Tritomocera Agassiz, 1848 ; (5) to place the specific name aphanoides Costa, 1841, as published in the binomen T'ritomacera aphanoides (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSALS CONCERNING APHIS LINNAEUS, 1758 (see this volume, pages 177-180) By Frej Ossiannilsson (Kungl. Lantbrukshégskolan, Institutionen for Vaxtsjukdomslara, Uppsala, Sweden) It is of course important that the question of the type-species of the large genus Aphis be definitely settled as soon as possible. I agree with Hottes and Stroyan in their point of view. The spelling aPHTDIDAE is preferable to APHIDAE also because confusion with aPrDAE is less likely with the former alternative. I therefore think that the present application should be accepted. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE A TYPE-SPECIES FOR THE GENUS NEMOURA LATREILLE, 1796. Z.N.(S.) 1452 (see this volume, pages 155-156) By W. E. Ricker (Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C., Canada) I agree completely with Mr. Kimmins that it is desirable to fix the usage of Nemoura Latreille in the manner he proposes. I presume that agreeing with his proposal (4) on page 156 does not constitute an endorsement of familial rank for TAENIOPTERYGIDAE Klapalek, which I prefer to regard as a subfamily. 4 EeDEC 1961 Wp ry = 71 caf tao — ‘ ws INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Trust Chairman : The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. Managing Director: Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A. Scientific Controller: W. E. China, C.B.E., Sc.D. Scientfic Assistant : Margaret Spillane. B. The Members of the Trust Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. Prof. Dr. R. Sparek Dr. N. R. Stoll Mr. C. W. Wright Dr. G. F. de Witte CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) Decisions of the Commission Opinion 611 (Parapenaeus Smith, 1885) Opinion 612 (Jasus Parker, 1883) New Applications Dermacentor andersoni Stiles, 1908 (Acarina) ; Proposed validation under the plenary powers. Revision of Opinion 78 (Cornelius B. Philip and Glen M. Kohls) An alternative proposal to the suggested validation of M yelophilus Eichhoff, 1878 (Insecta, Coleoptera) (Stephen L. Wood) Lebbeus White, 1847, and Hualus Thallwitz, 1892 (Crustacea, Decapoda) ; Proposed validation under the plenary powers (L. B. Holthuis) si yen ah ae Jousseaumia Sacco, 1894 (Gastropoda) ; ‘Proposed emendation under the plenary powers to Jousseaumea (L. B. Holthuis) ... ; Notonecta striata Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Hemiptera) ; Designation of a neotype (T. T. Macan) ‘ Blatta transfuga Brimnich, 1763 (Insecta, Dictyoptera) ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (D. K. McE. Kevan) bys Xenostegium Walcott, 1924 (Trilobita) ; Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers (R. J. Ross) .. Acropora Oken, 1815 (Anthozoa, Madreporaria) ; Proposed ‘valida- tion under the plenary powers (H. Boschma) ; Ceratostoma Herrmannsen, 1846 (Gastropoda) ; Proposed. addition to the Official List of Generic Names (Clarence A. Hall, Jr.)... Four Gastropod Family-Group Names; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (the late J. Brookes Knight, Roger J. Batten and Ellis L. Yochelson)... 5 Crabro bicinctus Rossi, 1794 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) ; Proposed validation under the plenary powers (J. van der Vecht) Page 306 312 316 319 322 CONTENTS (continued from inside back wrapper) New Applications (continued) Pamera Say, 1831 (Insecta, Hemiptera) ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers and addition of Rhyparochromus Hahn, 1826, and Megalonotus Fieber, [1860], to the Official List (J ames A. Slater and W. E. China)... Blissus Burmeister, 1835 (Insecta, Hemiptera) : ; Proposed designa- tion of a type-species under the plenary powers Gamer, A. Slater and W. E. China) HETEROGASTRINAE Stal, 1872 (Insécta, Hemiptera) ; Proposed validation under the plenary powers (James A. Slater and W. E. China) “ Lae Bi ane ths ps ee Scolopostethus Fieber, [1860] (Insecta, Hemiptera); Proposed validation under the pores a (James A. Slater and W. E. China) ; ue Comments Comments on the Report on C. W. Sabrosky’s proposed suppression of Meigen’s “ Nouvelle Classification ”, 1800 (J. R. Vockeroth ; H. H. Ross) i Comments onthe proposal to place the generic n name Gari Schumacher, 1817, on the Official List unamended (H. A. Rehder ; J. P. E. Morrison; Ernst Mayr; S. W. Muller; R. Stohler; L. G. Hertein; K. J. Boss; R. D. Turner ; M. Keen ; K. V. W. Palmer ; R. T. Abbott ; R. Robertson ; KX. L. Edwards et al.; H: Lemche ; J. Rosewater ; L. R. Cox)... Amendment to the proposal to suppress the generic - name , Cerastes Laurenti, 1768 (W. E. China) . Comments on the proposal to suppress Doralis Leach, 1827 (H. Li; G. Stroyan, L. M. Russell, F. Ossiannilsson) ; Comments on the proposed validation of Trombidium akamushi Brumpt, 1910 (R. Domrow ; T. Uchida) : Comment on alternative proposal to the suggested validation of Myelophilus Kichhoff, 1878 (W. E. China) Amendment to the proposal to validate Cicadella Latreille, 1817 (W. E. China, F. Ossiannilsson) ... Einspruch gegen die vorgeschlagene Fixierung des Generotypus fiir Pterophorus Schaetier, 1766 (E. M. Hering) .. Comment on the proposed suppression of Testudo terr estris Fermin, 1765 (L. B. Holthuis) Me Amendment to the proposed validation of Silo Curtis, 1833 (D. E. Kimmins, H. H. Ross) Comment on the proposals concerning Aphis Linnaeus, 1758 (F. Ossiannilsson) Comment on the proposal to designate a type- species for ‘Nemoura Latreille, 1796 (W. E. Ricker) 3 sah © 1961. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by METCALFE & CooreR LiMiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC2 Page 342 346 349 351 297 315 311 318 321 327 333 4 “— e -a = lS. ee eee Volume 18. Part 6. 17th November, 1961 pp. 353-414, T.P.-XIT 1 pl. _ THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL 4 NOMENCLATURE é wf . vi, ; PY px The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 9 ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ce a CONTENTS i Page Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : ‘a Date of commencement by the International Commission on a Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications ae a in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ee ro ae a Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on e Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 353 (continued inside back wrapper) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoologieal 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 1961 me Price Three Pounds | =8DEc 1961 (All rights resroed) FSi ka * bn o > Pirpcnasen ( Sol iep tatay 1 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ; A. The Officers of the Commission President: Professor James Chester BrapLEy (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. Ritny (British Musewm (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) Assistant Secretary: Dr. W. E. Curna (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell 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 Amanat (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12 August 1953) (Vice-President) 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. Stoxz (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y¥., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) ae B. Hoxituuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12 August ) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15 October 1954) Dr. Alden H. Miter (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (29 October 1954) Pee oe Ferdinand Pranti (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30 October D4) Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kitunetr (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6 November 1954) Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4 December 1954) —— Enrico TorRTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ““G. Doria’, Genova, Italy) (16 December 54) Dr. Per. Brrnck (Lunds Universitets, Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958) Dr. Max Pott (Musée Royal de l Afrique Centrale, Tervuren, Belgiwm) (12 July 1958) Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (23 July 1958) Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (23 July 1958) Dr. Henning Lemcne (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riey (British Museum (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 Herrya (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (23 July 1958) Dr. D. V. Osrucney (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-71, USSR) (5 November 1958) Professor Tohru Ucuipa (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March 1959) Professor Dr. Rafael Atvarapo (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) (31 May 1960) Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), London) (31 May 1960) Dr. E. G. Munrok (Canadian Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) (6 June 1961) BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 18, Part 6 (pp. 353-414, T.P.-XIT) 17th November, 1961 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 Solidula Fischer von Waldheim, 1807 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 581 (2) Validation of the generic name Naucoris Geoffroy, 1762 (Insecta, Hemiptera). Z.N.(S.) 608 (3) Suppression of certain unidentifiable specific names in the family Tetrigidae (Insecta, Orthoptera). Z.N.(S.) 673 (4) Validation of the generic name Ceratosolen Mayr, 1885 (Insecta, Hymen- optera). Z.N.(S.) 1479 c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary London, 8.W.7, England. International Commission on 15 September 1961. Zoological Nomenclature The new edition of THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE was published on 6th November, 1961 Bound copies price £1 0s. Od. each, post free, can be obtained on application to the Pusiications OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TRUST FoR ZooLocicaL NoMENCLATURE, 19 BELGRAVE SQUARE, LONDON, 8.W.1. Applications should be accompanied by the appropriate remittance 354 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAME CERASTES LAURENTI, 1768. Z.N.(S.) 724 (see this volume, pages 170-171 and 315) By Robert Mertens (Natur-Musewm und Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main, Germany) I do agree with the proposed suppression of the generic name Cerastes Laurenti, 1768, as proposed by Schmidt, Pope & Loveridge, for this name has been used during the last decades in quite different meanings, caused by the unsuitable designation by Fejérvary, 1923 (Zool. Anz. 56 : 173) of Coluber rhombeatus Linnaeus, 1758, as type-species of the genus. The correct generic name for the two species of opisthoglyph snakes from south and east Africa (rhombeatus Linnaeus, 1758, and tritaeniatus Giinther, 1868) would be Psammophylax Fitzinger, 1843, if Cerastes Laurenti, 1768, is suppressed. 2. On the other hand it is undesirable to place the consonant name Cerastes Wagler, 1830, with Coluber cerastes Linnaeus, 1758, as type-species on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The designation of a type-species for the genus Cerastes Laurenti by Fejérvary, 1923, is an action too long established ; so the use of the name Cerastes Laurenti instead of Psammo- phylax Fitzinger, 1843 (or Trimerorhinus Smith, 1847) is to be found in a considerable number of publications. Under these circumstances a further use of the name Cerastes in quite another sense would only bring us into a situation of permanent confusion. 3. Just as little is it possible to agree with the proposal to place the generic name Aspis Laurenti, 1768, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. By the designation of Aspis cleopatrae Laurenti, 1768, as type-species of Aspis by Stejneger, 1936 (Copeia : 141), Aspis ranks univocally as the oldest generic name for the two species of sandvipers from North Africa and Arabia. Their correct names are Aspis cerastes (Linnaeus, 1758) and Aspis vipera (Linnaeus, 1758). There is no danger that the use of these names might cause any confusion, especially as they are already introduced into the literature; they are well- known in medical science too, especially by the very recent and surely standard checklist by Klemmer (Behringwerk-Mitteilungen, 1961) of all the four families of poisonous snakes. (4) Under these circumstances I only support items (1)(a) and (3)(a) of the proposals by Schmidt, Pope & Loveridge, i.e. the suppression of the generic name Cerastes Laurenti, 1768. The other proposals, i.e. items (1)(b) and (3)(b), concerning Aspis Laurenti, 1768, as well as items (2) and (4) concerning Cerastes Wagler, 1830, should be refused in the interests of stability and continuity of Zoological Nomenclature. By Myra Keen (Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.) Concerning the problem of Cerastes, I wish to protest, not against the effect of the proposed action but the principle involved. Were Cerastes Laurenti, 1768, suppressed in favour of Cerastes Wagler, 1830, as requested, ‘“ for purposes of the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy ”, then Cerastes Poli, 1795, in Mollusca—long considered a homonym—would become an available name, with line priority over the widely-used Cerastoderma (a genus of heart-cockles of the family Cardiidae). It happens not to be a serious matter in this particular case, for in 1937, in a revision of the group (Keen, A. M., “‘ Nomenclatural units of the pelecypod family Cardiidae ”’, Bull. Mus. r. d Hist. nat. de Belgique, tome 13, no. 7, 22 pp.), I selected the same type-species for both and placed Cerastes in synonymy. Under the “ first-reviser ” rule, my action would have fixed the status of this name. However, in other cases, unfortunate repercussions have resulted from unilateral suppressions of this kind. For example, the suppression of all of Bohadsch’s names (Opinion 185) made available Fimbria Megerle, 1811 (which had rarely, if ever, been adopted by later authors because it was regarded as a homonym of Fimbria Bohadsch, 1761). This took priority over the long-used Corbis Cuvier, 1817, and as there was then no 50-year rule, molluscan specialists were faced either with a name-change or a new petition. They chose the former. I object, therefore, to the suppressing of names for the convenience of one specialist group without regard to possible adverse effects elsewhere. The action proposed in this petition will not expunge the Laurenti reference from the already-published nomenclators, which will remain a source of confusion. The desired effect could be gained if the Commission were merely to rule that Laurenti, by implication, included in his genus Cerastes the species Coluber cerastes Linnaeus. The genus then would continue to date from Laurenti, with C. cerastes as type by tautonymy and no adjustments would be needed in reference citations. Se Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 355 OPINION 613 HIPPURITES LAMARCK, 1801 (PELECYPODA); CONSERVATION : UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Orthoceratites Lamarck, 1799, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Hippurites Lamarck, 1801 (gender : masculine), type- species, by monotypy, Hippurites bioculata Lamarck, 1801, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1447. (3) The specific name bioculata Lamarck, 1801, as published in the binomen Hippurites bioculata (type-species of Hippurites Lamarck, 1801) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1766. (4) The generic name Orthoceratites Lamarck, 1799 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1525. (5) The family-group name HIPPURITIDAE Gray, 1848 (type-genus Hippurites Lamarck, 1801) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 311. HISTORY OF THE CASE. (Z.N.(S.) 1395) The present case was submitted by Dr. L. R. Cox to the Office of the Commission on 11 December 1958. It was sent to the printer on 27 February 1959 and was published on 1 October 1959 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 25-26. Public Notice of the possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers in the present 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. Support for Dr. Cox’s proposals was expressed by Dr. L. J. Chubb (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 169). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 March 1951, the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (61)1 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 26. At the close of the Voting Period on 6 June 1961, the state of the Voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-four (24), received in the following order: Riley, Holthuis, Brinck, Stoll, Hering, Boschma, Vokes, Dymond, Hemming, Key, Mayr, Alvarado, Obruchev, Miller, Evans, Bonnet, Tortonese, Kiihnelt, Bradley, Mertens, Jaczewski, Lemche, Uchida, Poll. Negative Votes—none (0). Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Prantl. Commissioner do Amaral returned a late affirmative vote. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 6. November 1961. 356 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OriGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : bioculata, Hippurites, Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. sans Vertébr. : 104 Hippurites Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. sans Vertébr. : 104 HIPPURITIDAE Gray, 1848, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 2 : 440 Orthoceratites Lamarck, 1799, Mém. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 1 : 81 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (61)1 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 No. 613. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 22 June 1961 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF CICADELLA LATREILLE, 1817 Z.N.(S.) 457 (see this volume, pages 163-167) By H. H. Ross (State Natural History Survey Division, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) I am heartily in agreement with the proposals outlined in this application. Although Evans and Oman are using the family-group names as indicated, there has been by no means a stabilization of the situation even in North America. There is great uncertainty regarding the exact course which should be followed and I believe that affirmative action on these proposals regarding Cicadella will do a great deal to clarify the situation and stabilise the nomenclature. I give the application my wholehearted support. ——— ‘ a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 357 OPINION 614 SPHAEROCORYPHE ANGELIN, 1854 (TRILOBITA) ; DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Sphaerocoryphe Angelin, 1854, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and the nominal species Sphaerocoryphe dentata Angelin, 1854, is hereby designated to be the type of that genus. (2) The generic name Sphaerocoryphe Angelin, 1854 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Sphaero- coryphe dentata Angelin, 1854, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1448. (3) The specific name dentata, Angelin, 1854, as published in the binomen Sphaerocoryphe dentata (type-species of Sphaerocoryphe Angelin, 1854) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1767. (4) The generic name Sphaerometopus Angelin, 1854 (a nomen nudum) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1526. HISTORY OF THE CASE. (Z.N.(S.) 1152) The present application was made by Dr. C. J. Stubblefield and Dr. C. Henningsmoen and was received in the Commission’s office on 21 July 1956. The application was sent to the printer on 7 October 1959 and was published on 8 April 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 231-232. Public Notice of the possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers in the present 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 proposals were supported by Dr. J. T. Temple, Dr. J. C. Harper (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 300) and by Professor H. B. Whittington (Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 March 1961, Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (61)3 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 232. At the close of the prescribed Voting Period on 6 June 1961 the state of the Voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order : Riley, Holthuis, Stoll, Hering, Boschma, Vokes, Dymond, Hemming, Key, Mayr, Jaczewski, Alvarado, Obruchev, Miller, Evans, Bonnet, Tortonese, Kihnelt, Brinck, Mertens, Lemche, Uchida, Poll. Negative Votes—one (1): Bradley. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 6. November 1961. 358 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Voting Paper not returned—one (1): Prantl. Commissioner do Amaral returned a late affirmative 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 : dentata, Sphaerocoryphe, Angelin, 1854, Palaeontologia Scandinavica (1) : 66, pl. 34, fig. 6 Sphaerocoryphe Angelin, 1854, Palaeontologia Scandinavica (1) : 65. Sphaerometopus Angelin, 1854, Palaeontologia Scandinavica (1) : IV, corrigenda CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (61)3 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. 614. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 22 June 1961 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF TYLENCHUS GULOSUS KUHN, 1890 (NEMATODA). Z.N.(S.) 1432 (see this volume, pages 206-207) By J. B. Goodey and Mary T. Franklin (Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, England) We agree with Loof’s proposals and support his application. The use of gulosus to replace penetrans would only create unnecessary confusion. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 359 OPINION 615 LICHAS ARANEUS LINDSTROM, 1885, AND LICHAS ARANEA HOLZAPFEL, 1895 (TRILOBITA) ; RULED TO BE NOT HOMONYMS RULING.—(1) It is hereby Ruled that the generic names Lichas Dalman, 1827, and Radiolichas Reed, 1923, are masculine in gender, in accordance with general usage. (2) The generic name Radiolichas Reed, 1923 (gender: masculine), type- species, by monotypy, Lichas aranea Holzapfel, 1895, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1449. (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) araneus Lindstrém, 1885, as published in the binomen Lichas araneus (Name No. 1768) ; (b) aranea Holzapfel, 1895, as published in the binomen Lichas aranea (type-species of Radiolichas Reed, 1923) (Name No. 1769). (3) The specific name araneiformis Tripp, 1957, as published in the binomen Radiolichas araneiformis (a junior objective synonym of Lichas aranea Holzapfel, 1895) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 674. HISTORY OF THE CASE. (Z.N.(S.) 1155) The present case was first brought to the attention of the Secretary to the International Commission in February 1956 by a letter of enquiry from Mr. R. P. Tripp. After correspondence between Mr. Tripp, the Secretary to the Commission and the Commission’s classical adviser, Prof. L. W. Grensted, an application was prepared and was sent to the printer on 27 October 1959. It was published on 8 April 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 233-234. Support for the proposals outlined by Mr. Tripp as Alternative B was expressed by Dr. J. T. Temple (Bull. zool. Nomencel. 18 : 120) DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 March 1961 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper(61)4 for either Alternative A or Alternative B as set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 234. At the close of the prescribed Voting Period on 6 June 1961 the state of the Voting was as follows :— Votes for Alternative A—thirteen (13), received in the following order : Riley, Hering, Dymond, Key, Mayr, Alvarado, Bonnet, Obruchev, Tortonese, Brinck, Mertens, Lemche, Poll. Votes for Alternative B—eleven (11): Holthuis, Stoll, Boschma, Vokes, Hemming, Jaczewski, Miller, Evans, Kiihnelt, Bradley, Uchida. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 6. November 1961. 360 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Voting Paper not returned—one (1): Prantl. Commissioner do Amaral returned a late vote in favour of Alternative B. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: (a) Mr. Francis Hemming (28.iii.61).—So far as the Latin words are concerned, it is, I think, possible to make out a good case both for the inter- pretation given in Alternative A and for that given in Alternative B. From that point of view therefore there is very little to choose between these alterna- tives. From the point of view however of eliminating the risk of confusion arising through the co-existence of two such similar names—the justification for which would not be immediately apparent to zoologists not possessing a classical training—Alternative B seems to me to offer substantial advantages over Alternative A and I accordingly vote for it. (b) Dr. Per Brinck (1.vi.61).—Since Holzapfel expressly wrote Lichas granulosus (masculine adjective), I think it is well justified to accept aranea asanoun. So I vote for Alternative A—particularly so as this means retaining present stability. 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 : aranea, Lichas, Holzapfel, 1895, Abh. K. preuss. geol. Landes 16 : 32 araneiformis, Radiolichas, Tripp, 1957, Geol. Mag. 94 : 118 araneus, Lichas, Lindstrém, 1885, Ofvers. K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Férh. 6 : 58 Radiolichas Reed, 1923, Geol. Mag. 60 : 455 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (61)4 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 present Opinion No. 615. N. D. RILAY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 23 June 1961 a i i Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 361 OPINION 616 TANYTARSUS VAN DER WULP, 1874 (INSECTA, DIPTERA) ; DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Tanytarsus van der Wulp, 1874, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and the nominal species Chironomus signatus van der Wulp, 1858, is hereby designated to be the type 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) Tanytarsus van der Wulp, 1874 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Chironomus signatus van der Wulp, 1858 (Name No. 1450) ; (b) Phaenopsectra Kieffer, 1921 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designa- tion by Goetghebuer, 1939, Chironomus leucolabis Kieffer, 1915 (Name No. 1451). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) signatus van der Wulp, 1858, as published in the binomen Chironomus signatus (type-species of Tanytarsus van der Wulp, 1874) (Name No. 1770) ; (b) flavipes Meigen, 1818, as published in the binomen Chironomus flavipes (Name No. 1771); (c) punctipes Wiedemann, 1817, as published in the binomen Chironomus punctipes (Name No. 1772). (4) The family-group name TANYTARSINI Goetghebuer, 1938 (type-genus Tanytarsus van der Wulp, 1874) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 312. HISTORY OF THE CASE. (Z.N.(S.) 1245) The present case was first brought to the attention of the Office of the Commission in 1950 by the receipt of an incomplete application from Dr. G. Kruseman (Amsterdam). A much more comprehensive application for the validation of the accustomed usage of T'anytarsus was received from Dr. Paul Freeman in November 1957. Dr. Freeman’s application was sent to the printer on 27 October 1959 and was published on 8 April 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 241-243. Public Notice of the possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Bull. zool. Nomenel. 4 : 51-56) and to seven entomological serials. Dr. Freeman’s proposals were supported by Dr. W. M. Beck, Dr. K. Strenzke (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 343), D. W. Wiilker, Dr. J. B. Stahl, Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 6. November 1961. 362 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Dr. S. 8. Roback, Dr. E. J. Fittkau, Dr. J. E. Sublette (Bull. zool. Nomenel. 18 : 82), Dr. N. C. Morgan and Dr. J. H. Mundie (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 154). The application was opposed by Dr. Henry Townes. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 March 1961, the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (61)5 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 242-243. At the close of the prescribed Voting Period on 6 June 1961 the state of the Voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order: Riley, Holthuis, Brinck, Stoll, Hering, Boschma, Vokes, Dymond, Hemming, Key, Mayr, Alvarado, Obruchev, Evans, Bonnet, Tortonese, Kiihnelt, Bradley, Mertens, Jaczewski, Lemche, Uchida, Poll. ~ Negative Votes—one (1): Miller. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Prantl. Commissioner do Amaral returned a late affirmative 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 : flavipes, Chironomus, Meigen, 1818, Syst. Beschr. Zweifl. Ins. 1 : 50 Phaenopsectra Kieffer, 1921, Ann. Soc. sci. Bruxelles 40 : 274 punctipes, Chironomus, Wiedemann, 1817, Zoologisches Magazin 1(1) : 65 signatus, Chironomus, van der Wulp, 1858, Tijdschr. Ent. 2(3) : 169 TANYTARSINI Goetghebuer, 1938, in Lindner, Die Fliegen, Fam. 13c : 73 Tanytarsus van der Wulp, 1874, Tijdschr. Ent. 17 : 134 The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species for a nominal genus concerned in the present Ruling : For Phaenopsectra Kieffer, 1921 Goetghebuer, 1939, in Lindner, Die Fliegen, Fam. 13¢ : 80 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (61)5 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 Opinion No. 616. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 23 June 1961 — . — es Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 363 OPINION 617 NEOEUTHYRIS BRETNALL, 1921 (POLYZOA); ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST RULING.—(1) The generic name Lichenella Gray, 1858 (a name rejected for all purposes other than those of the Law of Homonymy) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1527. (2) The specific name brentii Gray, 1858, as published in the binomen Lichenella brentii (a name rejected for all purposes other than those of the Law of Homonymy) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 675. (3) The generic name Neoeuthyris Bretnall, 1921 (gender : feminine), type- species, by monotypy, Huthyris woosteri MacGillivray, 1891, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1452. (4) The specific name woosteri MacGillivray, 1891, as published in the bi- nomen Huthyris woosteri (type-species of Neoeuthyris Bretnall, 1921) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1773. HISTORY OF THE CASE. (Z.N.(S.) 1314) The present case was first brought to the attention of the Office of the Commission on 30 January 1958 by an enquiry from Miss Anna B. Hastings. After correspondence between Miss Hastings and the Assistant Secretary to the Commission an application was prepared which was sent to the printer on 7 October 1959 and was published on 8 April 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 244-245. No objection was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 March 1961 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (61)6 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 245. At the close of the prescribed Voting Period on 6 June 1961 the state of the Voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order: Riley, Holthuis, Stoll, Hering, Boschma, Vokes, Jaczewski, Dymond, Hemming, Mayr, Alvarado, Obruchev, Miller, Evans, Bonnet, Tortonese, Kiihnelt, Brinck, Bradley, Mertens, Lemche, Uchida, Poll. Negative Votes—one (1): Key. Voting Papers not returned (one 1): Prantl. Commissioner do Amaral returned a late affirmative vote. Commissioner Key gave his reason for his negative vote as follows : Gray stated that he was describing a polyzoan—an animal—not a plant. His type specimen was a polyzoan, attached to a support. That this support was part of a plant, and that in his description the author failed to discriminate Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 6. November 1961. 364 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature between animal and support, is nomenclaturally irrelevant. It is a travesty of common sense to select a plant as lectotype when the author stated he was describing an animal and when the animal was in fact present. In any case, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, which is the only body of law of which the Commission can take cognizance, has no provision permitting the selection of a plant as a lectotype. Gray stated he was describing an animal: only so far as he was doing that does the Commission come into the picture. If there is good reason to preserve Neoeuthyris and woosteri (this we are not told), it should be done by suppressing Lichenella brentii under the plenary powers. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : brentii, Lichenella, Gray, 1858, Proc. zool. Soc. London 26 : 322 Lichenella Gray, 1858, Proc. zool. Soc. London 26 : 322 Neoeuthyris Bretnall, 1921, Rec. austr. Mus. Sydney 13 : 157 woosteri, Huthyris, MacGillivray, 1891, Proc. roy. Soc. Victoria, n.s. 3 : 77 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (61)6 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 Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 617. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 23 June 1961 ee ee ee =) arr Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 365 OPINION 618 DYTISCUS CINEREUS LINNAEUS, 1758 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA) ; DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby directed that the nominal species Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758, is to be interpreted by reference to the neotype described and illustrated in this Opinion. (2) The generic name Graphoderus Dejean, 1833 (gender : masculine), type- species, by designation by Westwood, 1838, Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1453. (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) cinereus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Dytiscus cinereus, as defined under the plenary powers in (1) above (type-species of Graphoderus Dejean, 1833) (Name No. 1774) ; (b) bilineatus De Geer, 1774, as published in the binomen Dytiscus bilineatus (Name No. 1775) ; (c) zonatus Hoppé, 1795, as published in the binomen Dyftiscus zonatus (Name No. 1776) ; (4) The generic name Graphoderas Thomson, 1860 (an incorrect spelling for Graphoderus Dejean, 1833) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1528. (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) fasciatus De Geer, 1774, as published in the binomen Dytiscus fasciatus (a junior objective synonym of Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 676) ; (b) taentatus Rossi, 1795, as published in the binomen Dytiscus taeniatus (a junior objective synonym of Dytiscus bilineatus De Geer, 1774) (Name No. 677). HISTORY OF THE CASE. (Z.N.(S.) 1389) The present case was submitted to the Commission’s Office on 9 October 1958. It was sent to the printer on 30 October 1959 and was published on 8 April 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 246-249. Public Notice of the possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publica- tions (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56) and to seven entomological serials. The Secretary to the International Commission received the following comments on Mr. Balfour-Browne’s proposals : ee a es es ee ee Sere Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 6. November 1961. 366 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Dr. Henning Lemche (28.iv.60): To establish a neotype on a specimen with unknown locality is a procedure that appears to me very unfortunate. The practice of the work of the Commission has to be that of developing the most complete certainty in nomenclature, and there is always uncertainty in the unknown. Is there no possibility of a better choice ? Mr. J. Balfowr-Browne (4.v.60), in reply to Dr. Lemche : I can only reply that up to the time of Westwood’s selection of cinereus L. as type-species of Graphoderus the species had only been recorded in Britain from Whittlesey Mere and that to the best of my knowledge and belief is the only known locality for the species in Britain up to the date at which the specimen selected as Neotype was received in the Museum. No other modern British specimen is in the British Museum though some, more precisely provided with data, are in a private collection, known to me. . The difficulty there was that the Rules will require the neotype to be located in a public Museum. If the Commission so desires it I would agree to try to obtain one of those specimens for the Museum and, if presented, I would agree to its being cited as neotype with full locality data. Dr. Per Brinck (11.xi.60): In 1955, I had an opportunity to examine the Linnean dytiscids in the collection of the Linnean Society of London, for the planned Peters’s edition of the Systema Naturae (1758). As regards Dytiscus cinereus, my results agree fully with those presented in Mr. J. Balfour-Browne’s communication, paragraphs (2)-(3). The discussion of the facts, however, differs in certain details which will be dealt with below. As said by Mr. Balfour-Browne (5) the Linnean description (1761) of cinereus applies to a species of Graphoderus. Linnaeus’s short diagnosis (1746, 1758, 1761, etc.) on the other hand, is not sufficient to determine whether the Linnean name cinereus should be applied to a species of Graphoderus or to the male of Acilius (9). It is well known that Linnaeus distinguished between the diagnosis which should be very short (consist of 8 words at the most and be a sort of key, shortly characterising the various known species of a genus) and the description which should be an elaborate definition of the species (and so could be rather long). In the 1758 edition of Systema Naturae there is a definite reference to the complete description in the first edition of Fawna Suecica (1746, p. 182). This is an important reference, since in this particular case the diagnoses in the Fauna Suecica (1746 and 1761) and the various editions of Systema Naturae are substantially equal, as far as they go. Therefore, it might be justified to regard the reference in Systema Naturae 1758 to the description of 1746 as part of the characterisation of the species. If we accept this procedure, an interpretation of the Linnean name as covering a species of Graphoderus is justified. Personally I do not think that Linnaeus distinguished between the species of Graphoderus and the male Acilius. On the contrary. But it might well be that, when preparing the first description of D. cinereus in 1746, he had a specimen of Graphoderus before him. Bull. zool. Nomenel., Vol. 18 Plate Fe a UA A0IG—sN0 418g ‘LT PG Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 367 If we accept this, it might be proposed that a type should be selected among the specimens of Graphoderus in the Linnean collection. Some of these specimens seem to be Linnean, though it is possible that the syntypes have disappeared, since it is well known that the early authors did not care much about their original material. I agree with Mr. Balfour-Browne, however, that a selection of any of the specimens of Graphoderus in the Linnean collection would cause great confusion. As matters stand, the interpretation of the first reviser of the species should be decisive. I am not sure, however, that I can accept Mr. Balfour-Browne’s opinion that the first valid reviser in this case is Marsham (1802) whose action means that the name cinereus would have to be transferred to Acilius Leach, 1815, with disastrous effects. I should prefer to regard Paykull, 1798 (Fauna Svecica, Insecta, I: 195-196, cf. 197), as the first valid reviser ; he fully recognized the taxonomical identity of the two nominal species in question and chose one of the names in preference to the other. Paykull chose D. sulcatus and dropped cinereus Linnaeus as a synonym. This action of his would, however, compel us to suppress cinereus, since Paykull, if accepted as first reviser, has selected sulcatus as the name of the species of Acilius. It does not really alter the case: the genus Graphoderus would still be based on a misidentified type-species. Therefore, there is still only one simple method whereby stability of nomenclature can be attained in the present case, namely, by designating a neotype of Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758. So I fully support all the proposals put forward by Mr. Balfour-Browne for stabilising these genera and species in accordance with current usage. NEOTYPE DESIGNATION FOR DYTISCUS CINEREUS On 5 July 1960, Mr. Balfour-Browne informed the Secretary of the Commission that he had received a pair of modern specimens of cinereus with exact locality information and would propose the male specimen as neotype. This neotype, which is hereby officially designated as neotype of Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758, is in the British Museum (Natural History) Museum No. 1960-340, and the locality label reads “ Norfolk: Catfield, 9.viii.1905, F. Balfour-Browne leg.’. A photograph of the neotype specimen and its label is reproduced on PI. 5. Descriptions of Dytiscus cinereus in its currently accepted sense are given by Aubé, 1836 (Icon. Col. 5 : 85, p. 11, fig. 1) and Erichson, 1835 (Kaf. Mark. Brandenb. 1 : 143). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 March 1961, the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month rule, on Voting Paper (61)7, either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 249, proposal 1(b) being amended in a circulated report, the substance of which is reproduced above. On 6 June 1961, at the close of the prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting was as follows : 368 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Affirmative Votes—twenty-four (24), received in the following order : Riley, Holthuis, Brinck, Stoll, Hering, Boschma, Vokes, Dymond, Hemming, Key, Mayr, Alvarado, Obruchev, Miller, Evans, Bonnet, Tortonese, Kihnelt, Bradley, Jaczewski, Mertens, Lemche, Uchida, Poll. Negative Votes—none (0). Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Prantl. Commissioner do Amaral returned a late affirmative 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 : bilineatus, Dytiscus, De Geer, 1774, Mém. Hist. Ins. 4 : 400 cinereus, Dytiscus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 412 fasciatus, Dytiscus, De Geer, 1774, Mém. Hist. Ins. 4 : 397 Graphoderas Thomson, 1860, Skand. Col. 2 : 38 Graphoderus Dejean, 1833, Cat. Col. (ed. 2) : 54 taeniatus, Dytiscus, Rossi, 1795, Fn. Etrusca (ed. 2) 1 : 414 zonatus, Dytiscus, Hoppé, 1795, Ins. Elyt. : 33 The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species for a nominal genus involved in the present Ruling : For Graphoderus Dejean, 1833 : Westwood, 1838, Introd. mod. Classif. Ins., Synopsis : 8 The following is the original,reference for the designation of a neotype for a nominal species involved in the present Ruling : For Dytiscus cinereus, Linnaeus, 1758: Balfour-Browne, 1961, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 367, pl.5. CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (61)7 were cast as set out above, that the proposal set out in that Voting Paper was 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. 618. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 28 June 1961 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 369 OPINION 619 ACILIUS LEACH, 1817 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA) ; PRESERVATION BY USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VARY THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 522 RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the Ruling given in Opinion 522 is hereby varied to suppress the generic name Acilius Rafinesque, 1815, for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy as well as those of the Law of Priority. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified :— (a) Acilius Leach, 1817 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Dytiscus sulcatus Linnaeus, 1758 (Name No. 1454) ; (b) Dytiscus Linnaeus, 1758 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designa- tion by Latreille, 1810, Dytiscus marginalis Linnaeus, 1758 (Name No. 1455). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) sulcatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Dytiscus sulcatus (type-species of Acilius Leach, 1817) (Name No. 1777) ; (b) marginalis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Dytiscus marginalis (type-species of Dytiscus Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 1778). (4) The generic name Dyticus O. F. Miiller, 1776 (a junior objective synonym of Dytiscus Linnaeus, 1758) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1529. (5) The specific name cinereus Leach, 1817, as published in the binomen Acilius cinereus (a junior objective synonym of Dytiscus sulcatus Linnaeus, 1758) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 678. (6) The family-group name DyYTISCIDAE (correction by Macleay, 1825, of DYTICIDEA) Leach, 1817 (type-genus Dytiscus Linnaeus, 1758) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 313. (7) 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) ‘‘ Les Ditisques ” De Geer, 1774 (type-genus Dytiscus Linnaeus, 1758), invalid because applied only to the members of a genus (Name No. 343) ; (b) HYDROCANTHARI Gyllenhal, 1808, invalid because not based on a generic name (Name No. 344) ; (c) DyTIcCIDEA Leach, 1817 (type-genus Dytiscus Linnaeus, 1758), an incorrect original spelling for pyTiscipAE (Name No. 345) ; (d) pyticipaE Curtis, 1826 (type-genus Dytiscus Linnaeus, 1758), an incorrect spelling for DyTisciDAE Leach, 1817 (Name No. 346) ; Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 6. November 1961. 370 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (e) DyTICOIDEA Hope, 1838 (type-genus Dytiscus Linnaeus, 1758), an incorrect spelling for DyTISCIDAE Leach, 1817 (Name No. 347) ; (f) pyricra Erichson, 1832 (type-genus Dytiscus Linnaeus, 1758), an incorrect spelling for DyTISCIDAE Leach, 1817 (Name No. 348) ; (g) NEcropopEs Dumeéril, 1806, invalid because not based on a generic name (Name No. 349). HISTORY OF THE CASE. (Z.N.(S.) 1391) The present case was submitted by Mr. Balfour-Brown on 16 September 1958, immediately after it had come to his notice that in Opinion 522 (August 1958, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 209-248) Acilius Rafinesque, 1815, had been suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority only, thus leaving the well-known name Acilius Leach, 1817, invalid. The application was sent to the printer on 30 October 1959 and was published on 8 April 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 250-252. Public Notice of the possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers in the present 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 seven entomological serials. Mr. Balfour-Browne’s proposals were supported by Dr. Per Brinck who proposed that several additional family-group names be added to the Official Index (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 160). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 March 1961, the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (61)8 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 251-253, with the addition of that made in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 160. At the close of the prescribed Voting Period on 6 June 1961 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative votes—twenty-four (24), received in the following order : Riley, Holthuis, Brinck, Stoll, Hering, Boschma, Vokes, Dymond, Hemming, Key, Mayr, Alvarado, Miller, Evans, Bonnet, Obruchev, Tortonese, Kiihnelt, Bradley, Jaczewski, Mertens, Lemche, Uchida, Poll. Negative Votes—none (0). Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Prantl. Commissioner do Amaral returned a late affirmative vote with the reserva- tion that he did not vote for the proposals of Dr. Brinck since he had not received his copy of Bulletin volume 18, part 1, and had therefore not been able to read these proposals. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : Acilius Leach, 1817, Zool. Misc. 3 : 69 cinereus, Acilius, Leach, 1817, Zool. Misc. 3, Index : 143 Les Ditisques De Geer, 1774, Mém. Hist. Ins. 4 : 354, 381 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 371 DYTICEA Erichson, 1832, Gen. Dytic. : 1 DYTICIDAE Curtis, 1826, Brit. Ent. : pl. 99 DYTICIDEA Leach, 1817, an invalid original spelling for pyTIScIDAE q.v. DYTICOIDEA Hope, 1838, Col. Man. 2 : 117 Dyticus O. F. Miiller, 1776, Zool. dan. Prodr. : 69 DYTISCIDAE Leach, 1817, Zool. Misc. 3 : 69 Dytiscus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 411 HYDROCANTHARI Gyllenhal, 1808, Ins. swec. 1 : 464 marginalis, Dytiscus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 411 NECTOPODES Duméril, 1806, Zool. Anal. : 197 sulcatus, Dytiscus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 412 The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species for a nominal genus concerned in the present Ruling : For Dytiscus Linnaeus, 1758 : Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arachn. Ins. : 167, 426 CERTIFICATE We hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (61)8 were cast as set out above, that the proposal set out in that Voting Paper was 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. 619. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 28 June 1961 372 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PUPA RODING, 1798 (GASTROPODA, OPISTHOBRANCHIATA) : PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 581 By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) The purpose of the present application is to prevent the very confused usage of the generic name Pupa—a name which has been used for at least three different genera in the Class Gastropoda. 2. In Opinion 96 the International Commission decided that the names in the Museum Boltenianum of 1798 were to be accepted as nomenclatorially available. Amongst these names is the generic name Pwpa Roding, (: 110) which was then recognized as a senior homonym of Pupa Lamarck, 1801 (Syst. Anim. sans Vertébr. : 88) and of Pupa Draparnaud, [1801] (Zabl. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 32, 56). References to the literature relating to the complicated nomenclature of the name Pupa are to be found in Herrmannsen, 1849 (Indicis Gen. Malacoz. Primordia 2 : 358). The Pupa of Humphries, 1797, listed by Herrmannsen, was published in a work rejected for nomen- clatorial purposes in Opinion 51 and placed on the Official Index of Works in Direction 32. 3. The name Pupa Roding applies to the genus which was known by the name Solidula Fischer von Waldheim (1807, Muséwm-Demidoff : 226). Accord- ing to Winckworth (1945, Proc. malac. Soc. London 26 : 143) the first person to designate a type-species for Pupa Réding was Suter (1913, Man. New Zealand Moll.:518), who so designated Voluta solidula Linnaeus, 1767 (= Bulla solidula Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 728). This species (as Voluta solidula Gmelin) was quoted by Réding in the synonymy of his own species Pupa grisebla, so that it constitutes a valid selection of type- species. 4, The name Pupa Lamarck, 1801, type-species by monotypy, Turbo uva Linnaeus, 1758, has already been placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Direction 72 as a junior objective synonym of Cerion Réding, 1798, which was placed on the Official List in Opinion 119. Pupa Draparnaud, [1801], is now replaced by Pupilla Fleming, 1828—placed on the Official List in Opinion 335. 5. The name Pupa Réding is available and has priority. But the use of this name is most confusing. Although, in the last fifty years, the name Pupa has gradually disappeared from the literature of the pulmonates, it was used there so commonly through the nineteenth century that the name, as designating some pulmonate, was well known to all zoologists. Even as late as 1930 the family name PUPIDAE (based on Pupa Draparnaud) still appeared in the Zoological Record as a family name in the Pulmonates. Thus it is most confusing that the name PUPIDAE now reappears, introduced by Winckworth (1945, loc. cit. : 146) and Habe (1950, Pupidae in Japan, in Kuroda, JIl. Cat. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 6. November 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 373 Japanese Shells 6 : 39), fora group of opisthobranchs. It is much to be regretted that the name Pupa has already been established for the genus of opisthobranchs in about one-third of the—fortunately restricted—literature on the group, but the new procedure of using also the family name in a new sense will cause much trouble, especially to students and non-taxonomists. Authors using the name Pupa in the new sense are Suter (1913, Man. New Zealand Moll.) ; Cotton & Godfrey (1932, South Austr. Nat. 14 : 1) ; Iredale (1936, Rec. Austr. Museum, Sydney) and Edmonson (1946, Proc. Bish. Mus. Spec. Publ. 22). 5. Among the more numerous authors using Solidula are Hedley (1899, Mem. Austr. Mus. 3), Iwakawa (1919, Cat. Jap. Moll., Tokyo), Faustino (1928, Mon. Bur. Sci. Manila 25), Hirase (1936, A Collection of Japanese Shells (ed. 5)) and Allan (1950, Austr. Shells). 7. As, because of the extensive old literature using the name Pupa in the pulmonates, confusion will be endless if the name is now finally established for an opisthobranch genus, I ask the International Commission :— (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Pupa Roding, 1798, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the generic name Solidula Fischer von Waldheim, 1807 (gender : masculine), type-species, by tautonymy, Bulla solidula Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name solidula Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Bulla solidula (type-species of Solidula Fischer von Waldheim, 1807) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Pupa Roding, 1798 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) ; (b) Pupa Draparnaud, [1801] (a junior homonym of Pupa Réding, 1798) ; (5) to place the following family-group names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology : (a) PUPIDAE Winckworth, 1945 (type-genus Pupa Réoding, 1798), invalid because the name of its type-genus has been suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above ; (b) PUPADAE Fleming, 1828 (Hist. Brit. Anim. : 255) (type-genus Pupa Draparnaud, [1801]), invalid because the name of its type- genus is a junior homonym. 374 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature NAUCORIS GEOFFROY, 1762 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA) ; PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 608 By T. Jaczewski (Zoological Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) In Opinion 228 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 4(18) : 209-220) it was ruled that names published by Geoffroy (E.L.) in 1762 in the work entitled Histoire abrégée des Insectes, are not available for nomenclatorial purposes. At the same time it was stated that specialists were invited to submit to the Commission, for validation under the plenary powers, any name contained in that work the rejection of which would in their opinion lead to instability or confusion in the nomenclature of the group concerned. 2. Geoffroy, 1762 (Hist. abrég. Ins. Paris 1 : 473-475) indicated the species to be attributed to his new genus Naucoris by a reference to Nepa cimicoides Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)1 : 440). Stal, 1862 (Ofvers. K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Férhandl. 18 : 201, 1861), established a new genus Ilyocoris for Naucoris cimicoides (Linnaeus, 1758) and gave characters separating it from Naucoris Geoffroy, comprising N. maculatus Fabricius et alia. If Nepa cimicoides Linnaeus were to be accepted as the type-species of Naucoris Geoffroy then Ilyocoris Stal would become a junior objective synonym of Nawucoris Geoffroy, and Naucoris maculatus Fabricius, 1798 (Suppl. Ent. syst. : 325) would be without a generic name. Stal’s action seems to have been disregarded by many workers and Ilyocoris Stal was placed as a synonym of Naucoris Geoffroy until 1942 when Usinger (Ent. mon. Mag. 78 : 241) accepted Stal’s action and restricted Nawcoris Geoffroy to N. maculatus Fabricius, 1798, and its allies. China, 1943 (Gen. Names British Insects, Roy. ent. Soc. London, 8 (Hemiptera Heteroptera) : 279) pointed out that Geoffroy’s Plate 9, fig. 5 purporting to represent Nepa cimicoides Linnaeus was undoubtedly Naucoris maculatus Fabricius, 1798, as indicated by Stal, and not Nepa cimicoides Linnaeus, 1758, and consequently designated Naucoris maculatus Fabricius as the type-species of Naucoris Geoffroy. China designated this type-species under Opinion 46, page 106, second category, but Opinion 46 deals with generic names without species and is not applicable to this case in which Geoffroy refers to Nepa cimicoides Linnaeus by name giving the correct reference in Systema Naturae, ed. 10, p. 440, n. 6. 3. Oshanin, 1912 (Katalog der Paldarktischen Hemipteren, Berlin : 89) referred Naucoris to Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Hnt.: 693), presumably believing that Geoffroy’s work was invalid, and following the type designation by Latreille, 1810 (Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arachn. Ins. : 260, 434) listed as type Naucoris cimicoides (Linnaeus). Oshanin’s action in effect synonymises Naucoris Fabricius, 1775, nec Geoffroy, 1762, as an objective synonym of Ilyocoris Stal, 1861. However, Stal’s use of the generic names Naucoris Geoffroy and Ilyocoris Stal is now current usage. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 6. November 1961. ne Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 375 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked : (1) to use its plenary powers to validate the generic name Naucoris Geoffroy, 1762, (previously made unavailable in Opinion 228, 1954), for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy. (2) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Naucoris Geoffroy, 1762, prior to the Ruling now requested and having done so to designate the nominal species Naucoris maculatus Fabricius, 1798, (the actual species described and figured by Geoffroy and wrongly named Nepa cimicoides Linnaeus, 1758) to be the type-species of that genus. (3) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Naucoris Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (2) above, Naucoris maculatus Fabricius, 1798 ; (b) Ilyocoris Stal, 1861 (gender : masculine), type-species, by original designation, Nepa cimicoides Linnaeus, 1758. (4) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) cimicoides Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Nepa cimicoides (type-species of Ilyocoris Stal, 1861) ; (b) maculatus (correction of maculata) Fabricius, 1798, as published in the binomen Naucoris maculata (type-species by designation under the plenary powers in (2) above, of Naucoris Geoffroy, 1762). (5) to place the following family-group name on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology : NAUCORIDAE (correction by Fieber, 1851, of NavcoripA) [Leach], [1815] (Brewster’s Edinburgh Encyclopedia 9 : 123) (type-genus Naucoris Geoffroy, 1762). (6) to place the following generic name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : Naucoris Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 693) (a junior homonym of Naucoris Geoffroy, 1762, validated in (1) above). (7) to place the following family-group names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology : (a) NAUCoRIDES Fallén, 1814, Spec. nov. Hemiptera disponendi methodum exhibiens, Lundae : 3, 15 (derived from the invalid and rejected type-generic name Naucoris Fabricius, 1775, nec Geoffroy, 1762) ; (b) NAvcormDA [Leach], [1815], Brewster's Edinburgh Encyclopedia 9: 123 (type-genus: Naucoris Geoffroy, 1762) (an invalid original spelling for NAUCORIDAE) ; (c) NAUCORIDEA Fieber, 1851, Genera Hydrocoridum, Pragae ; 9, 15 (separatum) also Abhandl. Bohm. Ges. Wissensch., Prag (5) 7, 1852: 189, 195 (type-genus: Naucoris Geoffroy, 1762) (an 376 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature erroneous subsequent spelling for NAUCORIDAE) ; (d) NAUCORISEAE Fieber, 1851, tbidem:9 (separatum) also ibidem, 1852 : 189 (type-genus : Naucoris Geoffroy, 1762) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NAUCORIDAE) ; (e) NAUCORINI Costa, 1852, Cimicum Regni Neapolitani centuria tertia et quartae fragmentum (with Conspectus methodicus Cimicum in Regno Neapolitano huc usque detectorum), Napoli : 65 (Separa- tum), also Atti R. Istit. Incorag. Sci. Nat., Napoli, 8, 1855 : 291 (type-genus: Naucoris Geoffroy, 1762) (an erroneous subse- quent spelling for NAUCORINAE) ; (f) Naucortp1 Acloque, 1897, Fauwne de France, Paris 2 : 359, 398 (type-genus: Naucoris Geoffroy, 1762) (an erroneous subse- quent spelling for NAUCORIDAE). The problem of the validation of Naucoris Geoffroy, 1762, was discussed first by the Commission at the Paris Session in July 1948 and the Secretary was invited to submit a Report on the matter as soon as possible after the close of the session (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 370). The present application was first submitted to the Commission by Prof. Jaczewski in July 1955. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF PANOPEA MENARD DE LA GROYE, 1807. Z.N.(S.) 1049 (see this volume, pages 184-188) By Myra Keen (Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.) This is in support of the petition by Drs. H. E. Vokes and L. R. Cox for the suppression of Glycimeris Lamarck, 1799, and validation of Panopea Ménard, 1807, in conformity with general usage. I would support also the other requests made in this petition, especially the designation of a type-species for Cyrtodaria Reuss, the problem of which is even more complex than these authors have indicated. There is a type designation for the taxon that is earlier than the one by Gray, 1847, that they cite : Deshayes, 1830 (Encyclopédie Méthodique, (ed. 2) vol. 101*, p. 171), but like the one by Gray, it was for the Cyrtodaria of Daudin. As reviser of this group for the “Treatise of Invertebrate Paleontology ”, I welcome the clear-cut designation by Drs. Vokes and Cox. The question of family-name is only indirectly considered in this petition. The earliest name seems to be SAXICAVIDAE Swainson, 1835, which is based on an objective synonym, Sazxicava Fleuriau de Bellevue, 1802, versus Hiatella Bosc, 1801. The family name HIATELLIDAE Winckworth, 1932, though a century later than SAXICAVIDAE, seems at present to be the generally accepted family name for the group. I would like to request that no name for the family be placed on the Official List until a general petition has been prepared jointly by authors working on the ‘‘ Treatise of Invertebrate Paleontology ”’ and by the “‘ Treatise ” editors, to standardize all family-group names that will be recognized in the major revisions of the Bivalva now in progress. a Te Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 377 PROPOSAL TO SUPPRESS THE NAMES OF CERTAIN UNIDENTIFI- ABLE NOMINAL SPECIES IN THE FAMILY TETRIGIDAE (INSECTA, ORTHOPTERA) AND TO ADD TWO OTHERS TO THE OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.) 673 By D. Keith McE. Kevan (Dept. of Entomology and Plant Pathology, McGill University, Macdonald College, Province of Quebec, Canada) The object of the present application is to place on the Official Index of Invalid and Rejected Specific Names in Zoology the names of ten nominal species in the family TETRIGIDAE (Insecta, Orthoptera) on the grounds that it is now impossible to be certain of the identity of the taxonomic species involved. Anything which would lead to any one of nine of these names being resurrected could lead to confusion and instability. The tenth name is already causing confusion. Application is also made to place two further names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 2. Attention has already been drawn to the situation in the genus Tetrix by Kevan (1953, Ent. Gaz. 4 : 205-224). Some of the names involved (e.g. those of Fieber) apply to more than one taxonomic species. Several were clearly or probably based upon immature specimens which it is well-nigh impossible to correlate with imagines. In most cases, also, the type-specimens have been lost or are unidentifiable. Nevertheless it seems certain that all these names apply to one or other of a small group of species now placed in the genus Tetrix Latreille, 1802, and discussed by Kevan (op. cit.). This group may be termed the bipunctata-group, all species of which are now readily recognizable and bear valid names. It is certain that none of the names it is proposed to suppress is applicable to an otherwise undescribed species. 3. The desirability of suppressing the ten names has been increased by the work of Fischer (1948, Ber. naturforsch. Ges. Augsburg, 1 : 60-87) who recog- nizes Tetrix kraussi Sauley, 1888, as a taxonomic species distinct from 7’. bi- punctata (Linnaeus, 1758). This view is not recognized by Kevan (op. cit.), but, should it prevail, it is highly probable that some, at least, of the names that it is proposed to suppress, could challenge the name kraussi on the grounds of priority. Further it might be argued that certain of these undesirable names (gibbum Olivier, 1791, and nutans Hagenbach, 1822, for example) should have priority over Teztrix tenuicornis (Sahlberg, 1895) or even over the names of other plainly recognizable taxonomic species or forms. 4. Some difficulty has, in fact, already arisen in the case of the name Tetrix nutans Hagenbach, as noted by Kevan (op. cit.). Hagenbach’s original description and figure (1822, Symb. Faun. Ins. Helvet. 1 : 41, pl. 13, fig. 25) is inadequate to determine which taxonomic species is concerned. Carpentier (1943, Bull. Mus. roy. Hist. nat. Belg. 19(49) : 1-19) is of the opinion that Hagenbach’s name is probably applicable to Teztrix bipunctata (Linnaeus) f. bohemani Haij, 1909—with which I am inclined to agree on account of the suggested shape and length of the pronotum and the length of the hind wings Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 6. November 1961. 378 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature in Hagenbach’s figure (Kevan, op. cit.)}—whereas BeiBienko (1951, in Bei- Bienko & Mishchenko, Opred. Faun. SSSR. 38 : 1-378) believes nutans and tenuicornis (Sahlberg) to be synonymous at the specific level (although representing southern and northern subspecies respectively). Bei-Bienko presumably holds his view on account of the rather long antennae in Hagenbach’s figure. Since the figure is poor and no type is available, there is an impasse. 5. The obvious course is to prevent fruitless speculation in the interests of stability of nomenclature by rejecting these ten names before, rather than after, they cause more serious confusion. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked : (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Laws of Homonymy : (a) scutellatum De Geer, 1773, Mém. Ins. 3 : 483, no. 11, pl. 23, fig. 15 (as published in the binominal combination Acrydiwm scutellatum) ; (b) xyphothyreus Schrank, 1781, Enum. Ins. Austr. : 243, no. 462 (as published in the combination Gryllus (Bulla) xyphothyreus) ; (c) opacum Herbst, 1786, Fuessly’s Archiv. Ins.: 190, no. 3, pl. 52, fig. 2 (as published in the binominal combination Acridiwm opacum) ; (d) lewcostictos Gmelin, 1788, in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 (4) : 2059, no. 219 (as published in the combination Giryllus (Bulla) [Acridium] leucostictos) ; (e) griseus Gmelin, 1788, in Linnaeus Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1(4) : 2059, no. 220 (as published in the combination Giryllus (Bulla) [Acridium] griseus) ; (f) binotatus Gmelin, 1788, in Linnaeus Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1(4) : 2059, no. 221 (as published in the combination Giryllus (Bulla) [Acridium] binotatus) ; (g) gibbum Olivier, 1791, Encycl. Méth. Ins. 6 : 233, no. 76 (as published in the binominal combination Acrydiwm gibbum) ; (h) nutans Hagenbach, 1822, Symb. Faun. Ins. Helvet. 1 : 41, pl. 18, fig. 25 (as published in the binominal combination Tetrix nutans) ; (i) schrankii Fieber, 1844, Abhandl. Bohm. Ges. (5) 3 : 412, no. 5, pl. 10, fig. 17-19 (as published in the binominal combination Tettix schrankit) ; (j) linnet Fieber, 1853, Lotos 3 : 142 (as published in the binominal combination Tettix linnei). (2) to place the specific names suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) bipunctatus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10), 1 : 427, no. 17 — o Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 379 (as published in the combination Gryllus (Bulla) bipunctatus)= Tetrix bipunctata (L.) ; (b) tenuicornis Sahlberg, 1893, Meddel. Soc. Faun. Flor. Fenn. 19 : 47 (as published in the binominal combination Tettix tenuicornis)= Tetrix tenuicornis (Sahlberg). The status and type specimens of these two species have been discussed by Kevan (op. cit.), who also gives means of distinguishing them from their relatives. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF PALUDINA LUSTRICA SAY, 1821. Z.N.(S.) 730 (see this volume, pages 146-148) By Dwight W. Taylor (U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) The aim of stabilising the current use of Amnicola is a worthy one. If Paludina lustrica Say, 1821, the type of Amnicola were not a member of the genus as presently used I would agree with the proposed suppression of the name. I disagree with Baker that the species is unidentifiable, however, and believe that action by the Commission is superfluous. I have already published a discussion of the identification of Paludina lustrica Say, 1891 (Taylor, D. W., 1960, Late Cenozoic molluscan faunas from the High Plains : U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 337, pp. 49-50), and hence no details are necessary here. Briefly, I believe that the species generally known as Amnicola walkeri Pilsbry, 1898, is identifiable beyond reasonable doubt as Paludina lustrica Say, 1821. This species is closely related to the generally accepted but illegal type of Amnicola, A. limosa (Say). No nomenclatural change is necessary. From the zoological point of view I think it makes no difference whether or not the Com- mission suppresses Paludina lustrica Say. If the Commission drops the matter then a number of people would be saved time, and the Bulletin would be spared some ink and space. I recommend the Commission not to act on the proposal. By Wendell 0. Gregg (Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.) This is to recommend that the Commission does not act on the request by Dr. H. B. Baker that the name Paludina lustrica Say, 1821, be suppressed. This recommendation is in concur- rence with that made by Dr. Dwight W. Taylor in his letter dated 26 June 1961. My reasons for this recommendation are the same as those outlined by Taylor in his letter of that date and in his publication, Late Cenozoic molluscan faunas from the High Plains : U.S. Geol. Survey, Prof. Paper 337, pp. 49-50, referred to in that letter. 380 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ACRYDIUM UNDULATUM SOWERBY, 1806 (INSECTA, ORTHO- PTERA) ; PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.) 1472 By D. Keith McE. Kevan (Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology McGill University, Macdonald College, Province of Quebec, Canada) The object of the present application is to place the specific name Acrydiwm undulatum Sowerby, 1806, discovered by Kevan (1953, Ent. Gaz. 4 : 205-224) to be a senior synonym of Acridium [sic] vittatum Zetterstedt, 1821, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, with designation of a neotype specimen. 2. Acridium [sic] vittatum Zetterstedt has been in common, but not uni- versal, use (for a well-known Western European species of Tetrix Latreille) since about 1936. The species in question was known previously by the name Tetrix (or Tettix or Acrydium) kiefferi Saulecy. Earlier still it was confounded with Tetrix bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 427, published as Gryllus (Bulla) bipunctatus). Ander (1931, Ent. Tidskr. 1931 : 245-249) showed the name Tetrix kiefferi to be synonymous with Acridium vittatum Zetterstedt, A. ochraceum Zetterstedt, A. scriptum Zetterstedt, and A. variegatum Zetterstedt, but it was not until 1935-36 that the name vittatum came into general use. Even Ander himself did not use it until some years after he had pointed out the synonymy. Ander (1945, Ent. Tidskr. 1945 : 158) also showed Acrydium bifasciatum Thunberg, 1815 (nec Herbst, 1786) to be another synonym, and the history of the case has been fully reviewed by Kevan (l.c.). 3. Acrydium vittatum was not recognized as British until 1930 (as Acrydiwm kiefferi ; Uvarov, 1930, Mém. Soc. Biogeogr. 3 : 62) when it was stated to be the common British species, while 7’. bipwnctata (L.) under which name it had, until then, been known to British entomologists was (under the name Acrydiwm kraussi) said to have been found only in Scotland. The latter has never been recorded from any other part of Britain (see Kevan, l.c.). 4. Sowerby, 1806 (Brit. Miscell. (12) : 28, pl. 74, figs. 2, 3) described and figured two species from Britain, namely, Acrydium undulatum and A. nigricans. Both of these, from their descriptions and figures, quite clearly belong to the group with a short pronotum and a raised pronotal crest, of which 7’. bipunctata (L.) and 7. vittata (Zetterstedt) are both members. These two are the only species of this group admitted in recent times to be members of the British fauna. 5. Kevan (1. c.) has shown that there is no evidence that 7’. bipunctata (L.) is, in fact, a British insect. 6. Sowerby’s description and figure of his Acrydium undulatum show this to have a colour-pattern (in this case particularly strongly marked) not uncommon in 7’. vittata (Zetterstedt) but which I have not seen in 7’. bipunctata (L.), the more slender body-form of 7’. vittata (Zetterstedt) and, although the illustration is unsatisfactory by modern standards, considerably longer antennae than are found in 7’. bipunctata. There is thus no doubt that the nominal Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 6. November 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 381 species Acrydiwm undulatum Sowerby and Acrydium vittatum Zetterstedt both refer to the same taxonomic species and are synonymous with each other, the former having considerable priority. Since 7’. bipunctata (L.) does not occur in Britain there is no question regarding the identity of Acrydium undulatum Sowerby. By the same reasoning it is also clear that the name Acrydium nigricans Sowerby is a synonym of A. undulatum Sowerby. Even if 7’. bipunctata (L.) were British, and in the unlikely event of Sowerby having figured this species (his illustration of A. nigricans could conceivably represent it), the name nigricans would still fall as a synonym, but it is scarcely likely that Sowerby, who got his material from the Rev. W. Kirby of Barham, would have seen material of more than one species. The above situation has already been discussed in detail by Kevan (I.c.) and further comment would be redundant. 7. The following names should thus be regarded as junior synonyms of Acrydiwm undulatum Sowerby, 1806 :— Acrydiwm nigricans Sowerby, 1806 (Brit. Miscell. (12) : 28, pl. 74, fig. 3) Acrydium bifasciatum Thunberg, 1815 (Nov. Act. Reg. Soc. sci. Uppsal. 7 : 161 (nec Herbst, 1786) Acridium vittatum Zetterstedt, 1821 (Orth. svec. : 121) Acridium ochraceum Zetterstedt, 1821 (Orth. svec. : 124) Acridium scriptum Zetterstedt, 1821 (Orth. svec. : 126) Acridium variegatum Zetterstedt, 1821 (Orth. svec. : 127) Tetrix kiefferi Sauley, 1901 (in Azam, Miscell. Ent. 9 (3-4) : 60). 8. Since the synonymy of A. vittatum Zetterstedt and A. wndulatum Sowerby was first pointed out by Kevan (J.c.), several authors have accepted Sowerby’s name as the valid name for the species (cf. Harz, 1957, Geradfliigler Mittelewropas : 273-286 ; Tierwelt Deutschlands : 138-144). In order that there be no further doubt regarding the identity of Sowerby’s species, of which the types are lost 1, I take this opportunity of designating the following neotype from British material examined by me which is as nearly contemporaneous with Sowerby as possible, and which agrees most closely with his description : Acrydium undulatum Sowerby, 1806, Neotype in Hope Museum, Oxford, J. C. Dale Collection, standing under “ Tetrix bipunctata [var.] Pinnula Curt.” 2 with the greatest amount of reddish coloration on pronotum (see Kevan, l.c. : 208, footnote 4). The specimen is without data, but the following labels have been attached for definite identification : (1) Tetrix vittata Zett., Det. D. K. McE. Kevan, 1952: (2) Acrydium pinnula Curtis (nomen nudum)= Tetrix undulata (Sow.), NEOTYPE OF Acrydium undulatum Sowerby, HOPE DEPT., OXFORD. Iam grateful to Mr. Ernest Taylor for supplying me with the measure- ments of the specimen (which unfortunately lacks antennae). They are as follows : overall length 9.5 ; length of pronotum 8.5 ; length of hind femur 6 ; width of hind femur 2 mm. 9. The characters which differentiate the taxon to which the neotype of Acrydium undulatum belongs from related taxa are given by Kevan (l.c.) and Harz (il.cc.). * Sowerby’s collections appear to have been sold or otherwise disposed of ; no traces of his types remain. 382 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked : to place the specific name wndulatum Sowerby, 1806, as published in the binomen Acrydium undulatum, and as interpreted by the neotype designated by Kevan, in para. 8 above, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF MEIGEN’S 1800 WORK. Z.N.(S.) 191 (see this volume, pages 9-64) By B. Rohdendorf (Palaeontological Institute, Moscow, USSR) More than 50 years have elapsed since Hendel’s re-introduction of the Meigen 1800 names. The problem was discussed by the Commission twice (Opinions 28, 1910 ; and 152, 1944) and in both cases it was decided to validate ‘‘ Meigen 1800”. However, there appears again a proposal to cancel these decisions and to invalidate ‘‘ Meigen 1800”. I consider this proposal by C. W. Sabrosky to be quite wrong, and the names of Meigen 1800 valid, as long accepted in systematics. 2. The attempts to reject the Meigen 1800 names are by themselves proof of the groundless- ness of the opponents of the long accepted work. In zoological nomenclature, based on a system of stable rules, as in every formal sphere, strict adherence to the rules is especially important. Therefore, all attempts to suppress the Meigen 1800 names are simply harmful and must be stopped. 3. C. W. Sabrosky’s argument in favour of this suppression by means of simple statistics of the usage of the names is in itself fallacious. One cannot vote down things based on existing rules. The suppression of Meigen 1800 names is especially intolerable after such a long period of use of them. 4, The suppression of the Meigen 1800 names is particularly objectionable to the diptero- logists studying the Old World faunas, especially the Palaearctic one. In the basic serial monographs on the taxonomy of Diptera of this part of the world, e.g. E. Lindner’s series (‘‘ Die Fliegen der palaearktischen Region ”) and the “ Fauna of the USSR”, comprising all the modern revisions and reviews of Diptera, the Meigen 1800 names are fully accepted. Their suppression will in fact lead to a nomenclatural division between the Old and New World relating to Diptera. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 383 CERATOSOLEN MAYR, 1885 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA) ; PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1479 By J. T. Wiebes (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to place the generic name Ceratosolen Mayr, 1885, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, thus preventing a possible alteration of the name of this genus, which is a subjective junior synonym of Sycocrypta Coquerel, 1855. 2. Coquerel (1855, Rev. Mag. Zool. (2) 7 : 367, 422-425, pl. 10, fig. 3) described the genus Sycocrypta (monobasic, type S. coeca) from the island of Bourbon [=Réunion], from figs of Ficus terragena [probably=F. mauritiana Lam., sec. Mayer, 1882, Mitt. Zool. Stat. Neapel 3 : 585, note 4]. 3. Sycocrypta coeca Coquerel is not recognizable as a species, but it certainly belongs to the Chalcidoid family acaonrDaz, subfamily acaontnaE. Although Saunders (1878, Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1878(4) : 316-317), Westwood (1882, ibid. 1882(1) : 48; 1883, ibid. 1883(4) : 379), Mayr (loc. cit. : 585-586), and Ashmead (1904, Mem. Carn. Mus. 1(4) : 389) considered it to be the male of a species of Blastophaga Gravenhorst, I am convinced that it belongs in Cerato- solen Mayr (1885, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 35(1) : 150, 159, 160, 164 ; type, Blastophaga appendiculata Mayr, designated by Ashmead, loc. cit. : 233). Ceratosolen was originally described as a subgenus of Blastophaga Gravenhorst, 1829, but it is now commonly regarded as a separate genus, containing many of the African and Indo-Australian fig-pollinators. 4, Apart from the citations by Saunders, Westwood, Mayr, and Ashmead, Sycocrypta coeca was mentioned by Walker (1871, Notes on Chalcid. 4 : 58, fig. 3) and Newman (1871, Entomologist 5 : 400, fig. 3), who placed the species in the family AGAONIDAE s.l., and by Mayr (loc. cit. : 187-188 : incertae sedis), Dalla Torre (1898, Cat. Hym.5 : 321), and Gahan & Fagan (1923, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 124 : 138: list of type-species of Chalcidoid genera). It was not mentioned by any of the specialists in fig-wasps : Grandi, Joseph, Risbec, Waterston. 5. It is clear that Sycocrypta Coquerel, if not a nomen oblitum in the strict sense, certainly is a nomen inquirendum ; and it would not be in favour of nomenclatorial stability to use for the many species of Ceratosolen a generic name not cited in any of the publications by Grandi (55 papers on fig-wasps) or Joseph (12 papers on fig-wasps) that constitute nearly all the literature on this group of insects. 6. Sycocrypta has never been taken as the basis of a family-group name. 7. I therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature : (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Sycocrypta Coquerel, 1855, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 18, Part 6. November 1961. 384 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Ceratosolen Mayr, 1885 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designa- tion by Ashmead, 1904, Blastophaga appendiculata Mayr, 1885 ; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name appendiculata Mayr, 1885, as published in the binomen Blasto- phaga appendiculata (type-species of Ceratosolen Mayr, 1885) ; (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Sycocrypta Coquerel, 1855 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above). COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF MEIGEN’S 1800 WORK. Z.N.(S.) 191 By E. B. Basden (Institute of Animal Genetics, West Mains Road, Edinburgh) and E. C. Pelham-Clinton (Royal Scottish Museum, Chambers Street, Edinburgh) (see this volume, pages 9-64) (1) Mr. Melville’s proposal to deal separately with each of Meigen’s (1800) generic names is held by him to have an advantage over Mr. Sabrosky’s proposal (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 131-141 (1952)) in that it avoids the suppression of certain generic names proposed as replacements for junior homonyms of the Meigen (1800) names. His report, however, fails to make a sound case for the retention of any of these replacement names. (2) It appears to us that the validation of a name for one purpose and its invalidation for another is illogical, and is liable to lead to much confusion of thought in the future. (3) The proposal by Mr. Sabrosky to invalidate Meigen’s ‘“ Nouvelle Classification ” for all nomenclatorial purposes has the merit of simplicity. (4) Mr. Melville’s report gives no examples of confusion that would result from the complete suppression of Meigen’s publication (1800); but any undesirable changes that might result thereby could later receive separate attention from the Commission. (5) The adoption of Mr. Sabrosky’s proposal (1952) would avoid any further delays in the suppression of Meigen’s generic names of 1800. We are therefore of the opinion that Mr. Melville’s alternative proposal should be rejected and that Mr. Sabrosky’s original proposal (1952) for complete suppression of Meigen’s “ Nouvelle Classification *’ be adopted. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature INDEX TO AUTHORS Page Abbott, R. Tucker 301 Glenister, Brian F. 3 Goodey, J. B. Baily, Joshua L. 270 i Gregg, Wendell O. Baker, H. Burrington 146 Balfour-Browne, J. .. Batten, Roger J. Basden, E. B. Biswas, Biswamoy Borg, Ake Boschma, H. .. Boss, Kenneth Jay .. Bovien, Prosper Brinck, Per 137, 160, 213, 257 137 Hall, Clarence A. 337 Hemmingsen, A. M. 384 Hering, Erich M. 217 Hertein, Leo. G. 129 Highton, Richard 334 Hille Ris Lambers, D. 299 Hoedeman, J. J. 145 Holthuis, J. B. 199 98, 322, 326, 348 Hopkins, G. H. E. 195 Bulman, O. M. B. 149 Hurd, Paul D., Jr. 201 Carvalho, José C. M. 281 Tnghia, WvallinicG 3 China, W. E. .. 69, 143, 163, 177, 189, 315, 321, 327, 342, 346, 349, 351 Jaczewski, T. ae ae 374 Clark, L. R. ah a 78 James, M. T... 7 ais Clay, Theresa — eh OR = i sntedt ie Cox, L. R. 81, 90, 184, 226, Bere, "biakiee ie 304 Kevan, D. K. McE. .. 330, 377, 380 Crossley, D. A. bi3 Pree ks; Kimmins, D. E. .. 87, 136, 155, 157, 305 Dahl, Christine ce. (203 Knight, H. H. 281 Domrow, Robert 176, 318 Knight, J. Brookes 337 Edwards, Kenneth L. 302 Kohls, Glen M. 316 sa Eee Pk oe Laughlin, R. .. a 72 ote, Be tenets Fahiicas 64, 98, 133, Follett, W. I. 75 285, 302, 372 Franklin, Mary T. 358 hoof, P.. A.A. 206 Furnish, W. M. 73 Loveridge, Arthur 170 Gans, Carl 220, 223 Lower, H. F. 78 386 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page Macan, T. T. 328 Marshall, N. B. so 27S Mayr, Ernst 209, 298 Mead, Giles W. 226 Melville, R. V. 4: 9 Mertens, Robert 3, 211, 354 Michener, Charles D.. . Sen EOL Miller, A. K. .. 73 Morgan, N. C. eta eo Morrison, Joseph P. E. HE pens”). Muller, Sieman W. . 299 Mundie, J. H... 135 Ossiannilsson, Frej 84, 89, 194, alt, 327, 362 Palmer, Katherine V.W. .. 300 Pelham-Clinton, E. C. 384 Peters, James A. as 85 Philip, C. B. 140, 316 Pope, Clifford H. 170 Princis, K. 330 Ragge, D. R. 78 Rehder, Harald A. ee Ricker, W. E... 135, 02 Roback, S. 8. a 82 Robertson, Robert 111, 301 Rohdendorf, B. 382 Rosewater, Joseph os yOOR Ross, H. H. 158, 227, 296, 305 Ross, R. J. 332 Russell, Louise L. 311 Sabrosky, C. W. 227 Savage, Jay M. 181 Schmidt, Karl P. 170 Slater, James A. Smith, Hobart M. Spillane, Margaret Stahl, J. B. Stohler, R. Stroyan, H. L. G. Sublette, H. E. Taylor, Dwight W. Temple, J. T. Tihen, Joseph A. Tjeder, Bo Tucker, Denys W. Turner, Ruth D. Uchida, Tohru Usinger, R. L. van der Vecht, J. Vockeroth, J. R. Vokes, H. E. Wagner, W. Weir, J. Wermuth, Heinz Whalley, P. E.S. White, E. I. Wiebes, J.T... Wiggins, G. B. Winkler, Otto Wolff, Torben Wood, Alan Wood, Horace E. Wood, Stephen L. Wiilker, W. Yochelson, Ellis L. Page 342, 346, 349, 351 16,7 172, Sie 65 82 -. , wee . 83, 311 82 379 th a 172, 214 che eae 79, 273 300 318 281 340 296 184 168 en ts eee oo Oy OEE 159 273 383 158 280 98 122 208 319 82 337 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 387 LIST OF DECISIONS IN THIS VOLUME Opinion Page 585 (Dictyoconus Blanckenhorn, 1900) .. ar as - ai 99 586 (Apatania Kolenati, 1847) oe a ei He Soue doe 587 (Cardium casertanum Poli, 1791) .. a he oa Pee Ft 588 (Spirontocaris Bate, 1888) .. 53 Ae ~ ei Saeed eee 589 (Beraea Stephens, 1833) 35 he FS ae ay Memes |: 590 (Aphrophora Germar, 1821) ae ee ys oe in ee 591 (Drepanella Ulrich, 1890) .. a <2 ays vg cont) kee 592 (Bertrand, 1763) ae ae e. A ce <« (Lit 593 (Westonoceras Foerste, 1924) a ry Me ae aro, Ae 594 (Phalaena saccharivora Peterkin, 1790) .. = oe Bee be 595 (Unio phillipsii Williamson, 1836) . . ae ie ze vi “EBS 596 (Chaetopteryx Stephens, 1829) ir ; uy cs a) ~ MT 597 (Prothecus and Alloneura Rondani, 1856) sis < porno 598 (Hansenia Kirkaldy, 1902) .. . ss ar “ skin ee 599 (Bolitochara Mannerheim, 1831) _ .. } ay di een es 3) 600 (Ischnopoda Stephens and Tachyusa Hichson) oh se .. 241 601 (Heterodera schachtii var. avenae Wollenweber, 1924) .. .. 244 602 (Delphax Fabricius, 1798) .. ee mt ap a: pan) eae 603 (Macropsis Lewis, 1834) _.. fa i as »» 249 604 (Korynetes Herbst and Necrobia Olivier) oe an hie 7)” 208 605 (Promecopsis Duméril, 1806) be ce “ss ae .. 254 606 (Alpheus dentipes Guérin, 1832) .. ae by st .. 258 607 (Archaeopteryx von Meyer, 1861) .. ij bs 4s =. *°°260 608 (Spatagus Miiller, 1776) aS os Se Pe sign GD 609 (Acrydium longicorne Latreille, 1804) ls we Be aaru! S260 610 (DREPANIDIDAE and DREPANIDAE) .. ae ee af +04 267 611 (Parapenaeus Smith, 1885) = a Si Ae .- 306 612 (Jasus Parker, 1883) he ss “e ae es o's. a hnahiees 613 (Hippurites Lamarck, 1801).. eh aa mh ee xe _ oO 614 (Sphaerocoryphe Angelin, 1854) Xe ae | 615 (Lichas araneus Lindstrém and Lichas aranea Holzapfel) «ooo 616 (Tanytarsus van der Wulp, 1874) . . ; ; ~~, oO 617 (Neoeuthyris Bretnall, 1921) “4 Po Phe ae aan 618 (Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758) af a ae ee SOD 619 (Acilius Leach, 1817) my - #3 ne eo! SOp 388 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature INDEX TO KEY NAMES Page absinthii, Pharalis, Leach, 1827 sis’ we é38 sea oe sate 143 Acanthograpsus Spencer, 1878 ... Jae He oe aera Bac ine 151 ACANTHOGRAPTIDAE, Bulman, 1938 ... Sete 400 Gz sete ‘isle 151 Acanthograptus Spencer, 1878 aes ae $e ate woe ne 151 Acilius Leach, 1817 in ae ie one me hoe ae ... 160, 369 Acropora Oken, 1815... aa hee BAe ae es ais wae 334 ACROPORIDAE Verrill, 1901 ed Hor te aie oe a ahs 335 Acrotona Thomson, 1859 ee ; aS ae ee eee ae 241 aegyptiensis, Conulites, Airaghi, | 1904 . P aus cus ee atk 99 akamushi, Trombidium, Brumpt, 1910 ane Were see a ... 140, 318 albwwenter, Tesia, Hodgson, 1837 ake sd SA Hae ode ee 209 albomarginatum, Acrydium, De Geer, 1773 ... sea one oe oy. 265 Alloneura Rondani, 1856 ee BAS ae rae ee aah Se 230 alni, Cercopis, Fallén, [1806] ... zn ise ate “ee a Wes 109 AMBLYCEPHALINAE China, 1939 ae Ned sae mth Re asate 167 Amblystoma Agassiz, 1846 36c Hob oie Ro Soe oe eas 175 Ambystoma Tschudi, 1838 ae sig ae6 or ane das aire 175 AMBYSTOMATIDAE Hallowell, 1856 Ae eye ae ARS te pee 175 AMBYSTOMIDAE Hallowell, 1856 She Be sie Aas sets a 175 Amnicola Gould & Haldeman, 1840 ... aS ek aoe ets ae 146 AMNICOLIDAE Tryon, 1862 she “00 as mae oe Jee a 147 Amyctus Gistl, 1848 yee ae fe aoe te ae stip $d; 343 Amyda Oken, 1816 aor SE an ates Ne abe “a ae 181 anceps, Delphax, Germar, 1821 oo bie ie ae ars tite 168 andersoni, Dermacentor, Stiles, 1908 ... Bas a5 5 EM age 316 ANILIIDAE, Stejneger, 1907 sae as BBE ec oa ae ce 182 Anilius Oken, 1816 wae ? ee ae ig nae see rae 181 angustata, Molanna, Curtis, 1834 Ae cae ane cat Arce aes 101 Anthraconauta Pruvost, 1930 Ean ere we Ras ee ats 125 Apatania Kolenati, 1847 Sac Avs 5s son ag Ae ney 101 APATANUDAE Wallengren, 1891 are ys ibe os use Ne 101 APHANIDAE Lethierry & Severin, 1894 Jus oie A nae zh 343 aphanoides, Tritomacera, Costa, 1841... ne 7 itis ai ans 351 Aphanus Laporte, 1833 sae wah we aa dee hy bb 342 APHIDAE [Leach, 1815] ah is “Be Be ne wad Mets 178 APHIDIDAE, Latreille [1802-1803] ou eae “iy he £ ate 180 APHiIDII, Latreille, [1802-1803]... oat Oe a ake ene Sat 179 APHIDINA, Burmeister, 1835... Sa yi ee nv ifs Bar 178 APHIIDAE, Baker, 1921 ie Be nae Be a ate a 178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Aphis Linnaeus, 1758 Aphrophora Germar, 1821 APHROPHORIDAE Amyot & Serville, 1843 Apletodon Briggs, 1955 Apolygus China, 1941 , appendiculata, Blastophaga, Mayr, 1885 Araeopus Spinola, 1839 aranea, Lichas, Holzapfel, 1895 aranetformis, Radiolichas, Tripp, 1957... araneus, Lichas, Lindstrém, 1885 ARCHAEOPTERYGIDAE T. H. Huxley, 1871 Archaeopterix (Anon), 1861 Archaeopteryx von Meyer, 1861 Archeopteryx Owen, 1863 Asiraca Latreille, 1796 ASIRACIDES Motschulsky, 1863 ASIRACINAE Motschulsky, 1863 Aspis Laurenti, 1768 asteria, Isis, Linnaeus, 1767 aterrima, Aleochara, Gravenhorst, 1802 Atheta Thomson, 1858 ... atra, Aleochara, Gravenhorst, 1806 i atratus, Coluber, Gmelin, 1788, Hallowell, 1845 atropunctata, Cicada, Goeze, 1778 aucta, Cephalops, Fallén, 1817 Sef avenae, Heterodera schachtii var., Wollenweber, 1924 Azinaea Poli, 1791 AXINAEINAE, H. & A. Adams, 1858 Azxolot Bonaparte, 1831 Axolotus Jarocki, 1822 . Balitochara Hamilton, 1894 vex barrandei, Oriostoma, Munier-Chalmas, 1876 belemnurus, Megalaspis, White, 1874 ... benghalensis, Corvus, Linnaeus, 1758 Beraea Stephens, 1833 . BERAEIDAE Wallengren, 1891 ... Bertrand (E.), 1763 work Berus Oken, 1816 besseri, Anguis, Andrzejowski, 1832 bicaudata, Phryganea, Linnaeus, 1758... bicinctus, Crabro, Fabriius, 1793, Rossi, 1794 389 Page fos LOO, . 120, 85, 352 109 109 80 282 283 246 359 359 359 260 260 260 260 246 246 246 390 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature bilineatus, Dytiscus, De Geer, 1774 bilobatus, Bellerophon, Sowerby, 1839 binotetus, Gryllus (Bulla), Gmelin, 1788 bioculata, Hippurites, Lamarck, 1801 ... bipunctata, Perla, Pictet, 1833 bipunctatum, Gryllus (Bulla), Linnaeus, 1 758 blandingii, Cistuda, Holbrook, 1838 Blankaartia Oudemans, 1911 Blanus Wagler, 1830 Blastophaga Gravenhorst, 1829 Blastophagus Gravenhorst, 1827 ; Eichhoff, 1864 Blattella Caudell, 1903 ... BLATTELLIDAE Karny, 1908 BLISSINAE Stal, 1862 Blissus Burmeister, 1835 boehmi, Woehrmannia, Kittl, 1899 Boletochara Westwood, 1838 Bolitachara Mulsant & Rey, 1872 Bolithochara Laporte, 1835 BOLITHOCHARINI Thomson, 1859 Bolitochara Mannerheim, 1831 BOLITOCHARIDES Thomson, 1859 Bolitophaga Mulsant & Rey, 1874 Bolotochara Mulsant & Rey, 1872 Boltenia Savigny, 1816 ... Bombina Oken, 1816 aa bombylans, Apis, Fabricius, 1775 bosci, Rana, Bory, 1828... brentii, Lichenella, Gray, 1858 .. brevipennis, Limnephilus, Curtis, 1834 bulbosus, Rhizograpsus, Spencer, 1878 caeruleus, Clerus, De Geer, 1775 Calyptograpsus Spencer, 1878 ... Calyptograptus Spencer, 1878 ... Calyptonotus Douglas & Scott, 1865 .. caputmedusae, Encrinus, Lamarck, 1801 CARCHARHINIDAE Garman. 1913 Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816 .. CARCHARIAE Miiller & Henle, [1839] ... Carcharias Miller & Henle, [1839], et al. 70, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 391 Page carcharias, Squalus, Linnaeus, 1758... Ke ~ — rie ye: 273 Carcharodon A. Smith, 1838... ae oa ont wm ae eae 273 casertanum, Cardium, Poli, 1791 Sos ee —e ra wee ae 103 Cenocrinus Thomson, 1864 tes ad: Fe ee ee ne ue 66 Cephalograpsus Hopkinson, 1869 + sed Sis ae es Co 150 Cephalograptus Hopkinson, 1869 at axe De aap fe “ae 150 Cephalosphaera Enderlein, 1936 5a an mid “ne ee sla 230 cerasi, Pharalis, Leach, 1827 ... ae Ae eee one ie ae 143 Cerastes Laurenti, 1768, Wagler, 1830 ae ee — i. ema, BAO, eben cerastes, Coluber, Linnaeus, 1758 ber a 530 5 et oe 170 Cerastoma Troschel, 1838 aa are ee ae ee ae a 336 Ceratostoma Herrmannsen, 1846 re ae: ae Bets oe Si 336 Ceratosolen Mayr, 1885 ... ose or = aa wo oe =o 383 Cerostoma Conrad, 1837 SS. oh oa: a ve = ane 336 Chaetolonchaea Czerny, 1934 ... *: ee oo #5 cat ne 189 Chaetopteryxz Stephens, 1829 ... ee a i a ae sis 127 chiragra, Lygaeus, Fabricius, 1794... xe re sag x EF: 343 chorea, Musca, Fabricius, 1781... ioe sue a a ae age 192 Chorthippus Fieber, 1852 oe HT: ao 3: ec coe ae 265 Chyusata Tottenham, 1945... es fe a ae ES $3 241 Cicadella Dumeril, 1806, Latreille, 1817 ee cs =F . pee ib iee Pi CICADELLIDAE, Latreille, 1825 ... re ise Sat 32 poe nae 163 ciliatus, Glossograpsus, Emmons, 1855 aie ee As ye rhe 149 cimicoides, Nepa, Linnaeus, 1758 Te ae Res ae fe ane 374 cinerea, Amphisbaena, Vandelli, 1797... “es ae Are on an 223 cinerea, Perla, Retzius, 1783 ... ae “se 1 Efe at Ses 155 cinerea, Salamandra, Green, 1818 sis se ae a ee = 221 cinereus, Acilius, Leach, 1817 ae ae ao et oe 2%, 369 cinereus, Dytiscus, Linnaeus, 1758... Ae ade ee se = 365 cirridioides, Euomphalus, Kittl, 1894 ... a a Re nn aes 81 Clathurella Carpenter, 1857... cE me: Bas a Sc “ 270 clavicornis, Cicada, Fabricius, 1794... ae “OF be S I 246 Clonograpsus Hall & Nicholson, 1873 ... sep A net ae ae 150 Clonograptus Hall & Nicholson, 1873 2% ne a ane he 150 cocco, Peneus, Prestandrea, 1833 4 oe ope. ee a Sa 306 cognatus, Scolopostethus, Fieber, oe oe “ii wis we: ro 351 cometa, Diplograpsus, Geinitz, 1852... HE ss aA oe oe 150 Conomelus Fieber, 1866 oe Bee bas a fe dee ee 168 392 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page constricta, Tachyusa, Erichson, 1837 ... ake ee bis She ae 241 coranguinum, Spatangus, Leske, 1778 =e aoe BA: ots ie 262 Corynetes Paykull, 1798 soe Fig Sar ae coe ak a 252 couchii, Lepidogaster [sic], Kent, 1883... Bk es ae ie oath 79 crassicornis, Cicada, Panzer, 1796 ane a Bed eis ete wey 246 crassinoda, Depranella, Ulrich, 1890 ae sia ste sof ar 112 cruciger, Bufo, Oken, 1816 ae : tue tise bo wee Pre 182 cyathiformis, Calyptograspus, Loa 1878 we wit wks sad 151 Cyrtodaria Reuss, 1801 ... on ie aise wiaie =a tee ae 187 Cyrtograpsus Carruthers, 1867 ... e33 siete ee om aN Rae 151 CYRTOGRAPTIDAE, BouGek, 1933 a aie Nes re nce ee 151 Cyrtograptus Lapworth, 1873 ...-... hfe cae tet cigs ane 150 Dahl (G.), 1823 work ... zath see a sae ae wae oe 137 Dasiopa Coquillet, 1910 55 Acrydiuwm undulatum Sowerby, 1806 (Insecta, Orthoptera) ; Pro- posed addition to the Official List (D. K. McE. Kevan)... oe Ceratosolen Mayr, 1885 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) ; coe valida- tion under the plenary powers (J. T. Wiebes) . Comments Comments on the proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the generic name Cerastes Laurenti, 1768 ae Mertens ; ae Keen) ae Comment on the aL eee validation of Cicadella Latreille, 1817 (H. H. Ross) - Comment on the proposed suppression of Tylon poo Kihn, 1890 (J. B. Goodey & Mary Franklin) ... Comment on the proposed validation of ti tae Ménard de la Groye, 1807 (Myra Keen) .. = Comments on the proposed suppression of Paludina lustrica Sy, 1821 (D. W. Taylor ; W. O. Gregg) Comments on the ppd suppression of Magen’ s 1800 work Page 372 374 377 380 383 354 356 358 376 379 (B. Rohdendorf ; E. B. Basden and E. C. Pelham-Clinton) 382, 384 _ Indexes Authors and Subject Indexes ... a3 : be ‘es 385 List of Names placed on Official Lists and Index in Vol. 18.. 408 Corrigenda re na ans a 413 Title Page, Table of Contents ... he as di Premge! bl i. | © 1961. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by MetcaLre & Cooper Limitep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2 Sierrert rete: ot ee loses sess apesacte Pe etotel stat eerste eiStiisteiphensttces = SSIt EMO Eanes eeaboe ae saFersteiees ea rare pris eeebes ' obras teh siebey ; aareiateeaieiaae te areneiey Ve bedey betess ant trae ipa $-i-iii- ait 3 si sleleleleteT 3332 dehereedy ; peter pias Se tt