Satssprays saster ras. ats tebat ote te ret ciehe! whe tg te totere Setetr me sttener minbe apes T Pests oto kabeser Se: popeet see fe : iret) a THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ -of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 19 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 1962 (AU rights reserved) ee, ee es arose agylers ae noe TABLE OF CONTENTS Secretary’s Note : Election of a New Commissioner Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762 (Insecta, Coleoptera) : Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Brisson, 1760 “ Ornithologie”’: Proposed restriction of validation granted under the plenary powers to certain portions of that work. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (formerly Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) gs at Family-group names in the Heteroptera proposed for the Official List and Official Index (Insecta, Hemiptera). By T. Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) iS Eight dubious species of birds : Proposed use of the plenary powers to place these names on the Official Index. By Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge 38, Mass., U.S.A.) ae Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862 (Foraminifera): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By W. A. Macfadyen (Hope’s Grove, Tenterden, Kent, England) ee rite ae Ammonites laevigata Lamarck, 1822: Proposed suppression under the plenary powers together with the validation of two nominal species named Ammonites laevigata by J. de C. Sowerby, 1827. By D. T. Donovan (Bristol) and C. W. Wright (London) te ae Planorbina Haldeman, 1842, Taphius Adams & Adams, 1855, and Armigerus Clessin, 1884 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Proposed sup- pression under the plenary powers. By C. A. Wright (British Museum (Natural History), London) ies ne es ads Amyot, “ Méthode Mononymique ”’ : Request for a direction that this work be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature. By Wolfgang Stichel (Berlin, Germany) Argyrodes Simon, Dipoenura Simon, Robertus O. Pickard-Cambridge and Theonoe Simon (Arachnida, Araneae) : Proposed preservation under the plenary powers. By Herbert W. Levi (Museum of Comparative a. Harvard ae Cambridge, Mass., OAA;) «0 ‘ es : oS ae ne Ill 15 23 39 42 Sigara atomaria Illiger, 1807 (Insecta, Heteroptera): Proposed sup- pression under the plenary powers. By T. Jaczewski (Institute a Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) : Dromia Weber, 1795 (Crustacea, Decapoda) : Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)... Parthenope Fabricius, 1798, and Lambrus Leach, 1815 : Proposed valida- tion by the suppression of Parthenope Weber, 1795 (Crustacea, Decapoda) under the plenary powers. By L. B. Holthuis (Rijks- museum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) Euryala Weber, 1795, and Corystes Latreille, [1802-1803] (Crustacea, Decapoda) : Proposed action under the plenary powers. By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van goaac4s Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) ee ‘ i ¥ ie oe : Ceratiocaris M’Coy, 1849 (Crustacea, Archaeostraca) : Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names. By W. D. Ian Rolfe (Musewm of Comparative dine Harvard U peisiues saaiie Mass., USA) i ; 2 Opinion 620 Papilio dardanus Brown, 1776 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) : Validated under the plenary powers ... ice af as te Opinion 621 PHAENOMERIDIDAE Ohaus, 1913, and PHAENOMERINA Faust, 1898 (Insecta, Coleoptera) : Addition to the Official List Opinion 622 Fenestella Lonsdale, 1839 (Bryozoa) : Validation under the plenary powers in accordance with accustomed usage ae Opinion 623 Macronema Pictet, 1836 aie poe tesa Validated under the plenary powers ait Opinion 624 Crocodilus palustris Lesson, 1831 euros Validated under the plenary powers ae tie Opinion 625 Strophalosia King, 1844 (Brachiopoda) : nee of a type-species under the plenary powers : Opinion 626 Echinus minutus Buckman, 1845 (Echinoidea) : Validation under the plenary powers. Revision of Opinion 107 Page 48 51 58 61 63 72 74 76 80 82 88 Opinion 627 Mallophagan names of De Geer, 1778: Added to the Official List a a aS Pe + Opinion 628 Menopon Nitzsch, 1818 ae emerge Added to the Official List ve : ; ae Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816 (Class Chondrichthyes, Order Selachii) : Proposed designation of Carcharias melanopterus Quoy & Gaimard as type-species under the plenary powers. By J. A. F. Garrick (Division of Fishes, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., Penaeid Generic Names (Crustacea, Decapoda). By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)... XENOPHORIDAE Deshayes, 1864 (Gastropoda): Proposed preservation under the plenary powers. By K. V. W. Palmer tae ee - Research Institute, Ithaca, New York, U.S.A.) 4 t sith Cyrnus Stephens, 1836 (Insecta, Trichoptera) : Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species. By F. C. J. Fischer (Rotterdam, 7c Lumeystraat, The Netherlands) : sae a 3 Quinqueloculina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminifera) : Proposed validation under the plenary powers and designation of a neotype for Serpula seminulum Linnaeus, 1758. By Alfred R. Loeblich (California Research Corporation, La Habra, California) and Helen ee (University of California, Los Angeles, California) is Lepidopa Stimpson, 1858 (Crustacea, Decapoda) : Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species. By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) ... Opinion 629 Pediculus dentatus Scopoli, 1763 : agri of a ee under the plenary powers ; Opinion 630 Phasianella Lamarck, 1804 (Gastropoda) : ean of a type-species under the plenary powers = Opinion 631 Aedipoda pellarini Le Guillou, 1841 oo Nese Suppressed under the plenary powers Amendment to the proposed validation of Enhydrus Castelnau, 1834, under the plenary powers. By W. E. China (Assistant asian to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)... 91 97 100 103 115 117 118 125 132 140 142 144 pal Opinion 632 Regina Baird & Girard, 1853 (Reptilia) : Designation of a type-species under the plenary powers ape re wad Opinion 633 Norella Bittner, 1890 pec reeilae Designation of a type-species under the plenary powers dea ise nS Opinion 634 Myalina trigonalis Etheridge, 1876 fees: caus Sup- pressed under the plenary powers ip Opinion 635 Notophthalmus Rafinesque, 1820 (Amphibia): Addition to the Official List as the name to be used for the Eastern North- American Newt ... Amendment to the proposal to validate under the plenary powers the specific name Trombidium akamushi Brumpt, 1910. By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ; Doto Oken, 1815 (Gastropoda) : Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) ... ; ue ws a ft Cynips caricae Linnaeus in Hasselquist, 1762 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) : Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ae bat Pe eis ae ved ar Lystrophis Cope, 1885 (Reptilia) : Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By Joseph R. Bailey (Department of iantaaa Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, U.S.A.) is Gryllus campestris Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Orthoptera): Proposed designation of a neotype under the plenary powers. By D. Keith McE. Kevan (Department of Entomology & Plant Ser i McGill University, Macdonald College, P.Q., Canada) sal Dasiops alveofrons Moffitt & Yaruss, 1961 (Insecta, Diptera) : Proposed suppression under the plenary powers in favour of Dasiops alveo- frons McAlpine, 1961. By J. F. McAlpine (Entomology Research Institute, Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ontario), H. R. Moffitt (University of California, Citrus Experimental Station, Riverside, California) and F. L. Yaruss Perscste ae a si San Diego, California) Asterias nodosa Linnaeus, 1758 (Asteroidea) : Selection of a lectotype and addition to the Official List. By A. M. Clark (British Museum (Natural History), London) a ite sa ia bya Page 145 148 150 152 155 156 160 164 170 173 174 Pisidia Leach, 1820: Proposed designation of a type-species ; and Cancer istrianus Scopoli, 1763 (Crustacea, Decapoda) : Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The N etherlands) .. Stereomastis Bate, 1888 (Crustacea, Decapoda) : Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) aes ; Arctopsis Lamarck, 1801 (Crustacea, Decapoda) : Proposed suppression under the plenary powers, and related matters. By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)... Dendraspis Fitzinger, 1843 (Reptilia, Serpentes) : Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By Robert Mertens (Natur-Musewm und Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main, Germany) Chilodus Miiller & Troschel, 1844, and Caenotropus Giinther, 1864 (Pisces) : Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names. By J. R. Gery (Strasbourg, France) and J. J. Hoedeman Eases Museum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) io, Secretary’s Note : Commission News Endothyra bowmani Phillips, [1846] v. Endothyra bowmani Brown, 1843 (Foraminifera). By L. G. Henbest (U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.). An alternative Proposal. By 8. E. Rosovskaya eer ee Institute iy the ae eaehey oles Sciences of the USSR, Moscow) . : : Boa Linnaeus, 1758 (Reptilia) : Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers with addition of Constrictor Laurenti, 1768, to the Official List. By Hobart M. Smith (Department of ae University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) : : Culex aegypti Linnaeus, 1762 (Insecta, Diptera) : Proposed validation and interpretation under the plenary powers of the species so named. By P. F. Mattingly (British Musewm (Natural History), London) ; Alan Stone (Entomology Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) ; and Kenneth L. Knight (Naval Medical Field Research Labor ins Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, U.S.A.) aS Vil Page Pri 182 184 189 191 193 199 205 VIII Request for a Ruling that Jordan and Evermann did not designate type-species validly in either their work dated 1896-1900 or that of 1896. By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ay me se Pachyodon nucleus Brown, 1843 (Pelecypoda): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By G. M. Bennison (The University of Birmingham, England) .. : hs ats the sas ae Forty-seven genera of the Decapoda (Crustacea) : Proposed addition to the Official List. By L. B. Holthuis ( oe ee van N pial Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) 8 F Morch, 1852-53, Catalogus conchyliorum : Proposed use of the plenary powers to place on the Official List of Works, and to designate a type-species for Pseudamussium Morch, 1853 siege tac By T. Soot-Ryen (Oslo) : de Sn Opinion 636 Encrinus Lamarck, 1801 (Crinoidea): Validation under the plenary powers in its accustomed sense ... x seh Re Opinion 637 Anolis nannodes ne 1864 ere eds Bevis on lecto- type doc 5a é : Opinion 638 Lepidogaster couchii Kent, 1883 ats Suppression under the plenary powers ae +e a Opinion 639 Woehrmannia Boehm, 1895 (Gastropoda) : i he aaa of a type-species under the plenary powers ; Opinion 640 Luceraphis Walker, 1870 (Insecta, Hemiptera) : Designa- tion of a type-species under the plenary powers ee Ff? Opinion 641 Addition of certain generic and specific names in the family PHASMATIDAE (Insecta, Phasmatoidea) to the Official Lists and Indexes Opinion 642 Suppression under the plenary powers of eleven specific names of Reptilia and Amphibia with validation of thirteen specific names with their original author and date Js sed ae Zorilla 1. Geoffroy, 1826 (Mammalia) : Proposed suppression under the plenary powers in favour of Ictonyx Kaup, 1835. By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Page 220 230 232 254 262 266 268 270 274 280 284 Rana fasciata Burchell, 1824 (Amphibia) : Proposed designation of a neotype under the plenary powers. By H. W. Parker (British Museum (Natural History), London) and W. D. L. Ride ene? Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) i Thaumastocoris australicus Kirkaldy, 1908 (Insecta, Hemiptera) : Request for this name, as defined by a neotype, to be placed on the Official List. By James A. Slater (University of Connecticut, PHASMIDAE vs. PHASMATIDAE : Secretary’s Note ... Lychnoculus mirabilis Murray, 1877 (Pisces): Proposed rejection of both generic and specific names as nomina oblita. By Giles W. Mead (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) Fe oF oi 2. =i ey PHYSAPIDA Leach, 1815 (Insecta, Neuroptera) : Proposed addition to the Official Index as a nomen oblitum. By D. E. Kimmins (British Museum (Natural History), London) ie a me bid Arizona elegans Kennicott, 1859 (Reptilia) : Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By Kenneth L. Williams and Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology and Museum of Natural Paik: University of Illinois, Urbana, U.S.A.) a TRICHOSTOMIDES Rambur, 1842 (Insecta, Trichoptera): Proposed addition to the Official Index as a nomen oblitum. By D. E. Kimmins (British Museum (Natural History), London) fe Eucypris Vavra, 1891 (Crustacea, Ostracoda) : Designation of a type- species under the plenary powers. By P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (University of Leicester, England) fae a ate fe Aelia rostrata Boheman, 1852 (Insecta, Hemiptera) : Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By E. 8. Brown (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) Tetrastichus Walker, 1842 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) : Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By B. D. Burks (Entomology Research Division, Agricultural Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) re Bi a5 1D.¢ 294 298 301 302 304 306 Dicellomus Hall, 1871 (Brachiopoda, Inarticulata) : Proposed designa- tion of a type-species under the plenary powers. By A. J. Rowell (Department of Geology, University of Nottingham) ee a Ligulops Hall, 1871 (Brachiopoda, Inarticulata) : Proposed rejection as a nomen oblitum. By A. J. Rowell (Department of Geology, University of Nottingham) ee tae ae BE a. Orbiculoidea d’Orbigny, 1847 (Brachiopoda, Inarticulata) : Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By A. J. Rowell (Department of Geology, University of Nottingham) ... SPONDYLIASPINAE Schwarz, 1898 (Hemiptera, Psyllidae): Proposed validation of the subfamily name. By K. L. Taylor (Division of Entomology, C.S.I.R.O., Canberra) oe sh =H, a Cypraea piperita Gray, 1825 (Gastropoda) : Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By Lt.-Col. R. J. Griffiths ies eect iit Port Macquarie, N.S.W., Australia) i Jovellania Bayle, 1879 (Cephalopoda) : Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By Walter C. Sweet (The Ohio State eee! Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.) = ae a wee Application for the suppression under the plenary powers of three specific names of Spanish Palaeozoic Crinoidea. By Albert Breimer (Afdeling Historische Geologie en Palaeontologie, Geologisch en Mineralogisch Institut der Rijksuniversiteit, Leiden, The Netherlands) Naiadites ovalis Dawson, 1860 (Lamellibranchia) : Request for a Ruling on the interpretation of the species. By M. J. Rogers (21 Canynge Square, Clifton, Bristol 8) ie ape Ant oe ag Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) : Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By Robert Robertson (Academy of Natural Sciences of epee ta Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) tas E = — Ke Secretary's Note : Proposals for discussion at Washington Congress Case 1. Request for a clarification of Article 40. By J. Chester Bradley (President, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ad : AL! ps Page 308 310 dll 315 317 323 325 328 332 337 337 Case 2. The International Code provisions on family-group names and their effects on Trilobite rae es Com bs mee oe College, London) .. ae a3 Case 3. Concerning the Statute of Limitation. 3/1. By J. Chester Bradley (President, International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature) ; 3/2 By Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology and Museum of Natural History, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) ; 3/3 By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) ; 3/4 By M. W. R. de V. Graham (Hope Department of Entomology, University Museum, Oxford) Case 4. Amendments proposed to facilitate the adding of names of the family-group to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. By J. Chester Bradley ee International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature) : ae sad es The Constitution of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : Secretary’s Note; Report of the By-Laws Com- mittee ; Comments on the Draft Constitution : é XI Page 338 345 353 355 q . ; Volume 19. Part 1. 2nd February, 1962 pp. 1-64, 3 pl. THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE CoNTENTS Personnel of the International Commission Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications eset in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature : ie Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases (continued inside back wrapper) 12 FEB 1962 mA IMCHASED earnieah 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 1962 Price Three Pounds (All rights reserved) Page INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Professor James Chester Brapiey (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMarat (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12 August 1953) Secretary: Mr. N. D. Ritey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) Assistant Secretary: Dr. W. E. Cutna (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. Chester Brapiey (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. Stott (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) Dr. L. B. Houruuis (Rijksmuseum van Natwurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12 August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.7., Australia) (15 October 1954) Dr. Alden H. Mitier (Musewm of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (29 October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Prantn (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30 October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kinet (Zoologisches Institut der Universitdt, 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 TorronrsE (Museo di Storia Naturale “G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16 December 1954) Dr. Per. Brrnox (Lunds Universitets, Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958) Dr. Max Pow (Musée Royal de V Afrique Centrale, Tervuren, Belgium) (12 July 1958) Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (23 July 1958) Mr. Francis Hema (London, England) (23 July 1958) Dr. Henning Lemcue (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Mr. Norman Denbigh Ritzy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) (Secretary) Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaczewsxr (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Robert Murtens (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. Osrvcuev (Palacontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-71, USSR) (5 November 1958) Professor Tohru Ucutpa (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) a = G. or (Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) une, Dr. N. 8. Borcusentus (Institute of Zoology, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B 164, U.S.S.R. (28 September 1961) cf ee! Volume 19, Part 1 (pp. 1-64) 2Qnd February, 1962 Election of a New Commissioner The following new member has been elected to the Commission in accord- ance with the procedure laid down by the International Congress of Zoology, with effect from the date shown : Dr. N. S. Borcusentvs, Institute of Zoology, Academy of Sciences, University Embankment 1, Leningrad B 164, U.S.S.R. (28 September 1961)—Hemi- pterist. Nominated by the Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. N. D. RILEY, Hon. Secretary 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 of the Commission’s plenary powers is involved in the following applications published in the present part of the Bulletin :— (1) Validation of Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762 (Insecta, Coleoptera). Z.N.(S.) 81. (2) Suppression of eight dubious specific names of birds. Z.N.(S.) 1033. (3) Designation of a type-species for Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862 (Foramini- fera). Z.N.(S.) 1087. (4) Validation of two species named Ammonites laevigata by J. de C. Sowerby, 1827 (Cephalopoda). Z.N.(S.) 1203. (5) Validation of Biomphalaria Preston, 1910 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 1392. (6) Preservation of Argyrodes Simon, Dipoenura Simon, Robertus O. Pickard- Cambridge, and J'heonoe Simon (Araneae). Z.N.(S.) 1481. (7) Validation of Corixa affinis Leach, 1817 (Insecta, Hemiptera). Z.N.(S.) 1482. (8) Designation of a type-species for Dromia Weber, 1795 (Crustacea, Decapoda). Z.N.(S.) 1488. (9) Validation of Parthenope Fabricius, 1798, and Lambrus Leach, 1815 (Crustacea, Decapoda). Z.N.(S.) 1487. (10) Validation of Corystes Latreille, [1802-1803] (Crustacea, Decapoda). Z.N.(S.) 1486. c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary London, 8.W.7, England. International Commission on 9 November, 1961. Zoological Nomenclature 2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF PNOEPYGA HODGSON, 1844. Z.N.(S.) 1457 (see volume 18, pages 209-210) By S. Dillon Ripley (Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A.) I should bring to the attention of Commissioners the following : Microura Gould, 1837, as accepted by the Law of Priority, appears in the primary literature in A Synopsis of the Birds of India and Pakistan (together with those of Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and Ceylon), by 8. Dillon Ripley, 703 pages, published by the Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay, as a special publication, in 1961. This volume is what is known as a “ standard work ”. By Salim Ali (Bombay, India) The range of these little wren-babblers extends along the Himalayas into Burma and Formosa. The genus does not occur in Borneo nor the Philippines, and therefore the principal books which are going to cover its geographical range are the one by S. Dillon Ripley, just published, namely, A Synopsis of the Birds of India and Pakistan (including those of Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, and Ceylon) [Bombay Natural History Society, 1961] and 2 others by H. G. Deignan which are already in galley proof or in press. All of these have rejected Pnoepyga in favour of Microura following the ordinary laws of priority, and therefore, under the circumstances and at this stage, it would be a great hardship to the layman and the normal user of bird books in this geographical area to have to revert back to a conserved name. As an ornithologist working in the area concerned, and as the author of several standard bird books including one (The Birds of Sikkim) now in the final stages of publication, wherein also the name Microura has been used, I would submit that a decision to revert to the conserved name, as proposed, would cause unnecessary confusion among workers in India and the Indo- chinese sub-region who, like myself, are not specialists in bird taxonomy but who have constantly suffered from the instability, even waywardness, of scientific names. Since it is most unlikely that another checklist of the birds of the particular areas under reference will be published in the next 20 years or more, there seems little to be gained by conserving and reversion at this stage to a name lawfully rejected in the latest and most important relevant publication. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3 SCOLYTUS GEOFFROY, 1762 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA) ; PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 81 By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) History of the Case The present application was first submitted to the Commission in 1914, during the Secretaryship of the late Dr. C. W. Stiles, by James S. Hine of the Ohio Academy of Sciences. J. M. Swaine had, a few years earlier, published his Catalogue of the described scoLyTIDAE of America, North of Mexico (Report of the New York State Entomologist for 1908, New York State Mus. Bull. 134, Educ. Depart. Bull. No. 455, 1909, Appendix B: 76-159). There he pointed out (: 77) that Geoffroy’s name Scolytus could not be used (presumably because Geoffroy’s work was not binominal). He also stated that the species included by O. F. Miller (1776, Zool. dan. Prodr. : 57), Scolytus punctatus Miller, 1776, which was the first species to be included in the genus thereby validating Scolytus, was not a Scolytid at all. This he said had been pointed out by C. L. Ganglbauer (1903, Munch. Koleopt. Zeit. : 311, footnote) and had been followed by Trédl, 1907, in his Catalogue of the European Bark Beetles. There- fore the name Scolytus should give place to Hccoptogaster Herbst, 1793. Why, wrote Hine to Stiles, should Hcecoptogaster Herbst be given precedence over Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762? 2. Stiles wrote for information to Swaine who confirmed that he regarded Geoffroy’s work as invalid and said that, with the exception of Reitter, German authors had almost entirely discarded the name Scolytus in favour of Eccoptogaster. He stated that although he himself, in his Catalogue, used the family name IPIDAE instead of scoLyTIDAE he thought that if Scolytus were to be used again the name scoLyTIDA=# should certainly be retained. Stiles passed the problem to Dr. Karl Jordan in England and the correspondence developed into a discussion between Stiles, S. A. Rohwer, Jordan and A. D. Hopkins on the question of the acceptance or non-acceptance of the Geoffroyan names, a matter of principle based on the proper interpretation of the term binary. 3. In 1914, A. D. Hopkins of the Bureau of Entomology, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gave a full account of the two names in his List of Generic Names and their Type-Species in the Coleopterous Superfamily Scolytoidea (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 48 : 115-186). He dealt with the problem again in 1915 in his Preliminary Classification of the Superfamily Scolytoidea (U.S. Dept. Agric., Techn. Series No. 17(11) : 219. 4. In 1945 the case was taken up by Mr. Francis Hemming who wrote to Dr. K. Jordan asking if any progress had been made with the Scolytus problem. Jordan replied that the status of Geoffroy 1762 had to be decided on general principles, was sub judice, and could not be taken up until correspond- Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962. 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ence was possible again with all countries. Hemming, who at that time was engaged with the problem of the conservation of another Geoffroy name, Corixa, replied that it was possible for the Commission to suppress or validate Geoffroy, 1762, in order to prevent confusion in nomenclature in certain groups irrespective of whether Geoffroy’s work was or was not a binary work. 5. In 1950 the late Dr. K. W. Dammerman (Ent. Berichten 13(295) : 12) wrote : “ If we could reject Geoffroy’s name on account of the author not using a binominal system, the next author making the genus a valid one was Goeze (1777, Entom. Beytr. 1 : 143), using also the generic name Scolytus and replacing the name ‘scolite’ by Geoffroi (correctly geoffroyi). Later, Fourcroy (1785, Entom. Parisiensis : 139) established the name niger for Geoffroy’s species. Before both last-named authors Fabricius (1775, Syst. Entom. : 59) latinized the specific name ‘ scolite ’, placing the species scolytus in the genus Bostrichus. The generic name Scolytus was therefore validated long before the genus Eccoptogaster was created by Herbst, 1793. “The type of Scolytus by consequence of tautonymy is Bostrichus scolytus Fabr. All older authors, however, have rejected tautonyms, like botanists still do to-day (Art. 68 of the Botanical Rules), and the name Scolytus geoffroyi has been in general use before the introduction of the Code. We should strongly insist on the International Commission suspending the rules not only in cases of generally accepted generic names but of specific epithets too, which were in universal use in the last hundred years. Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762, with the type-species geoffroyi Goeze, 1777, should be placed therefore on the Official List.” 6. In 1950, Dr. Karl E. Schedl (nt. Berichten 13(300) : 96) in replying to Dammerman wrote as follows: “‘ Considering the fact that opinion on tautonymy is still divided, as Mr. Dammerman remarks himself, and because the name of Scolytus scolytus Fabr. has been used consistently and nearly without exception in modern literature on bark-beetle taxonomy as well as in the vast field of economic entomology, I do not see any advantage by changing this name once more and establishing a situation having been overcome a long time ago. Scolytus scolytus Fabr. is the name nearly exclusively used in our days and should stand for ever, if any official establishment is aimed at at all. “T do agree on the other hand with the proposition of Mr. Dammerman concerning the generic name of Scolytus Geoffroy in preference to Hccoptogaster Herbst, and this point of view was shared by Eggers and Blackman.” 7. At the Paris Congress in 1948 it was agreed that in view of the solution of the binary-binominal controversy, Geoffroy’s book was not available for nomenclatorial purposes. The decision was recorded in 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 366, and promulgated in 1954 as Opinion 288 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 211-220). While the Opinion ruled that all the names in Geoffroy’s work were unavailable, it was agreed that names the rejection of which would lead to instability or confusion, should be validated under the plenary powers if submitted to the Commission in the proper manner. Mr. Hemming consequently informed Prof. Boschma in June 1950 that an application to this effect on behalf of Scolytus Geoffroy was required before Dammerman’s case could be dealt with. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5 8. Boschma replied that it was not necessary that the International Commission should validate the generic name Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762, but that the Commission should be asked to place the valid name Scolytus Goeze, 1777, on the Official List of Generic Names in order to retain this well-known name and the family name sconytipar. Boschma then repeated the case as set out by Dammerman in 1950 (Ent. Berichten 13(295) : 12) asking that Scolytus geoffroy: Goeze, 1777, should be designated as the type-species of Scolytus and not Bostricus scolytus Fabricius. 9. Nothing more was done until 1960, when Miss Margaret Spillane wrote to Prof. Boschma requesting information on certain details connected with the case. No reply was received. Present Position 10. Dr. A. D. Hopkins in 1915 in his Preliminary Classification of the Superfamily Scolytoidea (U.S. Dept. Agric., Techn. Ser. 17(2) : 219-220) clearly set out the state of affairs in the case of Scolytus Geoffroy, and one cannot do better than repeat his findings here. No doubt the advent of World War I delayed the assimilation of Hopkin’s paper by European workers :— “ It has seemed to the writer that there is not sufficient reason or authority for the suppression of the name Scolytus as proposed and clearly defined by Geoffroy (1762: p. 309). The single ‘ species’ of the ‘ genus ’ recognized by him was at the same time (p. 310) indicated by a number, the genus name (Scolytus), and a reference to a figure (Vol. 1, pl. 5, fig. 5), and the characters were more clearly defined in a description. “ Miiller (1764, p. xiv) recognized the genus Scolytus Geoff. and referred to the original description and figures. “ Schaeffer (1766, Tab. exii, figs. 1, 2, 3, 4) redescribed the genus Scolytus and described and figured the species indicated by Geoffroy but did not name it. “Linnaeus (1767) failed to mention the genus or to refer to Geoffroy, Miiller or Schaeffer. “ Fabricius (1775, p. 59) recognized the species described by Geoffroy and redescribed it under the name Bostrichus scolytus, with the citation ‘ Geoff. Ins. 1-310 [no.]1, Tab. 5, fig. 5, Mal.?’ Thus Fabricius recognized the species indicated by Geoffroy on page 310, but did not refer it to the genus described on page 309 under the name Scolytus because he (Fabricius) evidently considered it synony- mous with Bostrichus. Consequently, the name proposed by Geoffroy for the genus should stand with Bostrichus scolytus (Fab.) as the type. “ Sulzer (1776, Th. 1, p. 21 ; Th. II, Tab. II, f.13k), under the name Dermestes scolytus, described and figured the species indicated by Schaeffer, 1766. “‘ Miiller (1776, p. 157) published a description under the name Scolytus punctatus but referred it doubtfully to Geoffroy’s figures. “ Goeze (1777, p. 143), under the name ‘ Dermestes scolytus Geoffroi ’, cited Bostrichus scolytus Fabr. (1775), Scolytus Geoff. (1762), and Scolytus punctatus Mill. (1776). Goeze evidently did not mention ‘ Geoffroi’ as a specific name but merely to indicate that Geoffroy was the author of or authority for the name Scolytus, 6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature “Linnaeus (1788-1793, p. 1602) recognized Bostrichus scolytus Fab. and cited Fabricius, 1787, Geoffroy, 1762, Sulzer, 1776, and Schaeffer, 1766. “ Herbst (1793, p. 124) described the genus Eccoptogaster with Bostrichus scolytus Fabr. as the type. “ Olivier (1795, No. 78, p. 5, Pl. I, fig. 4 a, b, c) adopted the name Scolytus for the genus and cited Geoffroy, 1762, and Fabricius, 1775, but substituted for the species the name destructor in the place of scolytus Fabr., evidently concluding as other contemporary writers did, that the generic and specific names could not be the same. In fact this opinion evidently influenced the action of Fabricius, Miiller, Herbst, and others. “ Curtis (1824, p. 43) designated the type of the genus Scolytus as Bostrichus scolytus.”” 11. Hopkins, of course, believed that Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762, was a valid name, but as pointed out in (7) above, in 1954 (Opinion 228) Geoffroy’s 1762 work was invalidated, although most of Geoffroy’s species had been validated in 1785 by Geoffroy in Fourcroy (E£nt. paris.: 139). In this work Geoffroy described his “ scolite”’ under the name niger, which therefore became an objective synonym of Bostrichus scolytus Fabricius, 1775, based on the same description and figures. According to Hopkins, Dammerman (1950) was wrong in assuming that “‘ Geoffroi ’’ Goeze, 1777, was a valid name for the vernacular “‘scolite” of Geoffroy, 1762, and in this we are inclined to agree with Hopkins. Goeze, 1777 (Ent. Beytr. 1 : 143) listed as ‘‘ Neue Dermestes- arten ”’ two species :— “No. 11. Scolytus, das Kolbenkiferchen Sulzers Gesch. 5.21.t.2.f.13.k. Schaeff. 1 con.t.112. and No. 12. Scolytus Geoffroi (sic) Geoffrois Kolbenkiaferchen Fabric. S.E. p.59. Bostrichus 4.” Whether No. 12, as a homonym of No. 11, is unavailable or whether the specific name Geoffroi could be accepted for No. 12 is a debatable point. Goeze gave under No. 12 references (not quoted above) to Geoffroy’s “le scolite ” and to Miiller’s Scolytus punctatus. Obviously Goeze did not validate Scolytus Geoffroy as stated by Dammerman, since he placed Geoffroy’s species in the genus Dermestes. 12. On the other hand Hopkins overlooked the fact that Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785, had, in effect, validated Geoffroy’s 1762 name Scolytus and had given the name Scolytus niger to his old species “le scolite”’. However, as pointed out by Dammerman, Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. ent. : 59) had previously given a valid name to Geoffroy’s 1762 species by describing it under the name Bostrichus scolytus. This species under the Rules could be regarded as the type-species of Scolytus Geoffroy by tautonymy once Geoffroy’s name is validated by the use of the plenary powers. Bostrichus scolytus Fabricius, 1775, however, was designated as type-species of Scolytus Geoffroy by Curtis, 1824 (Brit. Ent. 1 : No. 43) and later by Hopkins, 1914 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 48 : 129). 13. It is clear that Scolytus punctatus Miiller, 1776, Dermestes scolytus Sulzer, 1776, Dermestes scolytus geoffroi Goeze, 1777, Scolytus niger Geoffroy im Fourcroy, 1785, and Scolytus destructor Olivier, 1795, are all objective Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7 synonyms of Bostrichus scolytus Fabricius, 1775, being names suggested for Geoffroy’s “le scolite ” or to replace it to avoid tautonymy. Dammerman’s request that Scolytus Geoffroy should be placed on the Official List with geoffroyi Goeze, 1777, as type-species cannot be granted without upsetting current usage. It is true that Gemminger & Harold, 1872-1873 in their Cataloguus Coleopterorum 9 : 2695 used geoffroyi Goeze, 1777, instead of scolytus Fabricius, 1775, and in this were followed by Eichhoff (1881, Europ. Borkenkédfer : 148), but since 1914, modern authors following Hopkins have used scolytus Fabricius. 14. Hopkins was wrong in stating (Para. 10 above) that Herbst (1793, Natursystem aller bekannten in -und auslindischen Insekten. Die Kafer, Th. V; 81, 103, 122 and 127-128) described the genus Hccoptogaster with Bostrichus scolytus Fabricius as the type. Herbst described the genus Ekkopto- gaster to hold two species, the above-mentioned B. scolytus Fabricius and B. pygmaeus Fabricius, 1792 (Ent. syst. 1(2), emend. : 367). Hopkins, however, designated the first of these two species as type-species of Hcecoptogaster in 1914 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 48 : 121) and so far as can be traced this was the first valid type designation for Herbst’s genus. The first emendation of Ekkoptogaster Herbst to Eccoptogaster appears to have been by Erichson in 1836 (Arch. Naturgesch. 2 : 58) since when the emended spelling has been used invariably. Since Hccoptogaster is isotypical with Scolytus they will become objective synonyms if the latter is validated by the Commission. 15. Apart from any argument as to whether Scolytus was validated by Fabricius, 1775, Goeze, 1777, or by Geoffroy himself in Fourcroy, 1785, the fact remains that the opportunity offered in Opinion 228 to validate Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762, under the plenary powers should be taken now so that further argument and confusion may be settled in favour of current usage (Hopkins, Schedl, Duffy, Balachowsky, etc.) 16. The oldest family-group name for this family is scoLYTIDAkg, first used by Westwood, 1838 (Introd. mod. Classif. Ins. 1 : 350). In the use of this name he was followed by Lacordaire, 1866 (Hist. nat. Ins. T : 349) and Gem- minger & Harold, 1872-1873 (Cat. Col. 9 : 2669). In 1879 Schlechtendal and Wiinsche (Insekten, Leipzig :173) used the group name TOMICIDEN. In 1906 Reitter (Cat. Col. Europe : 707), apparently believing that Scolytus Geoffroy was unavailable, used the next available name Hccoptogaster, emendation by Erichson, 1836, of Ekkoptogaster Herbst, 1793, in place of Scolytus and established the family-group name ECCOPTOGASTERINI. In 1907, Trédl (Ent. Bl. 3 : 5) followed suit and raised the tribe to subfamily rank ECCOPTOGASTERINAE. Hagedorn, 1910 (Junk’s Coleopt. Cat. 60(4) : 79) following these workers, used the subfamily name ECCOPTOGASTERINAE Reitter, 1906, but placed it in the family repmpaE which he used instead of scoLyTmDAE. Swaine (1909) followed Hagedorn in the use of the family-group name rpipaE. Hopkins (1914) over- came the difficulty by using the higher group-name SCOLYTOIDEA. As, with the exception of ECCOPTOGASTERINAE, all these groups have different type- genera based on different type-species they cannot be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. They are only subjective synonyms. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked to take the following action :— (1) to use its plenary powers : (a) to validate the generic name Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762, under the provision made in para. (2) of the Ruling of Opinion 228 ; (b) to designate the nominal species Bostrichus scolytus Fabricius, 1775, to be the type-species of that genus ; (2) to place the generic name Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Bostrichus scolytus Fabricius, 1775, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name scolytus Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Bostrichus scolytus (type-species of Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the family name scoLyTIDAE Westwood, 1838 (type-genus Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ; (5) to place the generic name Ekkoptogaster Herbst, 1793, and its emendation Eccoptogaster Erichson, 1836 (junior objective synonyms of Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (6) to place the following specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, all being junior objective synonyms of Bostrichus scolytus Fabricius, 1775 : (a) punctatus Miiller, 1776, Zool. dan. Prodr. : 57, as published in the binomen Scolytus punctatus ; (b) scolythus [sic] Sulzer, 1776, Gesch. Ins. 1 : 21 ; 2: tab. 2, fig. 13k, as published in the binomen Dermestes scolythus ; (c) geoffrot [sic] Goeze, 1777, Ent. Beytr. 1 : 148, as published in the combination Dermestes scolytus geoffrot ; (d) niger Geoffroy, 1785, in Fourcroy, Ent. paris. : 139, as published in the binomen Scolytus niger ; (e) destructor Olivier, 1795, Entomologie 4(78) : 1-14, pls. 1-2, as published in the binomen Scolytus destructor ; (7) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :— (a) ECCOPTOGASTERINI Reitter, 1906 (type-genus HLccoptogaster Herbst, 1793) (a junior objective synonym of SCOLYTIDAE) ; (b) ECCOPTOGASTERINAE Trédl, 1907 (type-genus Hccoptogaster Herbst, 1793) (a yunior objective synonym of SCOLYTIDAE). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9 BRISSON, 1760 ‘‘ ORNITHOLOGIE”: PROPOSED RESTRICTION OF VALIDATION GRANTED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS TO CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THAT WORK. Z.N.(S.) 702 By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (formerly Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The present suggestion that the validation already granted under the plenary powers to Brisson’s Ornithologie of 1760 should be restricted to certain portions of that work arises out of correspondence which I had with my colleague the late Dr. James L. Peters in 1945 regarding the difficulties which had arisen in connection with the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology relating to the name Egretta Forster, 1817 (Syn. Cat. Brit. Birds : 59) (type- species, by monotypy, Ardea garzetta Linnaeus, 1766 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(1) : 237) through the discovery that this name was a junior homonym of Egretta Brisson, 1760 (Ornith. 5 : 431). Ihad thought that Dr. Peters himself intended to submit proposals to the Commission on the lines of the present application, but he never did so, and his sudden and premature death made it necessary to find other means for bringing this matter before the Commission. It is so brought forward now, because, as it seems to me, it is desirable that this should be done without further delay in view of the fact that in one of the cases which was submitted to the Commission by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, the disturbance in existing nomenclatorial usage for which redress was sought by the Standing Committee was due entirely to the discovery that a Brisson name (Coracia Brisson, 1760, Ornith. 2 : 3) was a senior objective synonym of a name which had been in use for over 100 years (Opinion 404), while in another application also submitted by the Standing Committee relating to the name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, (Opinion 401) the proposals submitted by the Committee for the recognition of the name Gavia Forster, 1788, were complicated by the discovery of the existence of the older name Gavia Brisson, 1760 (ibid. 6 : 196). It had been my intention to raise the present issue in the Report which (as Secretary to the Commission) I had been asked to prepare on the availability of names in the slightly later work by Brisson on mammals, i.e. his Regnum Animale of 1763 (see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 313-314), if in the meantime Dr. Peters had not done so, for Brisson’s outlook on nomenclature in the Ornithologie of 1760 would inevitably have thrown some light on the attitude to this subject shown by that author in the Regnum Animale published three years later. For the reason explained above, I now think it necessary to bring this matter before the Commission in advance of the completion of the Report on the Regnum Animale. 2. The nature of the present issue and its importance in relation to the maintenance of stability in ornithological nomenclature was, as I have explained, first brought to light when, on discovering that the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology relating to the name Hgretta Forster, 1817, made in the Commission’s Opinion 67 (1916, Smithson. Publ. 2409 : 180) was invalid, Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962. 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature that name being a junior homonym of Hgretta Brisson, 1760, I sought the views of Dr. Peters on this subject. Dr. Peters’s reply, dated 6th December 1945, reads as follows :— Egretta Dr. Stejneger once told me that it was his understanding in voting on the validity of Brisson’s generic names that only such names as appeared in the ‘‘ Tabula’ in volume 1 were to be regarded as valid ; Egretta does not appear there. Pp. 391-503 of volume 5, the group of pages which comprise, on page 431, the name Lgretta are devoted to Herons, the genus Ardea (ex Tabula p. 48, genus 81) is further characterized, then follows an array beginning with Ardea, followed by such additional species as Ardea mexicana purpurascens, Ardea candida, Ardea brasiliensis candida with Hgretta sandwiched in between. Other names with the same status as Hgretta appearing only in volume 5 and not in the “ Tabula ” are :— (1) Botaurus p. 444 (but followed by a lot of other names such as Botaurus freti Hudsonis, Botaurus minor, etc.) ; (2) Cancrofagus (p. 466) and followed by numerous species of Cancro- fagus ; (3) Nycticorax (p. 493) ; (4) Ardeola (p. 497) with one additional species. Of these so-called names Botaurus currently dates from Stephens, 1819, Nycticorax from Forster, 1817, and Ardeola from Boie, 1822 ; Cancrofagus does not figure in the literature at all. I therefore believe the Commission would be ill-advised to take up the Brissonian names that do not appear in the tables at the front of volume 1. 3. The particulars given by Dr. Peters (and many others that could be cited) show that in the Ornithologie of 1760 Brisson did not consistently apply the principles of binominal nomenclature, as under the clarification of Proviso (b) to Article 25 decided upon by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 64-66, 175) an author is required to do if new names published by him are to acquire rights of availability under the Régles ; Brisson was, in fact, what forty years ago was called a “ binary author”, that is an author who recognised the proposition that the scientific name of an animal must consist of two parts, the first, consisting of a single noun in the nominative singular, denoting the next higher taxonomic grouping (the genus) to which the species belonged, the second, consisting of any number of words in any case or number, denoting the species itself and distinguishing it from any other member of the grouping (genus) concerned. In 1911 the Commission ruled in favour of the availability of the generic names published by Brisson in his Ornithologie in Opinion 37 (published in 1911, Smithson. Publ. 2013 : 87-88), the wording of the decision then taken being : ‘“‘ Brisson’s (1760) generic names of birds are available under the Code”. This Opinion, it will be noted, was published only twelve months after the publication of Opinion 20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 11 (1910, Smithson. Publ. 1988 : 48-50), in which the Commission had ruled in favour of the availability of generic names published by “ binary’, though not ‘“ binominal” authors. In giving the foregoing ruling in relation to the availability of new generic names in Brisson’s Ornithologia, the Commission was therefore doing no more than apply in a particular case a general decision that had already been taken on the question of principle involved. 4. If no special action had been taken in Paris in 1948 it would have invalidated books such as Brisson’s Ornithologia, the availability of which depended entirely upon the interpretation of Proviso (b) to Article 25 (namely, that the application by the author of a new name of the principles of binominal nomenclature was not a necessary condition to the acquisition by that name of availability under the Régles), which the Congress (by insisting upon the acceptance, by the author of a name, of the principles of binominal nomenclature) then ruled to be incorrect. In order to prevent such a result in the case of a book such as Brisson’s Ornithologie which had formed the subject of a ruling by the Commission and which was currently accepted by specialists in the group concerned, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature recommended, and the Congress agreed to the insertion in the appropriate Schedule to the Régles of a saving provision maintaining and validating the earlier decision in favour of the availability of the new generic names published in Brisson’s Ornithologie (see 1950. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 65, Point (3)(a)(iv)). Thus, although the decisions taken in Paris provided a new and valid basis for the ruling previously given by the Commission in relation to the new generic names in Brisson’s Ornithologie, those decisions did not alter in any respect the scope of ruling which had been given in that Opinion. In 1955 these decisions were formally promulgated by the Commission in its Declaration 16 and the title of this work of Brisson’s was placed on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature as Title No. 16 (1955, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 1€ : 81-88). 5. The sole object of using the plenary powers to provide availability for the new generic names in Brisson’s Ornithologie was to promote stability in ornithological nomenclature by providing a legal basis for names in current use. It would have been entirely inappropriate deliberately to use those powers in such a way as to provide availability for names which, if so validated, would cause confusion and objectionable name-changing. Situated as it was in 1948, the Commission could only have abstained from validating Brisson’s Ornithologie (a course which would clearly have been wrong by reason of the confusion which it would have caused by leading to the rejection of Brissonian names in current use) or have used its plenary powers to maintain the position, as it was believed to exist at the time when Opinion 37 was first rendered. Faced with this choice, the Commission could not reasonably have adopted any course other than that which it did, that is, to reaffirm and to validate the previously existing ruling in this matter. 6. The late Dr. Stejneger (as we have seen) claimed that the decision embodied in the Commission’s Opinion 37 was intended to apply only to the generic names which appear in the tables at the beginning of volume 1 of the Ornithologie or at least that this was his understanding of the proposal when 12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature he voted in favour of it. The correspondence relating to the earlier Opinions of the Commission (including the correspondence relating to Opinion 37) was destroyed long before I became Secretary to the Commission and in consequence no light on Dr. Stejneger’s contention can be obtained from this source. All that is now available on this subject is the extremely meagre application submitted to the Commission by the late Dr. Ernst Hartert who was himself opposed to the recognition of any of the new names in Brisson’s Ornithologie and who voted against the adoption of Opinion 37 ; no views by any other ornithologist are given in that Opinion. There is therefore no evidence in Opinion 37 on the particular point later made to Dr. Peters by Dr. Stejneger in regard to the scope of the decision intended to be given in Opinion 37 ; all that we know on this subject is that of the two prominent ornithologists who were members of the Commission, one (Hartert) voted against that Opinion, while the other (Stejneger) stated at some later date—we do not know what passed at the time when this Opinion was under consideration— that it was his understanding that this decision applied only to the new names in the tables at the beginning of Volume 1 of the Ornithologie. While we may perhaps surmise that the bulk at least of the members of the Commission voted in favour of Opinion 37 without any knowledge of the special problem later discussed by Dr. Stejneger with Dr. Peters and may accept Dr. Stejneger’s later explanation as to the limitation subject to which he voted in favour of this Opinion, we are left nevertheless with the fact that the wording of the decision given in the “‘ Summary ” is absolutely general in its terms and that ~ there is not a word in the short text of this Opinion to suggest that any indication that a limitation should be imposed on the scope of this Opinion was ever made at the time either by Dr. Stejneger or by any other member of the Commission. 7. It must be accepted therefore that in its present form the ruling in favour of the availability of new generic names as published in 1760 in Brisson’s Ornithologie is entirely unqualified and applies to the new generic names scattered in later volumes of that work equally to those embodied in the tables at the beginning of volume 1. This does not mean however that the Commission is in any way stopped from refining that decision either by taking ad hoc remedial action under the plenary powers in individual cases or by adding some express qualification limiting the scope of that Opinion. As shown by the experience already acquired in connection with current cases (that is, in connection with the case of Coracia Brisson in relation to Pyrrhocorax Tunstall, with the case of Gavia Brisson in relation to Gavia Forster, and with the case of Egretta Brisson in relation to Egretta Forster) the problem cannot be regarded as one of a strictly limited character ; on the contrary, the fact that, when writing of a single group of birds as treated by Brisson, the late Dr. Peters was able at once to cite four other cases, including one case of a Brisson name which had hitherto been completely neglected (the name Cancro- fagus Brisson), the introduction of which could not fail to disturb some name now in common use, strongly suggests that a careful and systematic examination of the Ornithologie would disclose the existence of a considerable number of cases where the unqualified grant of availability to all Brisson’s generic names would lead to confusion and name-changing instead of promoting—as it was Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13 hoped in 1948 that it would promote—the maintenance of stability in orni- thological nomenclature. 8. If no action of a general character were now to be taken, it would no doubt be possible to overcome these difficulties one by one, as they arose, by the use by the Commission of its plenary powers to suppress those of the Brisson generic names (such as Coracia Brisson and Gavia Brisson), the accept- ance of which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of uniformity and stability. But it is clearly not desirable to permit a situation to arise which is calculated to lead to numerous applications for the use of the plenary powers, if some method of a more general character can be devised for securing the same end. For the repeated use of the plenary powers for the purpose of securing a given result in identical circumstances is clearly not the most suitable method of dealing with whatever the problem may be—more especially in view of the fact that it almost invariably happens that application for the use of the plenary powers is not made until at least some author has disturbed existing nomenclatorial practice and at least some support has been found for making the change in names required under a strict application of the ordinary provisions in the Régles. For these reasons, therefore, it is highly desirable that, if possible, a formula should be found which will secure the desired result automatically without the need for the individual reference of each case to the Commission. It is suggested that for this purpose consideration should be given to the suggestion made by the late Dr. James L. Peters, a suggestion which, as has been explained (paragraph 2 above) corresponds also to the late Dr. Stejneger’s understanding of the intention of Opinion 37, though not, as has been shown (paragraph 6 above), to the ruling conveyed by that Opinion as actually drafted. Under this suggestion the only new names in Brisson’s Ornithologie which would possess any availability would be those published (and defined) in the synoptic table of Orders and genera (entitled “ Tabula synoptica Avium secundum Ordines ’’) which occupies pages 24 to 61 of volume 1 of the Ornithologie, those generic names being, according to the views expressed by the foregoing specialists, the only new generic names published by Brisson which are currently in use and therefore the only such names which ought to be given rights of availability under the Régles. This Synoptic Table is, it should be noted, reproduced in two languages, the version on the left hand pages (pages bearing even numbers) being in Latin, while that on the right hand pages (pages bearing odd numbers) is in French. Pages 24 and 25 are concerned only with Brisson’s scheme of Orders, and it is not until pages 26 (Latin) and 27 (French) that the keys to the Orders containing (in the Latin but not the French text) the Latin names for the genera recognised within each Order commence. 9. In order to provide a basis for the discussion of the issues involved, I now bring forward the following proposal designed to give effect to the suggestion made to me in correspondence by my colleague, the late Dr. James L. Peters under which the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is asked to render an Opinion in the following terms :— (1) The decision taken in 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 65-66) to grant availability under the Régles to new generic names for birds intro- 14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature duced by Brisson (M. J.) in the work entitled (in French) “ Ornithologie ”’ and, lower down the title page, in Latin ‘‘ Ornithologia ” is hereby restricted to those generic names which appear in Latin in the Tabula synoptica Avium secundum Ordines reproduced on the left-hand pages (bearing even numbers) in the series of pages numbered 26 to 61 in volume 1 of the foregoing work. For this purpose the decision taken in 1948 as set out in the portion of the Official Record cited above is to be read as though (a) the words ‘“‘ Volume 1, pages bearing even numbers in the series of pages numbered 26 to 61, containing the Latin text of the Tabula synoptica Avium secundum Ordines there given” were inserted after the word “ Ordines ’’ in line 5 of point (iv) at the foot of page 65 of volume 4 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, and (b) the words “in part of”? were inserted between the phrase “‘ generic names” and the phrase ‘ which” in line 6 in the same item as that referred to in (1) above. (2) The entry relating to the foregoing work by Brisson made on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature by the Ruling given in Direction 16 is hereby amended by the insertion therein as follows of the limitation specified in (1) above: “(the only names in this work available for zoological nomenclature being the generic names introduced in volume 1 on the pages bearing even numbers in the series of pages numbered 26-61 containing the Latin text of the Tabula synoptica Avium secundum Ordines) ”’. 10. I now invite all ornithologists interested in this matter to communicate their views on this subject to the Secretary of the Commission at the British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, 8.W.7. If any name in current use, would be invalidated by the presently proposed Ruling by the Commission, particulars should be submitted for decision as a special case. As far as I know there are only two such names—Cacatua (Ornith. 4 : 204) and Lorius (ibid. 4 : 215). COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE FOR CORVUS BENGHALENSIS LINNAEUS, 1758. Z.N.(S.) 1465 (see volume 18, pages 217-219) By Krishna Kant Tiwari (Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta—12) I endorse the application of Dr. B. Biswas proposing to designate a neotype for the northern Indian roller, Corvus benghalensis Linnaeus, 1758. Very strict application of the Rules has frequently resulted in unsettling many well-established names, and resurrecting obscure ones which had long remained in oblivion due to some reason or other, on grounds of priority. Such nomenclatorial disturbances are often confusing to new workers on a group, especially in countries where library facilities are inadequate. As the present proposal is meant to avoid such a contingency, it has my whole-hearted support. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 15 FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN HETEROPTERA PROPOSED FOR THE OFFICIAL LIST AND OFFICIAL INDEX (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 958 By T. Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) A number of nominal generic names of Heteroptera were placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology during the period ending 1936, but at that time the practice of dealing with family-group names at the same time as the type-genus had not yet been initiated. It is therefore proposed that these names should now be dealt with according to present procedure. My original application to the Commission contained references to a number of points which have already been dealt with by the Commission in files Z.N.(S.) 989 (Direction 40 : genders) ; Z.N.(S.) 1016 (Direction 64: specific names) and Z.N.(S.) 1017 (Direction 63) (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. Zool. Nomencl. 1, Section E, 1957). Only the family-group name problems therefore remain to be dealt with here. 2. Family-group names to be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology : (i) CIMICIDAR, correction by Curtis, 1825 (British Ent. 2, No. 86) of crmtcrpEs Latreille, [1802-1803], Hist. nat. g&n. partic. Crust. Ins. Paris 3 : 240 (type- genus : Cimex Linnaeus, 1758) (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). (ii) ANTHOCORIDAE, correction by Dallas, 1852 (List Spec. Hemipt. Ins. Coll. Brit. Mus. 2, London : 587) of ANTHOCORIDEA Fieber, 1837, Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Schnabelkerfe, Beitr. Nat. u. Heilwiss., Prag, 1: 106 (type-genus : Anthocoris Fallén, 1814) (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). (ili) NABIDAE, correction by Dohrn, 1859 (Catalogus Hemipterorum, Stettin : 51) of NABINI Costa, 1852, Cimicum Regni Neapolitani centuria tertia et quartae fragmentum (Conspectus methodicus Cimicum in Regno Neapoli- tano huc usque detectorum), Napoli : 66 (Separatum) ; also Atti R. Instit. Incoragg. Sc. Nat., Napoli 8, 1855 : 292 (type-genus : Nabis Latreille, [1802-1803]) (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). (iv) PROSTEMMATINAE, correction of PROSTEMMINA Reuter, 1890, Ad cogni- tionem Nabidarum, Rev. d’Ent., Caen, 9 : 289 (type-genus : Prostemma Laporte, [1832]) (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). (v) NOTONECTIDAB, correction by Curtis, 1824 (British. Ent. 1 : No. 10) of NOTONECTARIAE Latreille, [1802-1803], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. Paris, 3 : 253 (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). (vi) REDUVIIDAE, correction by Stephens, 1829 (4 Systematical Catalogue of British Insects, London 2 : 350) of REDUVINI Latreille, 1807, Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum, Parisiis et Argentorati 3 : 126 (type-genus: Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). (vii) TRIATOMINAR, correction by Usinger, 1939, Univ. California Publ. Ent. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962. 16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7(3) : 33 of TRIAaTOMINI Jeannel, 1919, Insectes Hémiptéres, 3, Voyage de Ch. Alluaud et R. Jeannel en Afrique Orientale, Paris : 176, 177 and 309 (type-genus : T'riatoma Laporte, [1832] (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). 3. Family-group names to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology : (i) crmicipEs Latreille, [1802-1803], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. Paris 3 : 240 (type-genus : Cimex Linnaeus, 1758) (an invalid original spelling for cromciDAE Latreille, [1802—1803]). (ii) cummcrpa Leach, 1815, Brewster’s Edinburgh Encyclopedia 9(1) : 112 (type- genus: Cimex Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for CIMICIDAE). (iii) crmicrnt Costa, 1847, Cimicum Regni Neapolitani centuria, Atti R. Istit. Incoragg. Sc. Nat., Napoli 7 : 160 (type-genus : Cimex Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for cimMIcIDAE). (iv) cIMicoIDEAE Spinola, 1850, Tavola sinottica dei generi spettanti alla classe degli Insetti Artroidignati, Modena: 38-39 (Separatum); also Mem. Mat. Fis. Soc. Ital., Modena; (Mem. Soc. Ital. Sci. Modena) 25, 1852 : 78-79 (type-genus: Cimex Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for CIMICINAE). (v) crmicipEA Fieber, 1851, Genera Hydrocoridum Pragae:9 (Separatum) : also Abhandl. Bohm. Ges. Wissensch., Prag. (5) 7, 1852 : 189 (type-genus : Cimex Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for CIMICIDAE). (vi) ACANTHIIDAE Costa, 1852, Cimicum Regni Neapolitani centuria tertia et quartae fragmentum (Conspectus methodicus Cimicum in Regno Napolitano huc usque detectorum), Napoli : 67 (Separatum) ; also Atti R. Istit. Incoragg. Sc. Nat., Napoli 8, 1855 : 293 (derived from the rejected and invalid type-generic name Acanthia Fabricius, 1775 ; Direction 63, Name No. 904). (vii) ACANTHIINI Costa, 1852, Cimicum Regni Neapolitani centuria tertia et quartae fragmentum (Conspectus methodicus Cimicum in Regno Neapoli- tano huc usque detectorum) Napoli: 67 (Separatum); also Atti R. Istit. Incoragg. Sc. Nat., Napoli, 8, 1855 : 293 (derived from the rejected and invalid type-generic name Acanthia Fabricius, 1775 ; Direction 63, Name No. 904). (viii) ACANTHIDAE Dohrn, 1859, Catalogus Hemipterorum, Stettin : 44 (derived from the rejected and invalid type-generic name Acanthia Fabricius, 1775 ; Direction 63, Name No. 904). (ix) ACANTHIADAE Fieber, [1860], Die europdischen Hemiptera, Wien : 24, 37, 135, and 402 (derived from the rejected and invalid type-generic name Acanthia Fabricius, 1775 ; Direction 63, Name No. 904). (x) acanTHuDA Stal, 1865, Hemiptera Africana, 3, Holmiae : 24 (derived from the rejected and invalid type-generic name Acanthia Fabricius, 1775 ; Direction 63, Name No. 904). (xi) ACANTHIDES Puton, 1869, Catalogue des Hémiptéres Hétéroptéres d’ Europe, Paris : 33 (derived from the rejected and invalid type-generic name Acanthia Fabricius, 1775 ; Direction 63, Name No. 904). (xii) acanTHimNA Reuter, (1871) 1872, Skandinaviens och Finlands Acanthiider, Ofv. K. Vet.-Akad. Férhandl., Stockholm, 28 : 407 (derived from the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17 rejected and invalid type-generic name Acanthia Fabricius, 1775 ; Direction 63, Name No. 904). (xiii) crmicrna Stal, 1873, Enumeratio Hemipterorum 3, Kongl. Svensk. Vet.- Akad. Handl., Stockholm, 11, No. 2 : 103 (type-genus : Cimez Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for CIMICINAE). (xiv) crmicrp1 Acloque, 1897, Faune de France, 2, Paris : 358, 392 (type-genus : Cimex Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for CIMICIDAE). (xv) CLINOcoRIDAE Kirkaldy, 1906, List of the Genera of the Pagiopodous Hemiptera—Heteroptera with their type-species, from 1758 to 1904 and also of the Aquatic and Semi-Aquatic Trochalopoda, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc., Philadelphia, 32 : 147 (derived from the rejected and invalid type- generic name Clinocoris Fallén, 1829 ; Direction 63, Name No. 910). (xvi) cLINocoRINA Reuter, 1908, On the Nomenclature of some (British) Hemiptera—Heteroptera, Hnt. mon. Mag., London 44 : 27 (derived from the rejected and invalid type-generic name Clinocoris Fallén, 1829 ; Direction 63, Name No. 910). (xvii) ANTHOCORIDEA Fieber, 1837, Beitrige zur Kenntniss der Schnabelkerfe, Weitenweber’s Beitr. z. gesammten Nat. u. Heilwiss., Prag 1 :106 (type- genus : Anthocoris Fallén, 1814) (invalid original spelling for ANTHOCORIDAE Fieber, 1837). (Xvill) ANTHOCORIDEAE Fieber, 1843, Faune du Cercle d’Elbogen, Almanach de Carlsbad Prague, 13 : 55 (type-genus: Anthocoris Fallén, 1814) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for ANTHOCORIDAE). (xix) ANTHOCORINI Costa, 1852, Cimicum Regni Neapolitani centuria tertia et quartae fragmentum (Conspectus methodicus Cimicum in Regno Neapoli- tano huc usque detectorum), Napoli: 69 (Separatum) ; also Atti R. Istit. Incoragg. Sc. Nat., Napoli, 8, 1855 : 295 (type-genus : Anthocoris Fallén, 1814) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for ANTHOCORINAE). (xx) aNTHOCoRIDA Stal, 1865, Hemiptera Africana, 3, Holmiae : 23 (type- genus: Anthocoris Fallén, 1814) (an erroneus subsequent spelling for ANTHOCORIDAE). (xxi) ANTHOCORIDES Snellen van Vollenhoven, 1868, De inlandsche Hemi- pteren, I, Tijdschr. v. Ent., ’s Gravenhage 11 : 137 (type-genus : Anthocoris Fallén, 1814) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for ANTHOCORIDAE). (xxii) ANTHOCORIDES Puton, 1869, Catalogue des Hémiptéres Hétéroptéres d'Europe, Paris : 32 (type-genus : Anthocoris Fallén, 1814) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for ANTHOCORINAE). (xxiii) ANTHOCORINA Reuter, (1871) 1872, Skandinaviens och Finlands Acanthiider, Ofv. Kongl. Vet.-Akad. Férhandl., Stockholm 28 : 409 (type- genus: Anthocoris Fallén, 1814) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for ANTHOCORINAE). (xxiv) NABINI Costa, 1852, Cimicum Regni Neapolitani centuria tertia et quartae fragmentum (Conspectus methodicus Cimicum in Regno Neapoli- tono huc usque detectorum), Napoli: 66 (Separatum) ; also Atti R. Instit. Incoragg. Sc. Nat. Napoli, 8, 1855: 292 (type-genus: Nabis Latreille, [1802-1803]) (invalid original spelling of NABINAE Costa, 1852. 18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (xxv) NABIDES Stal, (1858) 1859, Nabides, en ny grupp bland Reduvites, Ofv. K. Vet.-Akad. Férhandl., Stockholm, 15 : 247-248 (type-genus : Nabis Latreille, [1802-1803]) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NABINAE). (xxvi) NABIDA Stal, 1862, Hemiptera mexicana, Stettin Ent. Zeitg. 23 : 458 (type-genus: Nabis Latreille, [1802-1803]) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NABIDAE). (xxvii) NaBINA Stal, (1870) 1871, Hemiptera insularum Philippinarum, Ofv. K. Vet.-Akad. Férhandl., Stockholm, 27 : 674 (type-genus: Nabis Latreille, [1802—1803]) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NABIDAE). (xxviii) coriscrina Stal, 1873, Enumeratio Hemipterorum 3, K. Svenska Vet.- Akad. Handl., Stockholm, 11, No. 2 : 106, 110 (derived from the rejected and invalid type-generic name Coriscus Schrank, 1796; Opinion 244, Name No. 64). (xxix) NaBIsm Acloque, 1897, Faune de France 2 Paris, 393, 395, (type-genus : _ Nabis Latreille, [1802~-1803]) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NABINAE). (xxx) NABIDINAE Distant, 1904, Fauna of British India, Rhynchota, 2 London : 197 and 389 (type-genus: Nabis Latreille, [1802-1803]) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NABINAE). (xxxi) NABIDINARIA Distant, 1904, Fauna of British India, Rhynchota, 2, London : 397 (type-genus: Nabis Latreille, [1802-1803]) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NABARIA). (xxxii) CoRISCIDAE Uhler, 1904, List of Hemiptera-Heteroptera of Las Vegas Hot Springs, New Mexico, collected by Messrs. E. A. Schwarz and Herbert S. Barber, Proc. U.S. National Mus., Washington, 27 : 363 (derived from the rejected and invalid type-generic name Coriscus Schrank, 1796 ; Opinion 244, Name No. 64). (xxxiii) NaBINA Stal, 1873, Enumeratio Hemipterorum 3, K. Svenska Vet.- Akad. Handl., Stockholm, 11, No. 2 : 106, 107 (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NABINAE and based on Nabis Stal, 1873 (Prostemma Laporte, [1832]) nec Nabis Latreille, [1802—1803)). (xxxiv) PROSTEMMINA Reuter, 1890, Ad cognitionem Nabidarum, Rev. d’Ent. Caen, 9 : 289 (type-genus: Prostemma Laporte, [1832]) (an erroneous original spelling for PROSTEMMATINAE Reuter, 1890). (xxxv) PROSTEMMARIA Distant, 1904, Fauna of British India, Rhynchota, 2, London, : 391 (type-genus : Prostemma Laporte, [1832]) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for PROSTEMMATARIA). (xxxvi) PROSTEMMINAE Oshanin, 1912, Katalog der paldaktischen Hemipteren, Berlin : 54 (type-genus : Prostemma Laporte, [1832]) (an erroneous subse- quent spelling for PROSTEMMATINAE). (xxxvii) PROSTEMMINI Handlirsch, 1925, in Schréder, Handbuch der Entomologie, Jena, 3 : 1055 (type-genus: Prostemma Laporte, [1832]) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for PROSTEMMATINI). (xxxviii) NOTONECTARIAE Latreille, [1802-1803], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins., Paris, 3 : 253 (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous original spelling for NoroNEcTIDAE Latreille, [1802-1803)). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 19 (xxxix) NoTONECTIDA Leach, 1815, Brewster’s Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, 9, part 1 : 124 (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subse- quent spelling for NOTONECTIDAE). (xl) NoTonEcTAEDES Billberg, 1820, Enumeratio Insectorum, Holmiae : 66 (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NOTONECTIDAE). (xli) NoroneEctict Burmeister, 1835, Handbuch der Entomologie, Berlin, 2 : 185 (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NOTONECTIDAE). (xlii) NOTONECTINI Costa, 1838, Cimicum Regni Neopolitani centuria, Napoli : 2 (Separatum) ; also Atti. R. Istit. Incoragg. Sc. Nat., Napoli, 7, 1847 : 146 (type-species Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NOTONECTIDAE). (xliii) NOTONECTINIDAE Fieber, 1843, Faune du Cercle d’Elbogen, Almanach de Carlsbad, Prague 18 : 54 (type-species : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NOTONECTIDAE). (xliv) NoToNnEcTIDES Agassiz, 1842-1846, Nomina systematica generum Hemi- pterorum, Nomenclator Zoologicus, Soloduri: VII (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NOTONECTIDAE). (xlv) NOTONECTIDEA Agassiz, 1842-1846, ibidem : 13 (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NOTONECTIDAE). (xlvi) NoTONECTOIDEA Agassiz, 1846, Nomenclatoris Zoologici Index Universalis, Soloduri: 251 (type-genus: Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NOTONECTIDAE). (xlvii) NoToNECTITAE Spinola, 1850, Tavola sinottica dei genert spettanti alla classe degli Insetti Artroidignati, Modena : 27, 49 (Separatum) ; also Mem. Mat. Fis. Soc. Ital., Modena, 1852: 67, 89 (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NOTONECTIDAE). (xlviii) NoToNEcTEAE Fieber, 1851, Genera Hydrocoridum Pragae : 9 (Separa- tum) ; also Abhandl. Bohm. Ges. Wissensch., Prag, 1852 (5) 7 : 189 (type- genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NOTONECTIDAE). (xlix) NoToNECTAE Fieber, 1851, ibidem : 24 (Sept.), 204 (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NOTONECTINAE). (1) NoronEctica Flor, 1860, Die Rhynchoten Livlands, Dorpat, 1 : 751, 766 (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NOTONECTIDAE). (li) Noronzctina Stal (1870), 1871, Hemiptera insularum Philippinarum, Ofv. K. Vet.-Akad. Férhandl., Stockholm, 27 : 707 (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NOTONECTIDAE). (lii) NoronEctTipDI Acloque, 1897, Faune de France, Paris, 2 : 359, 397 (type- genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NOTONECTIDAE). (liii) REDUVINI Latreille, 1807, Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum, Parisiis et Argentorati, 3 : 126 (type-genus: Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (invalid original spelling for REDUVIIDAE). 20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (liv) REDUVIADAE Kirby, 1837, in J. Richardson, Fauna Boreali-Americana, 4, London: 279 (type-genus: Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIIDAE). (lv) REDUvINA Fieber, 1837, Beitrige zur Kenntniss der Schnabelkerfe, Weitenweber’s Beitr. z. gesammten Nat. u. Heilwiss., Prag, 1 : 101 (type- genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIDAE). (lvi) REDUVINIDAE Fieber, 1843, Faune du Cercle d’Elbogen, Almanach de Carlsbad, Prague, 13 : 54 (type-genus: Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIOIDAE). (lvii) REDUVIEAE Feber, 1844, Entomologische Monographien, Prag : 25 (Separatum) ; also Abhandl. Bohm. Ges. Wissensch., Prag, (5) 8, 1845 : 303 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIIDAE). (viii) REDUVITAE Spinola, 1850, Tavola sinottica dei generi spettante alla classe degli Insetti Artroidignati, Modena: 27, 44 and 45 (Separatum) ; also Mem. Mat. Fis. Soc. Ital., Modena, 25, 1852 : 85, 86 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIIDAE) (lix) REDUVIOIDEAE Spinola, 1850, ibidem : 45, 85, 86 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIINAE). (Ix) REDUVIDEA Fieber, 1851, Genera Hydrocoridum, Pragae : 9 (Separatum) ; also Abhandl. Bohm. Ges. Wissensch., Prag (5) 7, 1852 : 189 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVI- IDAE). (lxi) REDUVOINI Costa, 1852, Cimicum Regni Neapolitani centuria tertia et quartae fragmentum (Conspectus methodicus Cimicum in Regno Napoli- tano huc usque detectorum), Napoli: 66 (Separatum) ; also Atti R. Istit. Incoragg. Sci. Nat., Napoli 8, 1855 : 292 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIINAE). (Lxii) REDUVITEs Stal, 1858, Bidrag till Rio Janeiro Traktens Hemipter- Fauna, K. Svensk. Vet.-Akad. Handl., Stockholm, 2, No. 7 :5, 6 and 68 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIIDAE). (Lxiii) REDUVIDAE Dohrn, 1859, Catalogus Hemipterorum, Stettin : 48 (type- genus : Reduvius, Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIIDAE). (lxiv) REDUVINI Stal, 1859, Till kinnedomen om Reduvini, Ofv. K. Vet.-Akad. Férhandl., Stockholm 16:175 (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVUDAE and based on Reduvius Stal, 1859 (= Rhynocoris Hahn, 1834) nec Reduvius Fabricius, 1775). (xv) REDUVIDEs Stal, 1859, ibidem. 16 : 195 (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIIDAE and based on Reduvius Stal, 1859 (= Rhynocoris Hahn, 1834) nee Reduvius Fabricius, 1775). (Ixvi) REDUVIIDA Stal, 1862, Hemiptera mexicana, Ent.Zeitg., Stettin, 23 : 441 and 446 (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIIDAE and based on Reduvius Stal, 1859 (= Rhynocoris Hahn, 1834) nec Reduvius Fabricius, 1775). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 21 (xvii) REDUvINA Mayr, 1866, Hemiptera, Reise der dsterreichischen Fregatte Novara um die Erde, Wien: 135 (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIIDAE and based on Reduvius Stal, 1859 (= Rhynocoris Hahn, 1834) nec Reduvius Fabricius, 1775). (Ixviii) REDUVIDES Puton, 1869, Catalogue des Hémiptéres Héteroptéres d’ Europe, Paris : 35 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIINAE). (xix) REDUVIINA Stal, (1870) 1871, Hemiptera insularum Philippinarum, Ofv. K. Vet.-Akad. Férhandl., Stockholm, 27 : 675 (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIIDAE and REDUVIINAE and based on Reduvius Stal, 1859 (=Rhynocoris Hahn, 1834) nec Reduvius Fabricius, 1775). (Ixx) REDUVUDAE Reuter, 1872, Skandinaviens och Finlands Reduviider, Ofv. K. Vet.-Akad. Férhandl, Stockholm, 29, No. 6 : 59 (invalid since based on Reduvius Stal, 1859 (= Rhynocoris Hahn, 1834) nec Reduvius Fabricius, 1775). (Ixxi) REDUVIDES Puton, 1875, Catalogue des Hémiptéres (Hétéropteres, Cicadines et Psyllides) d’Europe et du Bassin de la Méditerranée, 2 éd., Paris : 49 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIIDAE). (Ixxii) REDUVIDAE Puton, 1875, ibidem : 50 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIINAE). (Ixxiii) REDUVINI Puton, 1875, ibidem: 50 (type-genus: Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous spelling for REDUVIINI). (Ixxiv) REDUVIOIDEA Uhler, 1877, Report upon the Insects collected by P. R. Uhler during the Explorations of 1875, including Monographs of the Families Cydnidae and Saldidae, and the Hemiptera collected by A. S. Packard, jr., M.D., Bull. U.S. Geol. Survey, Washington, 3 : 429 (invalid superfamily name based on Reduvius Stal, 1859 (=Rhynocoris Hahn, 1834) nec Reduvius Fabricius, 1775). (Ixxv) REDUVUINAE Uhler, 1877, ibidem : 429 (an invalid sub-family name based on Reduvius Stal, 1859 (=Rhynocoris Hahn, 1834) nec Reduvius Fabricius, 1775). (Ixxvi) REDUVIDAE Uhler, 1866, Check-List of the Hemiptera Heteroptera of North America, Brooklyn: 23 (an erroneous subsequent spelling of REDUVUDAE and based on Reduvius Stal, 1859 (= Rhynocoris Hahn, 1834) nec Reduvius Fabricius, 1775). (Ixxvii) REDUvVuONA Reuter, 1893, Monographia generis Holotrichius Burm., Acta Soc. Sci. Fenn., Helsingfors, 19, No. 3:3 (type-genus: Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIINAE). (xxviii) REDUVIIDI Acloque, 1897, Faune de France, 2, Paris : 359, 393 (type- genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIIDAE). (Ixxix) REDUvI Acloque, 1897, Faune de France, 2, Paris : 394 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVI- INAE). (Ixxx) CONORHINIDES Amyot et Serville, 1843, Histoire Naturelle des Insectes Hémiptéres, Paris : xlviii, 383 (invalid family-group name, being based on 22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the rejected and invalid type-generic name Conorhinus, Laporte, [1833] ; Direction 63, Name No. 915). (Ixxxi) CONORHINIDAE Walker, 1873, Catalogue of the Specimens of Hemiptera Heteroptera in the Collection of the British Musewm, London 7 : 46, 50 (invalid family-group name, being based on the rejected and invalid type- generic name Conorhinus Laporte, [1833] ; Direction 63, Name No. 915). (Ixxxii) CoNnoRHINARIA Distant, 1904, Fauna of British India, Rhynchota, 2, London : 282 (invalid divisional name being based on the rejected and invalid type-generic name Conorhinus Laporte, [1833]; Direction 63, Name No. 915). (Ixxxiii) CONORRHINARIA Jeannel, 1919, Insectes Hémiptéres, 3, Voyage de Ch. Alluaud et R. Jeannel en Afrique Orientale, Paris : 176 (an erroneous subsequent spelling for CONORHINARIA and invalid, being based on the rejected and invalid type-generic name Conorhinus Laporte, [1833] ; Direction 63, Name No. 915). COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF AMPHISBAENA DUBIA RATHKE, 1863. Z.N.(S.) 1466 (see volume 18, page 220) By Hobart M. Smith (Professor of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) The species involved are not common and have not been widely noted in the literature. Little confusion would result from strict application of the automatic provisions of the Code. However, this one name jeopardizes two names, each of which would have to be changed : one by a new name, and one by the hitherto neglected name dubia Rathke. Furthermore, considerable effort might be necessary to determine definitely which of two forms should bear the name dubia Rathke. When by one simple action the Commission can obviate the conspicuously greater loss of time and energy that would be required to handle a nomenclatural matter than is expended in the Commission’s consideration of the same matter, in the interest of efficiency the Commission should act upon it. In this case approval of the request is justified in spite of the very limited significance of the names involved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 23 EIGHT DUBIOUS SPECIES OF BIRDS: PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO PLACE THESE NAMES ON THE OFFICIAL INDEX. Z.N.(S.) 1033 By Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge 38, Mass., U.S.A.) The literature on almost any group of animals contains the names of nominal species which were insufficiently described and without known type- specimens. In those groups of animals, such as birds, where the nomenclature has been essentially stabilized, such names continue “ to be a threat to stability and universality of nomenclature ’’. Article 26 of the Copenhagen Decisions specifies the conditions under which such names should be placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ”. The Commission is herewith requested to exercise its plenary powers to place on the Official Index the names of 8 nominal species of birds not now or not ever used in the ornithological literature and conforming to the qualifica- tions of dubious names stated in Article 26 of the Copenhagen Decisions. (1) Oriolus cothurnix Scopoli, 1786, Del. Flor. et Faun. Insubr. : 87, sp. 33. Tetrao Novae Guineae Gmelin, [1789], Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1(2) : 746 (bis), no. 56. Perdix Novae Guineae Latham, 1790, Ind. Orn. II : 655, no. 39. All three names based on “ La Caille de la Nouvelle Guinee ” of Sonnerat (1766, Voyage a la Nouvelle Guinée : 170, Pl. 105). These names are based on the specimen of a chick of a gallinaceous bird collected by Sonnerat’s Expedition either in the Philippines or in the Western Papuan area. It is highly probable that it is the young of one of the species of Megapodius. An unequivocal identification of a megapode chick to the species or subspecies level is impossible. The locality data of Sonnerat’s Expedition are unreliable and it is well known that many specimens, stated to have come from “ New Guinea”, actually came from the Philippines and vice versa. Sonnerat’s New Guinea Quail has been considered by every ornithologist who has worked in the New Guinea area, such as Sharpe, Salvadori, Ogilvie-Grant, Hartert, and Mayr, and all have come to the conclusion that the name is unidentifiable. If it were to be decided arbitrarily at this late date that one of these names should be applied to the species universally called Megapodius freycinet Quoy and Gaimard, 1827, it would replace the latter name, having 41 years priority. It is therefore highly desirable, for the sake of the stability of nomenclature, to place the above listed names on the Index of Rejected Names. (2) Megapodius brazieri Sclater, 1869, Proc. Zool. Soc. London : 529—Vanua Lava, Banks Islands. This name has been universally rejected by ornithologists since it is merely based on some egg shells. If the assignment to the genus and the locality are correct, as is confirmed by Brazier (1881, Proc. Linn. Soc. New South Wales 6 : 150-154), this would be an older name for Megapodius layardi Tristram (1879, Ibis : 194), a name universally used for the megapodes of the New Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962, 24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Hebrides and Banks Islands since 1879. It would be most unsettling for nomenclature if layardi, after 80 years of usage, were to be displaced by a name which is virtually a nomen nudum. The Commission is therefore requested to place the name MV. brazieri on the Index of Rejected Names. (3) Cuculus rufulus Vieillot, 1817, Nouv. Dict. Hist. Nat. (nouv. éd.) 8 : 234) —Nouvelle Hollande. This name was based on two specimens of young cuckoos believed to be from Australia and preserved in the cabinet of M. Baillou. For its status we may quote Amadon (1942, Birds, Whitney South Sea Expedition, No. 50: 15): “The description seems to be that of the juvenal plumage of some species of Cacomantis. Juvenals of the two species just mentioned [variolosus and pyrrhophanus] are quite similar. Most authors, including Mathews and Hartert, have rejected the name rufulus as indeterminable. The latter believed that the description agrees with the brush cuckoo [variolosus]. Mr. D. L. Serventy, on the other hand, has suggested (letter to E. Mayr) that rufulus be used for the fan-tailed cuckoo [pyrrhophanus]. After studying Vieillot’s description, with a series of juvenals of both species before me, I can find nothing to justify restriction of the name to either. “The upper parts of C. rufulus were described as ‘ variées de brun et de roussatre’. This suggests the more variegated pattern of the brush cuckoo. Those who would use the name for the fantailed cuckoo mention Vieillot’s statement that the remiges are ashy, the rectrices similar but darker and blackish. Some juvenals of the brush cuckoo, however, could be described thus, although in general they have the tail feathers dark brownish rather than blackish. The description of the belly, ‘le ventre de deux gris, l'un presque blane et l’autre foncé . . .’, might apply to many individuals of either species. Other points mentioned by Vieillot are also the same in these two species (not to mention other possibilities, if the locality should be wrong). To summarize, it seems impossible from Vieillot’s description to identify his Cuculus rufulus. The name has been universally rejected ”’. Only if the types were still in existence might it be possible to identify this nominal species. To an inquiry, Prof. J. Berlioz, Director of the Depart- ment of Mammals and Birds at the Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle answered most kindly (1 February 1955): ‘‘ There is not the least trace in our Museum of Vieillot’s types of Cuculus rufulus ... Absolutely nothing is known here about rufulus ”’. Under the circumstances it would seem desirable to have this name placed on the Index of Rejected Names. (4) Sericornis tyrannulus De Vis, 1905, Ann. Queensl. Mus., No. VI: 42, Charleville, Central Queensland. This species has been considered unidentifiable for more than 50 years. The type, formerly in the Brisbane Museum in Queensland, has been lost. It is virtually certain that the bird cannot be a Sericornis because no species of this genus is found in such an arid locality. Nor does the description fit any species of Acanthiza, Gerygone, or other genus to which it might conceivably belong. In view of the fact that Australia is now very well known ornithologic- ally and that in spite of much collecting no new species has been discovered Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 25 since 1911, the Commission is requested to place the name of this nominal species on the Index of Rejected Names. (5) Crateroscelis montana De Vis, 1897, Ibis : 387, South East New Guinea. This name is based on a nestling bird in downy plumage and cannot be identified as to species. The type, formerly in the Brisbane Museum, is apparently lost and would presumably not permit correct identification even if available. There is the possibility that the name refers to the species which is listed in current standard taxonomic treatises under the name Crateroscelis robusta De Vis, 1898. It is proposed to place the name C. montana on the Index of Rejected Names in order to avoid unsettling the existing nomenclature. (6) Muscicapa tessacourbe Scopoli, 1786, Del. Flor. et Faun. Insubr., fase. IL: 95. Muscicapa luzoniensis Gmelin, [1789], Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1(2) : 942. Both names are based on “‘ Le Gobe-mouche noir de l’isle de Lucon ” of Sonnerat (1776, Voyage a la Nouvelle Guinée : 59, pl. 27, fig. 2). The bird was said by Sonnerat to occur on Madagascar and the Philippines. However, as stated by many authors and most recently by Delacour (1946, Auk 63 : 483), there is no species of bird either on Madagascar or the Philippines which agrees with Sonnerat’s description and plate, in fact it has been quite impossible so far to identify this nominal species with any known bird. In order to avoid a disturbance of nomenclature at some later date, the Commission is requested to place the names of these two unidentifiable nominal species on the Index of Rejected and Invalid Names. (7) Saxicola merula Lesson, 1828, Voy. Coquille, Zool., 1(2) : 622—“ New Treland ”’. The description is based on a juvenile specimen of Pachycephala with uncertain locality but probably belonging to the widespread species P. pectoralis. Owing to the early date of the description the name would have priority over most of the described races of Pachycephala pectoralis if the exact type locality were known. Salvadori (1881, Orn. Pap. Mol. 2 : 219) suspected that the bird came from Amboina but according to the route of the Expedition, on which the specimen was collected, it could also have come from several other localities including New Ireland, the originally designated type locality. The name has never been used in the primary literature. In order to permit stabilization of nomenclature in the genus Pachycephala it is herewith proposed to place the name Saxicola merula on the Index of Rejected Names. (8) Meliornis schistacea De Vis, 1897, Ibis : 381.—South East New Guinea. This nominal species has not been identified since its description in 1897. The type is apparently lost. The type specimen was badly damaged, part of the bill having been shot away, and had been preserved in spirit prior to its description, with the result that the original coloration had been destroyed. Consequently, the original description is not very meaningful. In view of the fact that the mountains of Southeast New Guinea, the area where the bird came from, are ornithologically extremely well known, it is virtually certain that the name refers to some species which is well known under a different name. There is a possibility that it is an older name for Ptiloprora meekiana 26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Rothschild and Hartert, 1907, but there are too many discrepancies in the description to permit synonymization of the two nominal species. For a discussion of the case see Mayr, 1941, List of New Guinea Birds: 207. It is evident that this nominal species is unidentifiable and the Commission is requested to place the name Meliornis schistacea on the Index of Rejected Names. The present list was seen in 1955 by D. Amadon, J. Berlioz, H. G. Deignan, H. Friedmann, G. C. A. Junge, R. E. Moreau, A. L. Rand, F. Salomonsen, E. Stresemann, and C. A. Vaurie, all of whom concur in the above made proposal. The Commission is herewith requested to suppress the names of the above listed nominal species for the purposes of the Law of Priority by exercise of its plenary powers and to place these names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF SALAMANDRA ERYTHRONOTA RAFINESQUE, 1818. Z.N.(S.) 1467 (see volume 18, pages 221-222) By James E. Huheey (Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Mass., U.S.A.) IT should like to express my support for the petition of Dr. Richard Highton for the conserva- tion of cinereus Green, 1820, and the suppression of erythronota Rafinesque, 1818. The following may be of some interest in this matter : “To Professor Green belongs the merit of having first observed and described the Salamandra now under consideration ; for although he believed it was only a variety of an animal described by Rafinesque, yet he informed me that Rafinesque afterwards told him that the Salamandra erythronota was not the animal he (Rafinesque) had in view, and which, indeed, he had published, under some other name.” (Holbrook, N. Amer. Herp. (ed. 1) 3 : 115, 1838). Thus although erythronota Rafinesque and erythronota Green are probably synonyms despite Rafinesque’s beliefs (as stated by Holbrook), the fact that Rafinesque supposedly described Green’s animal “‘ under some other name ” raises the possibility that there may be found yet another name, perhaps antedating erythronota Rafinesque. It seems best therefore not to discard cinereus in favour of another name which may be only temporarily valid. By Hobart M. Smith (Professor of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) This is a clear-cut case for preservation of a consistently-used name for a widely-noted species. Preservation of the status quo in this case is exactly the type of role for which the plenary powers of the Commission can most usefully be exercised. Approval of the proposal is strongly urged. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 27 AMMODISCUS REUSS, 1862 (FORAMINIFERA) ; PROPOSED DESIGNA- TION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1087 By W. A. Macfadyen (Hope’s Grove, Tenterden, Kent, England) The purpose of the present application is to stabilise the interpretation of the nominal genus Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862, in the sense of Reuss’s original description in which it was generally used from 1880 to 1954. In Ellis & Messina’s Catalogue of the Foraminifera 102 species were recently counted, listed as having been referred to the genus, while another 31 species have been noted as having been transferred by various authors from other genera. Of this total of 133 species at least 86 are currently considered to belong to it ; and the genus forms the type of the family ammMopiscipar Rhumbler, 1895 (Nachr. k. Ges. Wiss. Gottingen, Math-Phys. Kl. : 83) so that any change in the meaning of the name would clearly do considerable harm to the stability of nomenclature. Yet in a recent paper (Loeblich & Tappan, 1954, J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 44 : 306-310) the generic name is sunk* as a synonym of Spirillina Ehrenberg, 1841, and is interpreted in terms of a type-species Orbis infimus Strickland, 1846, which is now known as Spirillina infima (Strickland), which being both a calcareous and a fossil form is inconsistent with the original diagnosis of the genus and with long-established usage of the name. At the same time the arenaceous species hitherto included in Ammodiscus were assigned to the genus Involutina, which was transferred out of the family to which it was formerly referred. The family ammopiscipaE Rhumbler, 1895, and the subfamily AMMODISCINAE Reuss, 1862, were left without a valid nominate genus. These names were replaced by the family name TOLYPAMMINIDAE Cushman, 1929, and subfamily name INVOLUTININAE Cushman, 1940. The facts of the case are set out below. 2. The genus Ammodiscus was established by Reuss (1862, Sitzb. k. Akad. Wiss. Wien, math.-nat. Cl., Jahrg. 1861, 44 : 365) without any included species but as a partial synonym of two existing genera. His description reads : “ Mit sandig-kieseliger Schale vii. Ammodiscinea m. Mit der einzigen Gattung Ammodiscus m. (Cornuspira Will. z. Thl., Trochammina Park. et Jon. z. Thl.). Schale frei, tellerformig, gleichseitig, spiral gewunden, mit in einer Ebene dicht an einander liegenden Umgiingen. Am Ende in der ganzen Weite ausmiindend. Lebend.” It would thus be reasonable to suppose that, in designating a type-species, * Since the present paper was written Loeblich & Tappan (1961, Micropaleontology, 7 : 189- 192) have returned to the problem and now propose to revive the generic name Ammodiscus for arenaceous forms with type-species Involutina silicea Terquem, 1862; and to accept Bornemann’s 1874 designation of Involutina jonesi Terquem & Piette, 1862, as the type-species of the calcareous genus Involutina. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962. 28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature preference should be given to a recent arenaceous species which had been referred to Cornuspira or to Trochammina by one or other of the authors mentioned prior to the establishment of Ammodiscus ; yet the species designated by Loeblich & Tappan was a calcareous extinct Lower Lias species which had never been referred to either of those genera at that time. 3. The nominal genus Cornuspira was not first established by Williamson, but by Schultze in 1854 (Polythal. : 40) with two originally included species, C. planorbis Schultze and C. perforata Schultze. The type-species, by selection by Cushman, 1927 (Contr. Cushman Lab. Foram. Res. 3 : 188) is C. planorbis Schultze. The genus was referred to only once by Williamson before 1862, namely in “ The Recent Foraminifera of Great Britain ” (Ray Soc. 1858 : 91- 92), and on this occasion it was treated as a synonym of Spirillina Ehrenberg, 1841 (type-species, by monotypy, Spirillina vivipara Ehrenberg, 1841). Since Reuss expressly refers to this work of Williamson’s in his own paper, later authors have assumed that he wrote “ Cornuspira Will. z. Thl.” by mistake for “ Spirillina Will. z. Thl.” This view was taken by Brady (1884, Challenger Rep. 9 (Zoology) : 329), Rhumbler (1903, Arch. f. Protistenk. 3 : 280), Cushman (1910, Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 71 : 73) and Héglund (1947, Zool. Bidr. Uppsala 26 : 102) amongst others. On this assumption the species referred to Spirillina by Williamson in 1858 would call for consideration in any designation of the type-species of Ammodiscus. These species, four in number, were Spirillina foliacea (Philippi, 1844) (cited as the valid name of Cornuspira planorbis Schultze, 1854), Spirillina perforata (Schultze, 1854) (cited as the valid name of Spirillina vivipara Ehrenberg, 1841), Spirillina arenacea sp. nov. (with Oper- culina incerta d’Orbigny, 1839, placed in queried synonymy), and Spirillina margaritifera sp. nov. Of these species, only Spirillina arenacea agrees with Reuss’s original description of Ammodiscus, and Williamson describes it as follows. “ Shell spiral ; compressed ; thin ; consisting of numerous narrow rounded convolutions of nearly uniform size. Septal aperture round. Texture arena- ceous ; hue yellow or pale brown; opaque. Diam. 1/50. ‘“‘T have met with isolated examples of this object in nearly every British sand which I have examined, but have nowhere found it in abundance. M. D’Orbigny has figured a shell in his Foraminifera of Cuba, under the name of Operculina incerta (p. 49, tab. vi, fig. 16). He thinks that it presents traces of two septa in each convolution, but is not certain ; and speaks with great hesitancy respecting its entire history, not being satisfied with his knowledge of the very few specimens which he obtained from Cuba and Martinique. I have little doubt that his hesitation was just ; and that the object was an unsegmented Spirillina, possibly of the same species as the one under consideration.” The diameter given as 1/50 inch is equal to about 0.5 mm., and the type- locality must be given as the seas around the British Isles, no more exact locality being stated or indicated on his slide. 4. The above-mentioned isomorphous Foraminifera which Williamson grouped in the single genus Spirillina are now divided amongst three genera on the basis of the composition and structure of the shell-wall, Spirillina for Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 29 the hyaline, perforate forms, Cornuspira for the porcellanous, imperforate forms, and Ammodiscus for the agglutinated arenaceous forms. The well- established usage of these names in that taxonomic sense is disturbed by Loeblich & Tappan’s designation of the type-species, and it is urged that this designation be suppressed and that Spirillina arenacea Williamson, 1858 be designated as the type-species of Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862 by the use of the plenary powers. 5. Itisnecessary first, however, to consider the species placed inT'rochammina by Parker & Jones prior to 1862, for that genus was also cited by Reuss in the synonymy of Ammodiscus. Trochammina Parker & Jones, 1859 (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (3) 4 : 347) was established with only a single originally included species, Nautilus inflatus Montagu, 1808, so that it cannot have been to that source that Reuss referred when he spoke of ‘‘ Trochammina Park. et Jon. z. Thl.” The genus was mentioned on only one other occasion by those authors prior to 1862, in a paper by Jones & Parker (1860, Quart. J. Geol. Soc. London 16 : 292-307) and it must be presumed that it was to this paper that Reuss intended to refer. The species then placed in Trochammina were T’. irregularis d’Orbigny, 1850 (a species of Webbina d’Orbigny, 1839) ; 7’. irregularis alternans subsp. nov. ; 7’. irregularis clavata subsp. nov. (type-species of Ammolagena Eimer & Fickert, 1899) ; 7’. squamata sp. nov. ; T. squamata incerta (d’Orbigny), with Spirillina arenacea in synonymy ; T'. syuamata charoides subsp. nov. (a species of Glomospira Rzehak, 1888) ; 7’. squamata gordialis subsp. nov. (type- species of Glomospira) ; and T. squamata var. inflata (Montagu), type-species of Trochammina Parker & Jones, 1859. It may be noted that the citation of species established by d’Orbigny in 1839 and by Montagu in 1808 as sub- species of 7’. sqguamata was invalid. It will also be seen that Operculina incerta d’Orbigny, 1839, was treated as a doubtful synonym of Spirillina arenacea by Williamson in 1858, and as the valid name for the latter by Jones & Parker in 1860. 6. Two years later (in Carpenter, Parker & Jones, 1862: Introduction to the study of the Foraminifera, Ray Soc.: 312) Parker & Jones again quoted Spirillina arenacea as a synonym of “ Trochammina squamata P. & J. var. incerta d’Orb.”’ and this was accepted by Brady (op. cit. 1884 : 330), and Cushman (op. cit. 1910 : 73) and in later works. The synonymy was, however, queried by Heron-Allen & Earland in 1932 (Discovery Rep. 4 : 343). Cushman (op. cit.) designated Operculina incerta as the type-species of Ammodiscus, and this can be understood because, although it was not one of the species originally included in the genus (there were none cited by name), it was among those which had been cited prior to 1862 in one of the genera (T'rochammina) mentioned by Reuss in his synonymy. There is considerable doubt, however, whether the species intended by Cushman (or by Jones & Parker, 1860, whom he was following) was the true Operculina incerta. This question is discussed in the following paragraphs. 7. Operculina incerta was established by d’Orbigny in 1839 (in de la Sagra, Hist. phys. polit. nat. Cuba : 39, pl. vi, figs. 16, 17). The description reads : “ Operculina, Testa orbiculato compressa, lateraliter concava, laevigata, flavescente, margine rotundata ; spira regulari, anfractibus octo, cylindricis, 30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature suturis excavatis. Dimensions. Diametre 1/10 de millim. “ Coquille orbiculaire, trés comprimée, lisse, concave de chaque cété, a dos arrondi. Spire trés réguliére, composée de huit tours cylindriques trés rapprochés, trés étroits, séparés par des sutures profondes. Loges. Nous avons cru remarquer qu ‘il y en avait deux par tour de spire, mais nous ne pouvons l’affirmer. Couwlewr jaunatre uniforme. “Tout en placant cette espéce dans le genre Operculina, nous ne le faisons pas avec la certitude qu'elle y soit bien a sa place, car elle différe de toutes les autres par son grand nombre de tours de spire. Ses loges n’ont pas la méme forme, si nous avons bien vues; la grand ténuité de Vindividu, son peu de transparence nous laissent beaucoup 4 desirer pour sa connaissance compléte. Nous ne décrivons done cette espéce qu’en attendant de nouvelles observations. Nous l’avons rencontrée dans les sables de Cuba et dans celui de la Martinique, ou elle est trés rare.” In the explanation of the plate the figures are stated to be x 200. Since they measure 20 mm. across, they confirm the extremely small size of the specimen figured. 8. It must be borne in mind that those authors who synonymised Operculina incerta and Spirillina arenacea held that both names applied to an arenaceous form with siliceous cement. It was doubtless this which led Heron-Allen & Earland (op. cit.) to question the correctness of this synonymy, as follows : “The Operculina incerta of d’Orbigny has always seemed to us to be open to suspicion as an arenaceous form. Neither the figure nor the text give us any suggestion of an agglutinate test, and either might equally well refer to a weather-stained Spirillina or Cornuspira. We therefore turned to the Paris Type in the hope of settling the question of its nature, only to find ourselves confronted with an apparent blank wall. The tube contains three specimens. It is labelled ‘ Spirillina incerta (Operculina), Cuba’. None of the three specimens can be recognised as the original of d’Orbigny’s figure, and all are unmistakably Cornuspira. One is C. involvens Reuss, the second probably the same but bearing striolations (these may be accidental), the third specimen is a narrow-tubed, square-edged form, suggesting C. angigyra Reuss ; they are all unmistakably fossils. The uncertainty is insoluble until d’Orbigny’s original Cuba Type is perhaps identified among the tubes which have become separated from any identifying ‘ boards ’.” 9. Loeblich & Tappan (1954 : 308) state : “ D’Orbigny’s types [sic] of Operculina incerta were examined by the writers in Paris and found not to be an agglutinated form but a calcareous imperforate form and a typical Cornuspira Schultze, 1854. “Three syntypes of d’Orbigny’s species are preserved in the collections of the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris. That here figured (figs. la, Ib) is hereby designated the lectotype of Operculina incerta and the remaining two specimens become paratypes. All are from the Recent of Cuba.” In their amended diagnosis of the species they point out that the form studied by them has 12 coils, and give the dimensions of the “ lectotype ” as greatest diameter 1.36 mm., least diameter 1.13 mm., thickness 0.25 mm. They do not mention Heron-Allen & Earland’s work, but it seems probable Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 31 that the specimens they saw are the same. 10. There are strong grounds for rejecting the lectotype selection of Loeblich & Tappan as invalid. D’Orbigny described his form as having eight whorls and being 0.1 mm. in diameter ; it is unthinkable that, if he had had more mature specimens thirteen times as big he would not have mentioned them in his description had he considered them to belong to the same species, which is unlikely. It seems preferable to accept Heron-Allen & Earland’s conclusion that d’Orbigny’s original material has not yet been rediscovered, and to consider Operculina incerta as a nomen dubium pending the definite identification of that material. 11. Loeblich & Tappan proceeded strictly on the assumption that Ammodiscus was a genus established without any originally included species cited by name, and that the type-species must either be that species, or be selected from amongst those species first subsequently referred to it. Their action was in the strictest conformity with the Rules, but was taken without regard to the damage so done to stability of nomenclature and of taxonomic practice. On this basis they considered first Ammodiscus lindahli Carpenter & Jeffries [sic], 1871 (Proc. Roy. Soc. London 19 : 160) and showed that the generic name was then applied to a species of Actinozoan. Ammodiscus Carpenter & Jeffreys was in fact proposed as a new generic name and is thus invalid as a junior homonym of Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862, so that the single species referred to the genus does not call for consideration in the present connection. They next examined the species recorded by L. G. Bornemann (1874, Z. deutsch. geol. Ges. 28 : 725, pl. xviii, figs. 4-7; pl. xix, fig. 8) as Ammodiscus infimus (Strickland), and they concluded that this, as the sole [sic] species referred to the genus by Bornemann, was the first species to be placed in Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862, and was therefore the type-species by mono- typy. Barnard, however (1954, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (12) 5 : 905-909) had already shown that Strickland’s Orbis infimus (1846, Quart. J. Geol. Soc. London 2 : 30-31) is a calcareous hyaline form of the taxonomic genus Spirillina Ehrenberg, 1841. The form identified with that species by Bornemann, however, is an agglutinated, siliceous form. Thus by interpreting Ammodiscus Reuss in terms of Orbis infimus Strickland as understood by Bornemann, they made Ammodiscus a genus based on a misidentified type-species. The valid name of the species which Bornemann had before him is silicea Terquem, 1862, which Bornemann cited in the synonymy of Ammodiscus infimus. 12. Loeblich & Tappan, having thus accepted the misidentification of the species which they designated as the type-species of Ammodiscus with a hyaline, perforate form, sank Ammodiscus as a synonym of Spirillina, and proposed to transfer the arenaceous forms hitherto included in Ammodiscus to Involutina Terquem, 1862, a genus treated by some authors as a synonym of Problematina Bornemann, 1874. The position and status of these two genera is, however, far from clear. Involutina was established by Terquem, 1862 (Mém. Acad. imp. Metz 42 : 450) with Involutina silicea Terquem from the Middle Lias. In a later section of the same paper (: 461), in which Foraminifera from the Lower Lias are described by Terquem & Piette, Involutina jonesi is added to the genus. The 32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature two passages concerned were published in the same work on the same day, so that statements that J. silicea is the type-species by monotypy (e.g. Cushman, 1928, “ Foraminifera’: 51, 143; Macfadyen, 1941, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London (B) 231 : 17 ; Loeblich & Tappan, op. cit. : 309) are erroneous. I. jonesi was in fact validly selected as the type-species by Bornemann (op. cit. 1874: 711). The oldest available name for this species, however, as shown by Brady, 1864 (Geol. Mag. 1 : 196) is Nummulites liassicus Jones, 1853 (in Brodie, Proc. Cotteswold Nat. F.C. 1: 248, and Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (2), 12 : 275), a calcareous species. It is thus easily seen that the taxonomic position of Involutina is entirely dependent on which species is regarded as the type- species. If the first valid selection by Bornemann is followed, the genus is a calcareous one, allied to Spirillina or Cornuspira ; if current usage in regarding I. silicea as the type-species is followed, then the genus is an arenaceous one, synonymous with Ammodiscus. If the former choice is adopted, then Problematina Bornemann, 1874, type-species, by selection by Cushman, 1927 (Contr. Cushman Lab. Foram. Res. 3:188), Involutina deslongschampsi Terquem, 1863 (Mém. Ac. Imp. Metz 44 : 432) falls as a subjective synonym, for the type-species is at least congeneric, and possibly even conspecific, with Nummulites liassicus Jones, 1853. The generic name Problematina is not extensively used, and it is recommended that Bornemann’s type-selection for Involutina be accepted. The transfer thus involved of Jnvolutina from an arenaceous to a calcareous group of species will cause less disturbance to taxonomy and nomenclature than will the rejection of Ammodiscus as advocated by Loeblich & Tappan. 13. The family-group names involved in the present case are AMMODISCIDAE Rhumbler, 1895, and AMMODISCINAE Reuss, 1862 (as AMMODISCINEA) ; these are in current use and should be added to the Official List. 14. In order to promote stability in the use of the generic names discussed above, the International Commission is requested :— (1) to use its plenary powers : (a) to set aside all type-designations for the nominal genus Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862, made prior to the ruling now asked for, and, having done so, to designate Spirillina arenacea Williamson, 1858, as the type-species of that genus : (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Spirillina arenacea Williamson, 1858 ; (b) Involutina Terquem, 1862 (gender: feminine), type-species, by selection by Bornemann, 1874, Involutina jonest Terquem & Piette, 1862 ; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) arenacea Williamson, 1858, as published in the binomen Spirillina arenacea (type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, of Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862) ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 33 (b) liassicus Jones, 1853, as published in the binomen Nummulites liassicus (the oldest available name for the type-species of Involutina) ; (c) infimus Strickland, 1846, as published in the binomen Orbis infimus, and as defined by the lectotype selected for the species by Barnard, 1954 ; (4) to place the family-group name AMMODISCINAE Reuss, 1862 (correction of AMMODISCINEA), type-genus Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862, on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. (5) to place the following name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology: AMMODISCINEA Reuss, 1862, type-genus Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862 (an invalid original spelling of AMMODISCINAE). I have to acknowledge with gratitude the great help I have received in the setting out of this paper from Mr. R. V. Melville, lately Assistant Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Note on Spirillina arenacea Williamson, 1858, proposed as type-species of the genus Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862. By Tom Barnard (University College, London). Type reference : Williamson, W. C., On the Recent Foraminifera of Great Britain. Ray Society, London, England, 1858, p. 93, plate vii, fig. 203. Williamson’s figured specimen of Spirillinia arenacea is missing from the slide preserved in the British Museum (Natural History) so it has been necessary to select another specimen as the lectotype. This is described below and figured on the accompanying plate. Description : The test is planispiral, consisting of a globular proloculus followed by a simple non-septate coiled tube. In Williamson’s type material there are generally about six fairly regular whorls, but ranging from 5 to 7 ; the whorls increase markedly in height from the earliest to the latest, and a later whorl may (or may not) embrace the previous whorl to about one-third of the height of the whorl. In cross section they are seen to be uniform in shape. Successive whorls appear to be added directly to the test, with no prepared floor. The test is open-evolute, with a simple very shallow umbilicus on both sides ; but in specimens where the whorls embrace more than usual a deeper umbilicus is found on one side of the test. The wall is thin, smoothly finished, arenaceous, composed largely of minute quartz fragments set in non-caleareous cement. Unfortunately, owing to breakage of part of the last whorl in each of Williamson’s specimens, no aperture is preserved, but it appears to have been simply the open end of the tube. Each of the ten specimens is megalospheric, with an almost spherical proloculus which forms a slight protuberance at the centre of the test. From the proloculus emerges a thin tube pointing in the reverse direction to that of the later coiling. This tube turns abruptly through two right angles, and then initiates normal coiling, passing with rapidly increasing size into the first normal coil. Thereafter the tube continues to coil with whorls of slowly 34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature increasing height, though there may be slight irregularity in the addition of successive whorls (see plate 2, figs. 1 & 2). No. of Diameter Whorls of Test (visible) mmm. 5 0.44 7 0.34 5 0.28 6 0.30 6 0.48 5 0.43 5 0.44 5 0.43 5 0.51 6 0.36 Material. 10 Specimens Locality. Seas around the British Isles Type Level. Recent Lectotype. Removed from Williamson’s slide and remounted. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) No. Lectotype 1960.9.28.1 ex. 96.8.13.52. Paralectrotypes 1960.9.28.2 ex. 96.18.13.52 1960.9.28.3 ex.96.8.13.52. Depository. British Museum (Natural History), London. PLATE 1 Fig. 1. Ammodiscus arenaceus (Williamson). x70 Lectotype. B.M. (Nat. Hist.). No. 1960.9.28.1. Focused on inner whorls. Fig. 2. Ammodiscus arenaceus (Williamson). 70 Lectotype. B.M. (Nat. Hist.) No. 1960.9.28.1 Focused on outer whorls. Fig. 3. Ammodiscus arenaceus (Williamson). x70 Paralectrotype. B.M. (Nat. Hist.) No. 1960.9.28.2 Focused on inner whorls. Fig. 4. Ammodiscus arenaceus (Williamson). x70 Paralectrotype. B.M. (Nat. Hist.) No.1960.9.28.2. Focused on outer whorls. Fig. 5. Ammodiscus arenaceus (Williamson). x70 Paralectrotype. B.M. (Nat. Hist.) No. 1960.9.28.3. Focused on outer whorls. Fig. 6. Ammodiscus arenaceus (Williamson). x70 Paralectrotype. B.M. (Nat. Hist.) No. 1960.9.28.3 Focused on inner whorls. PLATE 2 Fig. 1. Ammodiscus arenaceus (Williamson). 1960.9.28.3. 150 Showing cross-section of the test. Fig. 2. Ammodiscus arenaceus (Williamson). 1960.9.28.3. 150 A reconstruction of the above photograph. Fig. 3. Ammodiscus arenaceus (Williamson). 1960.9.28.3. 1200 Diagram showing the proloculus, with the small tube emerging from it, turning through two right angles, and then circling the chamber to join the main chamber of the test. Fig. 4. Ammodiscus arenaceus (Williamson). 1960.9.28.4. 150 Photograph in oil to show the initial coil. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19 Plate 1 Plate 2 Bull. zool. Nomencel., Vol. 19 bo ie \ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 35 AMMONITES LAEVIGATA LAMARCK, 1822; PROPOSED SUPP- RESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS TOGETHER WITH THE VALIDATION OF TWO NOMINAL SPECIES NAMED AMMONITES LAEVIGATA BY J. DE C. SOWERBY, 1827. Z.N.(S.) 1203 By D. T. Donovan (Bristol) and C. W. Wright (London) The specific name Ammonites laevigata was published by Lamarck (1822 : 637). It was applied to a fossil in his collection for which no locality or geological horizon was recorded. A brief description was given, in Latin and French, but no illustration was included. To the best of the writers’ knowledge the name has not been employed by any later author of systematic descriptions or revisions of ammonites, and in their opinion it is impossible to determine, from Lamarck’s description, to which of the many hundred ammonite species now recognised his name Ammonites laevigata should be applied. Search for type material has not been made for only confusion would be caused if this name were brought into use now. 2. James de C. Sowerby in 1827 (: 93, pl. 549, fig. 1) described and figured the species Ammonites laevigatus from the Gault (Cretaceous) of Crockerton, near Warminster, Wilts. In the same work, later in the same year (: 135, pl. 570, fig. 3) he described and figured a different ammonite species as Ammonites laevigatus, based on a specimen from the Lias (Jurassic) near Lyme Regis, Dorset. There is no evidence that either species was identified with Lamarck’s species referred to in para. 1, and both species have always been attributed to Sowerby. 3. Sowerby was not in the habit of using the same specific name more than once in a particular genus, and his reason for doing so in this case was clearly that, shortly after the part of his monograph in which he described the Gault Ammonites laevigatus was published, he re-identified the figured specimen as Ammonites Selliguinus Brongniart (in Cuvier and Brongniart), for this name was substituted for Ammonites laevigatus (:93) in the “Corrections and Observations” to the whole volume. Being bound by no Rules of Nomen- clature, Sowerby felt free to use the superseded name Ammonites laevigatus for another species, and did so on page 135 of his work. According to the present Rules, however, if it were not for Lamarck’s Ammonites laevigatus, Sowerby’s earlier Ammonites laevigatus (from the Gault) would be a valid name, but the later Ammonites laevigatus to be published (the Liassic one) would fall as a junior homonym of the earlier. 4, D’Orbigny (1850 : 225) proposed the new name Ammonites Davidsoni for Ammonites laevigatus Sowerby, 1827, pl. 570, fig. 3 (d’Orbigny cited fig. 6 in error). The name has never been correctly applied. It was rejected by Oppel, the author of the first general work on the European Lias (1856 : 81-82) 1Oppel (1856 : 82) stated that Ammonites laevigatus Lamarck was synonymous with Ammonites Lewesiensis Mantell, 1822, from the English Chalk, but he was not dealing systematically with either species. Sharpe (1853-55) who monographed English Chalk cephalopods, does not mention Lamarck’s species. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962. 36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature who conserved the name Ammonites laevigatus for the Liassic species. Dumortier, after accepting Ammonites laevigatus (1864:116), adopted d’Orbigny’s name in a later part of the same work (1867 : 112, pl. 21, figs. 1-4) but the French specimen which he figured is not generally regarded as con- specific with Sowerby’s Liassic Ammonites laevigatus and has often been referred to as “Ammonites Davidsoni Dumortier ”’ (e.g. Quenstedt, 1883 : 106 ; Spath, 1926: 170). The name Ammonites Davidsoni was not adopted in the second edition of Morris’s “‘ Catalogue of British Fossils’ (1854), a reference work which appeared shortly after the name had been proposed, nor by Woodward (1893) in the fossil lists appended to the Geological Survey of Great Britain’s memoir on the Jurassic Rocks of Britain, nor by Spath when revising Ammonites laevigatus (1923a, 1926). In fact d’Orbigny’s name has not been used by any British author, all having used Sowerby’s name which did not in practice lead to any confusion. In our opinion only inconvenience and confusion would be caused by effecting the change now. 5. It happens that both Gault and Lias Ammonites from Britain have in recent years been revised by the same authority, L. F. Spath, who accepted both of Sowerby’s species: the Gault one in the combination Buwedanticeras (recte Beudanticeras) laevigatum (1923: 55, family Desmoceratidae Zittel, 1895; subfamily Beudanticeratinae Breistroffer, 1953), and the Liassic one in the combination Cymbites laevigatus (1923a : 76-78 ; 1926: 169-170, family Cymbitidae 8. 8. Buckman, 1919). Each name is in current use among workers on the Gault and the Lias respectively. In view of the recognition of the Gault species in Spath’s monograph on Gault Ammonites, and the use of Cymbites laevigatus in Lang’s definitive account of the Lias succession in Dorset (Lang, 1923 : 57-59 ; 1926 : 159-162) it is submitted that great confusion would be caused both to palaeontologists and to stratigraphers if either or both these names were now to be changed. 6. The genus Ammonites Bruguiére, to which Lamarck’s species mentioned in para. 1 and Sowerby’s two species enumerated in para. 2 were all originally referred, has recently been suppressed by the Commission (Opinion 305, 1954). The original homonymy of the three species is therefore a matter of technical but not of practical importance. Between the two which have been used since their original publication, there is no likelihood of confusion on account of the widely separated geological formations in which they are found and the different families into which they are now placed. 7. In view of the considerations adduced above we ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : (1) to use its plenary powers : (a) to suppress the specific name laevigata Lamarck, 1822, as published in the binomen Ammonites laevigata (specific name of a species dubium), for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy ; 1 Oppel and other authors considered Sowerby’s species to be technically invalidated by a species they referred to as Ammonites laevigatus Reinecke, 1818. This species was first published in the combination Nautilus laevigatus Reinecke (1818: 78) and so does not affect the present application. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 37 (b) to suspend the operation of the Law of Homonymy in the case of Ammonites laevigatus J. de C. Sowerby (1827: 135) in order that it be not invalidated by Ammonites laevigatus J. de C. Sowerby (1827 : 93) ; (2) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) laevigatus J. de C. Sowerby, 1827 (: 93) as published in the binomen Ammonites laevigatus, from the Gault, and now referred to as Beudanticeras laevigatum, validated by the action recommended under (1)(a) above ; (b) laevigatus J. de C. Sowerby, 1827 (: 135) as published in the binomen Ammonites laevigatus, from the Lias, now referred to the genus Cymbites, validated by the action recommended under (1)(a) and (b) above ; (3) to place the specific name laevigata Lamarck, 1822, as published in the binomen Ammonites laevigata (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. Nove: Recommendations on the names of the genus Beudanticeras and its type- species, the subfamily BEUDANTICERATINAE and the family DESMOCERATIDAE will form part of the subject of an application relating to the generic name Desmoceras which will shortly be submitted to the Commission by one of us (C.W.W.). Recommendations on the type-species of the genus Cymbites, at present Ammonites globosus (Schiibler MS.) Zieten, 1832 (a species dubium), and the family name cymsBitTrpa#, will form the subject of an application which it is proposed by one of us (D.T.D.) to submit to the Commission when the decision on the present application is known. REFERENCES Breistroffer, M., in Breistroffer, M. & O. de Villoutreys, 1953. Les ammonites albiennes de Peille (Alpes-Maritimes). Trav. Lab. géol. Grenoble 30: 69-74 Buckman, S. S., 1919. Yorkshire Type Ammonites 2(18), xv, London d’Orbigny, A., 1850. Prodrome de Paléontologie...1. Paris Dumortier, E., 1864, 1867. Etudes paléontologiques sur les Dépéts jwrassiques du Bassin du Rhéne, 1,2. Paris Lamarck, J. B. P. M. de, 1822. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres, 7. Paris Lang, W. D., 1923. Shales-with-‘ Beef’, a Sequence in the Lower Lias of the Dorset Coast, Part 1, Stratigraphy. Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. Lond. 79 : 47-66 —, 1926. The Black Marl of Black Ven and Stonebarrow, in the Lias of the Dorset Coast, Part 1, Stratigraphy. Ibid. 82 : 144-165 Morris, J., 1854, A Catalogue of British Fossils, 2nd ed. London 38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Oppel, A., 1856. Die Juraformation... Stuttgart Quenstedt, F. A., 1883. Die Ammoniten des Schwdbischen Jura, 1. Der Schwarze Jura. Stuttgart Reinecke, I. C. M., 1818. Maris prologaei Nautilos et Argonautas volgo Cornus Ammonis... Coburg Sowerby, J. de C., 1827. The Mineral Conchology of Great Britain, 6, pars. London Spath, L. F., 1923. A Monograph of the Ammonoidea of the Gault, part 1, London, Pal. Soc. —, 1923a. Shales-with-‘ Beef’, a Sequence in the Lower Lias of the Dorset Coast, Part 2, Palaeontology. Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. Lond. 79 : 66-88 ——, 1926. The Black Marl. of Black Ven and Stonebarrow, in the Lias of the Dorset Coast, Part 2, Palaeontology. Ibid. 82 : 165-178 Woodward, H. B., 1893. The Jurassic Rocks of Britain, 3, Lias (Yorkshire excepted). London: Mem. Geol. Surv. Zittel, K. A. von, 1895. Grundziige der Palaeontologie. Munich & Leipzig COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF MYELOPHILUS EICHHOFF UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 467 (see Volume 18, pages 69-72 and 319-321) By F. G. Browne (West Africa Timber Borer Research Unit, Kumasi, Ghana) On reading Professer Wood’s interesting and important comment, my first inclination was to recommend the suppression of Yomicus Latreille in favour of Blastophagus Eichhoff. The former name has a rather unfortunate history, having for long been confused with Ips De Geer. Its use by Chamberlin (1939) in North America can hardly be taken as establishing current use, as it is unimportant when compared with the wide acceptance of Blastophagus in Europe and Asia. However, on reflection I support Professor Wood’s proposals. There is already confusion, and confusion will inevitably continue for some time, whatever name may be established under the plenary powers. That being so, it seems advisable to establish the truly valid name, especially if it is one that will not be confused with similar generic names in other Orders. By J. T. Wiebes (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) Dr. Wood’s statement indeed changes the whole aspect of the problem, and I fully agree with his conclusions concerning the name of the Coleoptera. It seems best to maintain the priority of Tomicus Latreille over the other generic names proposed to contain Dermestes piniperda Linnaeus. Concerning Dendroctonus Erichson, I agree with Dr. Wood that it is in favour of nomenclatural stability to validate Dendroctonus with its type Bostrychus micans Kugelmann (in spite of Westwood’s 1838 type designation), in order to avoid the necessity to create a new name for a genus of well-known and economically important beetles. I disagree with Dr. Wood’s remark that there could be reasons for suggesting a possible validity of Blastophagus Gravenhorst. The original publication of this name does not contain any descriptive matter that could possibly serve as an indication. Hence Blastophagus Gravenhorst must be regarded as a nomen nudum. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 39 PLANORBINA HALDEMAN, 1842, TAPHIUS ADAMS & ADAMS, 1855 AND ARMIGERUS CLESSIN, 1884 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA) : PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1392 C. A. Wright (British Museum (Natural History), London) The medically important molluscan intermediate hosts of the human parasite Schistosoma mansoni have for some time been placed in the nominal genera Biomphalaria, Australorbis and Tropicorbis. It is known that these three should be united into a single taxonomic genus and recently B. Hubendick (1955, Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond. 28(6) : 453-542) has shown that on anatomical grounds the genus should include the nominal genera Taphius and Platytaphius. By application of the Law of Priority Taphius should take precedence as the senior synonym and W. L. Paraense (1958, Rev. Bras. Biol. 18(1) : 65-80) has presented the case in favour of following this course. However, it is likely that many medical parasitologists and public health workers will not be prepared to adopt the name J'aphius and further investigation has shown that there is an older available name for the group, namely Planorbina Haldeman, 1842. The full details of the case have been discussed by Barbosa, Hubendick, Malek and Wright (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. in press). In that account the authors mention the problem of Armigerus which has also been used as the generic name for the group. 2. In a group of such great economic importance it is obviously essential that the nomenclature should be stabilized and it is the purpose of this applica- tion to ask for the suppression under the plenary powers of the names Planorbina Haldeman, 1842, Taphius Adams & Adams, 1855, and Armigerus Clessin, 1884. 3. Planorbina was named as a section of Planorbis by 8. S. Haldeman (1842, A Monograph of the Freshwater Univalve Molluscs of the United States. E. G. Dorsey, Philadelphia, p. 14). No type-species was designated for this section nor were any species referred to it in that publication but W. H. Dall (1905, Land and Freshwater Molluscs, Harriman Alaska Expedition 18 : 1-158) designated Planorbis olivaceus Spix (1827, Testacea fluviatilia Brasiliensia p- 26) as type of Planorbina Haldeman and referred Planorbis glabrata Say (1818, J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1(2) : 280) to the section. Both of these species belong in the nominal genus Australorbis. H. A. Pilsbry (1934, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 86(1) : 29-66) argued that Dall had misinterpreted Haldeman’s definition of Planorbina and, because P. olivaceous could not possibly be included in that definition, Pilsbry stated that “ Planorbina of Haldeman, 1843, has nothing to do with Planorbina Dall, 1905”. H. Watson (1954, Rev. Zool. Bot. Afr. 49 (3 & 4) : 209-220) has also suggested that Planorbina Haldeman and Planorbina Dall are not synonymous but that the former referred to Anisus Studer, 1820 (Naturw. Anz. Allg. Schweiz. Gesell. 3, p. 23). However, Dall designated a type-species for Haldeman’s Planorbina and, since that name Bull. zool. Nomencel., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962. 40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature was published with a definition it is an available name and takes priority from its original date of publication (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 160 ; 1950). Planorbina was used in conjunction with the specific names guadalupensis, glabratus and olivaceus by L. Germain (1921, Rec. Indian Mus. 21) and with olivaceus by J. Thiele (1931, Handbuch der Syst. Weichtierkunde I, p. 480, Fischer, Jena) and more recently by J. B. Burch (1960, Ztschr. f. Tropenmed. u. Parasit. Stuttgart 11(4) : 449-452) with glabratus and sudanica. 4. Taphius was proposed as a sub-genus of Planorbis by H. & A. Adams: (1855, The Genera of Recent Mollusca 2, p. 262, van Voorst, London) and Planorbis andecolus d’Orbigny (1835, Mag. Zool. 5(61 & 62) : 26) from Lake Titicaca was the type-species by original designation. Paraense (loc. cit.) quotes eighteen references between the years 1870 and 1957 to show that Taphius is a name in frequent use but most of the authors whom he quotes have merely mentioned the name with its original definition in lists or have referred to it insynonymies. Apart from Paraense’s own recent use of Taphius it is a name almost unknown to medical biologists and only a little more familiar to professional malacologists. 5. Armigerus was named as a section of Planorbis by Clessin (1884, Conch. Cab. Martini-Chemnitz (edn. 2) I, 17, p. 120) in the discussion of Planorbis albicans Pfeiffer and it is this species which J. E. P. Morrison (1947, Nautilus 61(1) : 30-31) designated as type for Armigerus. P. albicans had formerly been placed in Tropicorbis. H. B. Baker (1947, Nautilus 61(2) : 71-72) suggested that Clessin had intended to indicate that P. albicans belonged in the section of P. armigerus Say and that the type of this section must, therefore, by absolute tautonymy, be P. armigerus but this species is the type of Planorbula Haldeman, 1842, and Armigerus must fall as a synonym of Planorbula. Whether this argument is correct or not is not certain but, either way, Armigerus has little more than nuisance value as it is a name largely unknown to parasitologists and has only been used by one malacological specialist. 6. Biomphalaria Preston, 1910 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (ser. 8) 6(35) : 535, Pl. 7, figs. 26 & 26a) has as type-species, by monotypy, B. smithi Preston (loc. cit.), an unusual planorbid snail from Lake Edward. Anatomical studies, summarised by H. Watson (loc. cit.), have shown that all of the large planorbid snails of the ethiopian region belong to a single genus and they have all been placed in Biomphalaria. This name is probably the most widely known and is one of the more extensively used of the series. It is the name of the genus to which all of the African intermediate hosts of Schistosoma mansoni belong and a report of a World Health Organisation Study Group (W. H. O. Tech. Rep. Ser. 90, pp. 5 & 6, 1954) recommended that Biomphalaria should be the name used for all intermediate hosts of S. mansoni and that Australorbis and Tropic- orbis should be considered as its junior synonyms. 7. Tropicorbis was established as a section of Planorbis by A. P. Brown and H. A. Pilsbry, (1914, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 66(1) : 209-213). Planorbis liebmanni Dunker (1886, in Kiister, H. C., Syst. Conch.-Cab. p. 59) was designated as type-species and P. siliceus, an Oligocene fossil from Antigua was referred to the section. This is a well-known name in Central and South Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 41 America and several neotropical intermediate hosts of S. mansoni have been referred to the genus. 8. Platytaphius was proposed as a section of Planorbis by H. A. Pilsbry (1924, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 76(1) : 49-66) for P. heteropleurus Pilsbry, 1924, from Lake Titicaca and this species is the type by monotypy. It is not a well-known name and has rarely been used. 9. Australorbis was described as a new genus by H. A. Pilsbry 1934 for ~Planorbis guadalupensis Sowerby (1821, Genera of Shells II). In discussing this new genus Pilsbry states that it should perhaps be treated as a sub-genus of Tropicorbis, a group which he then considered should have full generic status. Australorbis is a very well-known name and is in frequent use. Some of its South American members are intermediate hosts for S. mansoni and A. glabratus has been the subject of many laboratory studies. 10. In order to eliminate the great confusion which exists at present in the generic nomenclature of the intermediate hosts of Schistosoma mansoni I request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following generic names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy : (a) Planorbina Haldeman, 1842 ; (b) Taphius H. & A. Adams, 1855 ; (c) Armigerus Clessin, 1884 ; (2) to place the following generic name on the Official List of Generic Names : Biomphalaria Preston, 1910 (gender, feminine), type-species by monotypy : Biomphalaria smithi Preston, 1910 ; (3) to place the following specific name on the Official List of Specific Names: smithi Preston, 1910, as published in the binomen Biom- phalaria smithi (type-species of Biomphalaria) ; (4) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Planorbina Haldeman, 1842 ; (b) Taphius H. & A. Adams, 1855 ; (c) Armigerus Clessin, 1884. 42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature AMYOT, METHODE MONONYMIQUE : REQUEST FOR A DIRECTION THAT THIS WORK BE PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL INDEX OF REJECTED AND INVALID WORKS IN ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. Z.N.(S.) 1478 By Wolfgang Stichel (Berlin, Germany) C. J. B. Amyot’s Entomologie Frangaise, Rhynchotes, Méthode Mononym- ique was published in serial form in the Annales Société ent. France (Series 2) 3 : 369-492, t. 8 and 9, 1845; (Series 2) 4 : 73-192, 359-452, t. 10, 1846; (Series 2) 5 : 453-524, t. 2 and 7, 1847. In 1848 a repaged edition of the whole work was published in Paris by J. B. Bailliére and in London by H. Bailliére. In the preface to his work, Amyot states: “Ce qui doit le plus frapper au premier abord, dans cet ouvrage, est le mode de nomenclature que nous y avons adopteé, sous le titre de Méthode mononymique, et qui consiste dans l’application d’un nom unique, donné 4 chaque espéce, au lieu de deux, le nom générique et le nom spécifique, comme cela se pratique dans la nomenclature en usage depuis Linné.”” In effect this was meant to be a new system of nomenclature. It is scarcely necessary to point out that this system is completely at variance with Article 25 (b) : ‘‘ The author must have consistently applied the principles of binominal nomenclature throughout the paper in question ”’. 2. Hemipterists have mostly rejected Amyot’s Méthode Mononymique. Kirkaldy, 1909 in his Catalogue of the Hemiptera (Heteroptera) 1, Cimicidae : x, wrote : “ The mononymics of Amyot (1845-47, A. 8. E. France) are clearly inadmissible either for genera or species and have no place in a binominal system”. A few of the names have been validated as specific names by publication by later authors. For example, Stactogala Amyot (1 : 413, No. 468) was used by Fieber, 1866, Verhandl. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien 16 : 5085, t. 7, fig. 19, in his new genus Opsius and is validated from that date as Opsius stactogalus Fieber. 3. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested to place the title of the following work on the Offical Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature : Amyot (C.J.B.), 1845-1847, Entomologie Frangaise, Rhynchotes, Méthode Mononymique. UTE EEE SEIS EES Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 43 ARGYRODES SIMON, DIPOENURA SIMON, ROBERTUS O. PICKARD- CAMBRIDGE AND THEONOE SIMON (ARACHNIDA, ARANEAE) : PROPOSED PRESERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1481 By Herbert W. Levi (Musewm of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge 38, Mass., U.S.A.) The principal purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to permit the accustomed usage of four genera of the spider family THERIDIIDAE : Argyrodes, Dipoenura, Robertus and Theonoe. A study of theridiid genera (in press) has revealed that usage of these names does not correspond with the strict application of the Rules. 1. Argyrodes Simon (1864, Histoire Naturelle des Araignées, (ed. 1) : 253), with type-species by tautonymy Linyphia argyrodes Walckenaer (1841, Histoire Naturelle des Araignées 2 : 282), from southern Europe and North Africa, is preoccupied by Argyrodes Guenée (1845, Ann. Soc. ent. France (2) 3 : 322) (Lepidoptera) with the type-species by monotypy A. vinetella Fabricius. Strand (1928, Arch. Naturgesch. 93 : 42) first noted the homonymy and proposed the name Argyrodina for Argyrodes Simon. In the 1940’s Conopistha Karsch (1881, Berliner Ent. Zeitschr. 25 : 39) with the type-species by original designation C. bonadea, from Japan, was recognized as a subjective synonym of Argyrodes Simon. For the last twenty years Conopistha has been generally used as the name for the genus. A revision of the American spiders of the genus (Exline and Levi, 1961, in press) and a study of all theridiid genera (Levi, 1961, in press) place both Ariamnes Thorell (1869, Nova Acta Reg. Soc. Sci. Uppsala (3) 7:37, new name for Ariadne Doleschall, 1857, Nat. Tiidschr. Nederland Ind. 13 : 410, preoccupied by two older homonyms) with type-species by monotypy A. flagellum Doleschall, and Rhomphaea L. Koch (1872, Die Arach- niden Australiens (1): 289) with the type-species by monotypy R. cometes L. Koch, 1872, as additional subjective synonyms of Argyrodes, both antedating Conopistha Karsch, 1881. If we follow the Law of Priority, the genus should be called Ariamnes, a name previously used for a small group of rare tropical spiders. However, those who disagree with the synonymy may still consider Conopistha or Rhomphaea the generic name. Others, like Bonnet (1955, Bibliographia Araneorum 2(1) : 704) continue to consider Argyrodes the correct name. Besides being the oldest name of this assemblage of species, Argyrodes is the type-genus of a name in the family group. Simon (1892, Histoire Naturelle des Araignées 1 : 496) divided the THERIDIIDAE into groups, one of which he called AaRGYRODEAE. Later authors (e.g. Petrunkevitch, 1928, Trans. Connecticut Acad. Sci. 29 : 45) have inter- preted ARGYRODAE as a subfamily name, and have changed it to ARGYRODINAE. The family name, however, is no longer in use and I therefore do not Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962. 44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ask that it be placed on the Official List. Argyrodes contains about 70 American species, and probably 100-200 species in the tropics and subtropics of other parts of the world. According to Prof. W. T. M. Forbes and Dr. E. G. Munroe, Argyrodes Guenée (type-species vinetella Fabr.) is a junior objective synonym of Eucarphia Huebner (1825, Verzeichnis bekannter Schemetterlinge (23) : 364), which contains three species with vinetella Fabricius as the type. Argyrodes Guenée is thus an objective synonym of Hucarphia, so the name is not available for a lepi- dopteran genus as proposed by Guenée. The preservation of Argyrodes (spiders) through the suppression of Argyrodes (Lepidoptera) is thus advisable for 3 reasons : (1) The continued widespread usage of Argyrodes in the aranean literature (e.g. Bonnet, 1955), owing to non-acceptance of the earlier senior homonym. (2) The fact that the generic name is the basis of an available and currently used name of the family-group of names. (3) The uncertainty of what replacement name for Argyrodes (spiders) to adopt, owing to disagreement among specialists as to the generic relation of the various generic names in the Argyrodes group. All these difficulties would be removed at once if Argyrodes (Lepidoptera) were suppressed. 2. The problem of Dipoenura Simon (1908, Bull. Sci. France, Belgique 42:95) has been well stated by Bonnet (1956, Bibliographia Araneorum 2(2) : 1515): Simon, en décrivant le genre Dipoenura (1908a, [Bull. sci. France, Belgique 42] p. 95) indique qu’il s’agit de son Dipoena Sect. B de 1894a, [Histoire Naturelle des Araignées, vol. 1] p. 568, qui comprenait les espéces pyramidalis, cyclosoides, etc. . . .; il indique d’autre part que pyramidalis est le type de ce nouveau genre. Or, en 1914, [Les Arachnides de France, vol. 6] p. 297, Simon, passe l’espéce pyramidalis dans le genre Theridium, et lui donne le nom de conigerum, a cause du Theridium pyramidale de L. Koch (1867).—D’autre part, Petrunkevitch, 1928b, [Trans. Connecticut Acad. Sci., vol. 29] p. 117, n’ayant sans doute pas repéré cette espéce pyramidalis (décrite sous le nom d’Huryopis) attribue comme type au genre Dipoenura la premiére espéce nouvelle qui est décrite avec le genre, c’est-a-dire fimbriata. Je ne changerai pas cette désignation maintenant qu’elle est ainsi faite par Petrunkevitch, mais il eut été plus normal de prendre cyclosoides comme type, puisque cette espéce est la deuxiéme citée par Simon et qu’elle avait une plus grande ancienneté. Enfin, le fait que ce genre Dipoenura voit son espéce-type passer dans le genre Theridium devrait automatiquement entrainer la synonymie de ces deux genres ; cela n’est pas possible, les deux genres étant différents ; il faudrait alors créer un autre terme, mais il est preferable d’admettre que Simon s’était trompé dans le premier choix de l’espéce-type de Dipoenura. Dipoenura species are rare ; the name has been little used. Male and female specimens are known of D. fimbriata from Tonkin, Southeast Asia. Two other species are known to belong to the genus, D. cyclosoides (Simon), from Sierra- Leone, West Africa, known only from females, and D. quadrifida Simon also Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45 from Tonkin. No other generic names are available for these species. Theridion pyramidale is known only from juvenile specimens. Their generic affinity is doubtful. It probably belongs to Achaearanea Strand, 1929. If we were to accept the early type designation, 7’. pyramidale, the large genus Achaearanea Strand, 1929 (containing about 100 species, many common), would become a junior subjective synonym. In addition, since the type of T. pyramidale is only known from juveniles, the synonymy would remain doubtful until additional specimens of the type are found. Also D. cyclosoides Simon, D. fimbriata Simon and D. quadrifida would need a new generic name. It is therefore requested that the Commission set aside the early type designation and designate D. fimbriata Simon as type. 3. B. J. Kaston (1946, Amer. Mus. Novitates, no. 1306 : 1) pointed out that Simon (1884, Avrachnides de France 5: 195) incorrectly rejected Ctenium Menge (1871, Schrift. Naturf. Gesell. Danzig 2 : 292), type Erigone pinguis Westring (=livida Blackwall), because he thought it preoccupied by Ctenia Lepeletier (1825, Encyclopedie M éthodique 10 : 650). Simon proposed the name Pedanostethus (1884, Arachnides de France 5 : 195) as replacement for Ctentum Menge. However, Robertus O. Pickard-Cambridge (1879, The Spiders of Dorset : 103), type R. astutus O. Pickard-Cambridge (= R. neglectus O. Pickard-Cambridge) was found to be a senior subjective synonym. Between 1884 and 1911 Pedanostethus was generally used for the genus. From 1907 to the present time Robertus has been in use in Europe, until Kaston’s 1946 paper in North America. At present Robertus is used by European authors. A. Holm, who has studied the genus, uses Robertus. Wiehle, a specialist in the THERIDIDAE published a short discussion on names indicating his preference for Robertus (1960, Zool. Jahrbiicher Syst. 88 : 237). Tullgren (1949, Ent. Tidskr. 70 : 60) has used Robertus and this name has been used by G. H. Locket and A. F. Millidge (1953, British Spiders, Roy. Soc., vol. 2). In the U.S. Ctenium has been used in Kaston’s revision (cited above) of North American species and in several regional lists. Universality of use demands that one or the other name be used for the genus. Usage strongly favours Robertus. It is requested therefore that the Commission use its plenary powers to suppress Ctenium. 4. Theonoe Simon, (1881, Les Arachnides de France 5 : 130), type-species designated by Simon, 1894 (Histoire Naturelle des Araignées 1 : 589), Theonoe filiola Simon, 1881 (op. cit., 5: 131) includes several uncommon species. Although preoccupied by Theonoe Philippi, 1864 (Hemiptera) the name Theonoe has always been used for the genus except in Levi, 1955 (Amer. Mus. Novitates, no. 1718 : 3) where the homonymy was pointed out and the junior objective synonym Coressa Simon, 1894 was used. A letter of inquiry to Dr. W. E. China, a specialist on Hemiptera, was answered as follows : “ Theonoe spiniger Philippi, 1865, Analis de la Universidad de Chile, Vol. 26, p. 654-5 is a nymph (immature stage) of a species of the genus Leptoglossus Guérin, 1830, and is probably Leptoglossus chilensis Spinola, Order Hemiptera, Suborder Heteroptera, Family Coreidae. 46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature “Neave was wrong in his Nomenclator to attribute the name to the Coleoptera. The name T’heonoe has never been used in either Coleoptera or Hemiptera so that no trouble will be caused by suppressing it in favour of Theonoe Simon, 1881, Arachnida. “It will be quite in order for you to make an application to the Commission through me, explaining the position and requesting the suppression of T’heonoe Philippi, 1865. Philippi himself states that it is probably a nymph and his name Theonoe, according to a footnote on p. 654, means a nymph. He likens his new species 7’. spiniger, which is type- species by monotypy of Z'heonoe Philippi, to Anisoscelis chilensis Spinola, but the species actually belongs to the allied genus Leptoglossus Guérin, 1830, not to Anisoscelis.. The specific name spiniger Philippi, 1865 (page 655) as published in the binomen T'heonoe spiniger is, and should be declared, a junior synonym of Leptoglossus chilensis Spinola. “Until Theonoe Philippi, 1865 is suppressed it should be regarded as a junior subjective synonym of Leptoglossus Guérin.”’ The Commission is herewith requested by exercise of its plenary powers to place the name Theonoe Philippi, 1865 (Hemiptera) on the Index of Rejected Generic Names and to place the name 7’heonoe Simon, 1881 (Araneae) on the Official List of Generic Names. 5. The International Commission is therefore asked : (1) to use its plenary powers : (a) to suppress the generic names Argyrodes Guenée, 1845, and Theonoe Philippi, 1865, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy ; (b) to suppress the generic name Cteniwm Menge, 1871, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homo- nymy ; (c) to set aside all designations of type-species for the genus Dipoenura Simon, 1908, made prior to the Ruling now requested and, having done so, to designate Dipoenura fimbriata Simon, 1908, to be the type of that genus. (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Argyrodes Simon, 1864, type-species, by tautonymy, Linyphia argyrodes Walckenaer, 1841 ; (b) Dipoenura Simon, 1908, type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above, Dipoenura fimbriata Simon, 1908 ; (c) Robertus O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1879, type-species, by monotypy, Robertus astutus Pickard-Cambridge, 1879 ; (d) Theonoe Simon, 1881, type-species, by designation by Simon, 1894, Theonoe filiola Simon, 1881 ; (e) Hucarphia Hiibner, [1825], type-species, by designation by Ragonot, 1855, Tinea vinetella Fabricius, 1787 (Lepidoptera). (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : ——— et 5 a) , Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47 (a) argyrodes Walckenaer, 1841, as published in the binomen Linyphia argyrodes (type-species of Argyrodes Simon, 1864) ; (b) fimbriata Simon, 1908, as published in the binomen Dipoenura fimbriata (type-species of Dipoenura Simon, 1908) ; (c) neglectus Pickard-Cambridge, 1871, as published in the binomen Neriene neglectus ; (d) filiola Simon, 1881, as published in the binomen Theonoe filiola (type-species of T’heonoe Simon, 1881) ; (e) vinetella Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Timea vinetella (type-species of Hucarphia Hiibner, [1825]) (Lepi- doptera). (4) to place the following generic names as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Argyrodes Guenée, 1845 ; (b) Ctentwm Menge, 1871 ; (c) Theonoe Philippi, 1865. APHIS LINNAEUS, 1758; ITS TYPE-SPECIES AND THE FAMILY-GROUP NAME DERIVED FROM IT. Z.N.(S.) 881 (see volume 18, pages 177-180) It is regretted that in the article published under the above title in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, quotations are given from a preliminary draft application to the Commission prepared by Mr. H. L. G. Stroyan, and largely based on notes supplied by Dr. Hille Ris Lambers, overlooking the fact that these authors had intended to submit a definitive joint application at a later date. N. D. RILEY COMMENT By Miriam A. Palmer (Colorado State University, Department of Entomology, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.) As to the proposals in items (1), (2) and (3) in paragraph 11 on page 180 concerning the type- species of the genus Aphis and placing the same on the Official List I fully approve. Proposal in (4) : If usage is to be the major consideration and if Linnaeus’ apparent error can be followed then obviously APHIDIDAE should stand. I think usage is a serious consideration where a radical change is involved which causes confusion and frustration. The change here discussed seems hardly that radical and aPHIDAE is simpler and apparently just as accurately fulfils the linguistic requirements as does APHIDIDAE. With Grensted I prefer aPHIDAE. I shall be glad to see this question settled whether it is decided my way or not. 48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SIGARA ATOMARIA ILLIGER, 1807 (INSECTA, HETEROPTERA) ; PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1482 By T. Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) The purpose of the present application is to suppress a specific name which has not been used for over 60 years and which has generally been placed as a junior synonym of another well-established name. The latter opinion being, however, apparently insufficiently justified, the name proposed for suppression forms a possible menace to that well-established name. 2. In 1807, Illiger (Fauna Etrusca 2, iterum edita : 354) published the specific name atomaria for a new species of Sigara Fabricius, 1775 (=Coriza Geoffroy, 1762), in the following words: “In Algarvia species illis duabus [Coriza punctata (Illiger, 1807) and Sigara striata (Linnaeus, 1758)] intermedia occurit, quam Atomariam nuncupavimus.” This passage could be interpreted, from a formal point of view, as comprising a kind of rudimentary description of the species, the word “ intermedia ” referring in this case certainly to the body size. Thus, the specific name atomaria Illiger, 1807, could not be taken for an indisputable nomen nudum and could be held to be available under Art. 12 of the Code. It is of some interest to note in this connection that in Sherborn, 1922-1932, Index Animalium 2, the specific name atomaria Illiger, 1807, has been omitted altogether. As to the taxonomic meaning of the specific name atomaria, it is highly probable that its author applied it to the species known at present under the name Corixa affinis Leach, 1817. 3. The specific name affinis was published by Leach in 1817 (T'rans. linn. Soc. London 12(1) : 18) in the combination Corixa affinis, for a species from Plymouth, England, described by the author as new!. 4. The specific name atomaria was first published, accompanied by an unquestionable description, by Fieber, 1848 (Bull. Soc. Nat., Moscou, 21(1/2) : 512, 515-516, 537), in the combination Corisa atomaria, for a species occurring in Portugal, Italy, Sicily, Cyprus and Egypt. In this paper Fieber gave as the author of the specific name Germar, without quotation, however, of a corresponding publication of Germar. It seems that Germar has never used this name in print, at least not prior to 1848. In 1851 Fieber (Species gen. Corisa: 11, 15-16, 47, 48, pl. 1, fig. 5; also Abh. Konigl. bohm. Ges. Wiss. (5)7, 1852 : 223, 227-228, 259, 260, pl. 1, fig. 5) put” 1 o~ ortended descrip- tion of the species, adding drawings of the palae and agai. yuvung Germar as the author of the specific name atomaria. Only in 1861 [1860] did Fieber (Europ. Hemipt. : 92, 399, 425) correctly indicate Illiger as the author of the specific name, this time also, however, without a quotation of the original publication of 1807. 1. The date of publication of the paper of Leach in question is given usually as 1818, but the title-page of part 1 of vol. 12 of the Transactions of the Linnean Society of London bears the date 1817. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49 5. In 1865, Douglas & Scott (The British Hemiptera : 595-596) established that the specific name atomaria (Illiger) Fieber, 1848, is a subjective synonym of the specific name affinis Leach, 1817, here again, correctly indicating Illiger as the original author of the specific name atomaria but without mention of the original publication of the name. 6. Following Fieber the specific name atomaria has been used in several important publications by Puton (1869, Cat. Hémipt.-Hétéropt. Europe : 39 ; 1875, Cat. Hémipt. Europe (ed. 2): 54; 1880, Syn. Hémipt.-Hétéropt. France 3 : 221-222 ; 1886, Cat. Hémipt. faun. paléarct. (ed. 3) : 65) and by Saunders (1892, Hemipt. Heteropt. Brit. Is. : 331, 333-334). Puton and Saunders in the above publications both quoted Illiger as the author of the specific name atomaria, probably considering it, however, to be a manuscript name and assuming it to have been first published by Fieber in 1848 (cf. Kirkaldy, 1897, Entom. 30 : 259, 260). 7. In 1880 (op. cit. : 222) Puton also expressed the opinion that Corisa atomaria (Illiger) and Corisa panzeri Fieber, 1848 (op. cit.: 515, 537) were conspecific. This opinion was subsequently accepted by other authors (e.g. Saunders, 1892, op. cit.: 333), and in 1897, Kirkaldy (op. cit.: 259, 260) stated the specific name affinis Leach, 1817, to be the valid name of the species thus conceived. This view also found expression in the well-known catalogues published in that period by Puton (1899, Cat. Hémipt. faun. paléarct. (ed. 4) : 81) and by Oshanin (1906-1909, Verz. palaearkt. Hemipt. 1 : 979-980; 1912, Katal. paléarkt. Hemipt.:91) as well as in the key published by Kuhlgatz (1909, Rhynchota in Die Siisswasserfauna Deutschlands 7 : 87, 91, fig. 78) much in use at that time. 8. In 1927, Jaczewski (Pol. Pismo Ent., Lwow, 5 : 121-126, 4 figs.) following Butler (1923, A Biology of the Brit. Hemipt. Heteropt. : 574-577, 670-671) showed definitely that Corixa affinis Leach, 1817, and Corixa panzeri (Fieber, 1848) are two completely different species. This found general acceptance and since that time the former of the above two species is to be found in the hemipterological literature under the specific name affinis Leach, 1817, in particular in such modern standard works as Stichel, 1925-1938 (Jllustrierte Bestimmungstabellen der deutschen Wanzen:312, 313, 331, 364-365, figs. 732-735), Jordan, 1935 (in Gulde, Die Wanzen Mitteleuropas 12 : 97, 99, figs.), Macan, 1939 (A Key to the British Species of Corixidae, Freshwater Biol. Assoc., Sci. Publ. 1: 8, 22), China, 1943 (The Generic Names of British Insects (8): 282, 305), Stichel, 1955 (Illustrierte Bestimmungstabellen der Wanzen, II, Europa 1 : 52, 53, 98, figs. 60-63), Macan, 1956 (A Revised Key to the British Water Bugs, Fr. water Biol. Assoc., Sci. Publ. 16: 41, 65), Poisson, 1957 (Hétéro- pteres aquatiques, Faune de France 61 : 66, 70-71, fig. 42), Southwood & Leston, 1959 (Land and Water Bugs of the British Isles : 380, 382), etc. It should be recalled that Coriza affinis Leach is a species well known in zoo- geography as a typical Mediterranean species widely distributed over south and south-western Europe, north Africa and south-west Asia, ranging from the British Isles and the Canary Islands in the west to the Central Asiatic Republics of the USSR, Kashmir, Pakistan and Arabia in the east. Resuscitation of the long disused specific name atomaria Illiger, 1807, which has a merely formal 50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and, in a sense, “ poor” availability, would, if allowed to supplant affinis Leach, cause only unnecessary confusion in nomenclature and would impair stability. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked : (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name atomaria, Illhger, 1807, as published in the binomen Sigara atomaria, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the specific name affinis Leach, 1817, as published in the binomen Corixa affinis Leach, 1817, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name atomaria Illiger, 1807, as published in the binomen Sigara atomaria (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. The generic name Corixa Geoffroy, 1762, has already been placed on the Official List in Opinion 281 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 6, 1954 : 205-224). COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF EIGHT SPECIFIC NAMES OF TURTLES. Z.N.(S.) 1459 (see volume 18, pages 211-213) By Hobart M. Smith (Professor of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) The proposal is in every specific respect in accord with the objective of nomenclatural stability embraced by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. It may be pointed out that every name that would otherwise be replaced is in wide use in zoology and not in taxonomy alone. Furthermore, failure of suppression of viridi-squamosa Lacépede, 1788, and minor Suckow, 1798, would not only require a substitute for kempii Garman, 1880, but that substitute would become the specific name for the Ridley turtle, long known as olivacea Eschscholtz, 1829, if as is common practice all forms of Lepidochelys are regarded as belonging to a single species. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF PANOPEA MENARD DE LA GROYE, 1807. .N.(S.) 1049 (see volume 18, pages 184-188) By R. K. Dell (Dominion Museum, Wellington, New Zealand) I support the application by Dr. H. E. Vokes and Dr. L. R. Cox for the use of the plenary powers to place Panopea Ménard de la Groye, Cyrtodaria Reuss, Glycymeris Da Costa, Pectunculus Da Costa and Azinaea Poli on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and for the conse- quent placing of specific, generic and family names on appropriate Official Lists. Both the name Panopea and Glycymeris are in common use by New Zealand workers in the sense used in the above application. Revival of the name Glycimeris Lamarck would cause untold confusion and should be avoided. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51 DROMIA WEBER, 1795 (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1488 By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Ni atuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) When checking the nomenclatural status of the currently adopted names for Mediterranean Decapoda, it was found that in several instances these current names are unavailable nomenclaturally or should be used for taxa differing from those to which they are usually given. The first of these problems is dealt with here ; it concerns the generic name Dromia and the specific name of the only Dromiid crab which so far has been reported from the Mediterranean. 2. The generic name Dromia was introduced into carcinological literature by Weber (1795, Nomencl. entomol. : 92) who cited several species as belonging to this genus, viz., ‘“‘ Dromia Rumphii (C. Dromia F.) ”, D. “ artificiosa 8.”, D. “ australasiae (C. aegagropila F.)”, and D. “ Caput mortuum L.?”. Of these four species D. artificiosa is a nomen nudum and D. caputmortuum is only doubtfully referred to the genus by Weber. Therefore the type of Dromia Weber must be chosen from the two species D. Rumphii or D. australasiae. Since Weber cited the name Cancer Dromia F. as a synonym of D. Rumphii, that species becomes the type of the genus by tautonymy. Cancer dromia Fabricius, 1781 (Spec. Ins. 1 : 501) is an erroneous spelling of Cancer Dormia Linnaeus, 1763 (Amoen. Acad. 6 > 413). In 1775, Fabricius (Syst. ent. : 405) still used the correct spelling dormia for the specific name, but changed it in 1781 to dromia and consistently used the incorrect spelling afterwards. However this may be, there cannot be the least doubt that according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature Cancer dormia Linnaeus, 1763, is the type- species of the genus Dromia Weber, 1795. 3. As has been pointed out by Rathbun (1923, Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 36 : 65-70) the species Cancer dormia is based by Linnaeus on the figures of “Cancer Lanosus” of Rumphius (1705, Amboinsche Rariteitkamer - 19, pl. 11, fig. 1) and Seba (1761, Locuplet. Rerum Nat. Thesaur.3 : 42, pl. 18, fig. 1). Rathbun furthermore made it clear that the specimens of Rumphius and Seba do not belong to the genus Dromia as this is at present generally understood, but to the genus Dromidiopsis Borradaile, 1900 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1900 : 572). Rathbun thereupon used the name Dromidiopsis dormia (L.) for Linnaeus’s species, obviously without realizing that this species, being the type of the genus Dromia Weber, cannot be removed from it. 4. A strict application of the Code now necessitates (1) the transfer of the generic name Dromia to the genus Dromidiopsis so that Dromidiopsis falls as a junior synonym, (2) the introduction of a new name for the genus which so far has always been known as Dromia. The switching of a generic name aN Se a SS Ee Bull. zool. Nomencel., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962. 52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature from one well-known genus to another is something which should be avoided at all costs, and therefore the Commission is now asked to make use of its plenary powers to preserve the name Dromia in such a way that it can be used in the sense in which so far it has always been adopted. The simplest way to attain this end is to designate for it a proper type-species, which in this case is the Mediterranean Dromiid, which is best known as Dromia vulgaris H. Milne Edwards, 1837. 5. The correct name of this Mediterranean species also provides some complications. It is usually indicated as Dromia vulgaris H. Milne Edwards (1837, Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 173), but-as Rathbun (1919, Proc. biol. Soc. Washing- ton 32 : 197) pointed out, the name Cancer caput mortuum Linnaeus (1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1050) was given by Linnaeus to the same species and has priority. Rathbun consequently indicated the Mediterranean species with the name Dromia caput mortuum (L.). As a result of this another Dromiid name had to be changed. H. Milne Edwards (1837, Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 178), for example, described a new species of Indo-West Pacific Dromiid under the name Dromia caput mortuum ; this species was later placed in the genus Dromidiopsis and was known as Dromidiopsis caputmortuum (H. Milne Edwards). Rathbun (1919) replaced the preoccupied name caputmortuum H. Milne Edwards by a new name ; she gave the name Dromidiopsis edwardsi to the species. 6. In checking the early Linnean and post-Linnean literature we found that Cancer caputmortuum is not the first name given to the Mediterranean Dromiid. Linnaeus (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 628), for example, described his Cancer personatus as follows : C[ancer]. brachyurus, thorace hirto inaequali utrinque quinquedentato, rostro quadridentato. Planc. conch. 36. t. 5. f. 1. Habitat in M. Mediterraneo. Testa magnitudine pomi, rubra, uti totum corpus hirta. Rostrum bidentatum cum dente ad utrumque latus breviore. Seta utrinque ad basin caudae. Pedes duo postici quasi supra reliquos collocati. 7. The specimen described and figured by Plancus (1739, De Conchis minus notis : 36, pl. 5, fig. 1) under the name “ Cancer hirsvtvs personatvs maris Svperi, vvlgo Facchino Ariminensibvs dictvs ” without any doubt is the species which at present is best known as Dorippe lanata (L., 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1: 1044). Linnaeus’s description of Cancer personatus, however, in no way fits Dorippe lanata, as that species has the body rather flat (so that a comparison with an apple would be senseless), and with only two instead of five teeth on the lateral margin. The description, on the contrary leaves no doubt that it actually is based on a specimen of Dromia, as in the Mediterranean Dromia the body is highly arched and indeed could well be compared with an apple, the lateral margins of the carapace bear five teeth, while also the description of the rostrum, the hairyness of the body and the situation of the legs fit extremely well. In the 12th edition of his Systema Naturae (1767) Linnaeus evidently realized that two species were mixed up under the name personatus and he erected the new Cancer lanatus to include Plancus’s species, and omitted the reference to Plancus in his description of Cancer personatus, to which he Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53 added a few more characters. For some reason or other the name personatus has been ignored by later authors. 8. As Linnaeus’s Cancer personatus is a composite species, it would be best to select as its lectotype the specimen on which Linnaeus based his actual description. This specimen, however, is no longer extant. In the Linnean Collection in Burlington House, London, there are several dried. and often broken specimens of Decapod Crustacea, which have no labels or other markings. During a vist to the collection in June 1956, Dr. Isabella Gordon and I found among these dried Decapoda two specimens of a Dromiid, which at first we thought might have possibly formed part of the type material of Cancer personatus. However, Dr. Gordon informed me later (in a letter dated 4 October 1957) that ‘“‘ according to Mr. Savage (who was for many years paid secretary to the Linnean Society, and very knowledgeable about every- thing belonging to the Society) these broken Decapods without any labels of any kind, are not part of Linnaeus’s material’’. Also in the collection of the Zoological Institute in Uppsala, Sweden, no material of Cancer personatus is found in the Linnean Collections (cf. Holm, 1957, Acta Univ. Upsal. 1957 (6) : 1-68). Therefore it must be assumed that no type material of Cancer personatus L. is in existence anymore. In order definitely to fix the identity of Linnaeus’s Cancer personatus it seems necessary to select a neotype for that species. 9. As the neotype of Cancer personatus Linnaeus (1758) I now select a male specimen with a carapace length of 51 mm. and a carapace breadth of 63 mm., of which a photograph is given here on plate 3. The carapace is globose with the regions clearly indicated and not too much obscured by the dense velvety pubescence which covers the entire body but for the extreme tips of the chelae and the walking legs. The front is tridentate with the median tooth on a much lower level [why it was overlooked by Linnaeus]. There is a small tooth on each orbital margin at the base of the front. The anterolateral teeth of the carapace are five in number (including the extra- orbital tooth) ; there is an angular lobe behind the third and a rounded lobe behind the fourth tooth. The endostomial ridges are not very distinct. The chelipeds bear each an epipodite. The pereiopods are smooth. The fourth and fifth legs are shorter than the other pereiopods and placed more dorsally ; they have a spine at the end of the propodus which forms a kind of subchela with the dactylus. The fifth leg is somewhat longer and more slender than the fourth. 10. The specimen selected here to be the neotype of Cancer personatus L. was collected on 13 August 1950 in the Bay of Cadaqués on the Mediterranean coast of N.E. Spain, by R. Zariquiey Alvarez and L. B. Holthuis. It now forms part of the collection of the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie at Leiden, under the Registered Number Crustacea D 5425. It is labelled as the neotype of Cancer personatus L. and apart from this indication the parch- ment label bears the correct name Dromia personata (L.) and the information concerning locality, date, collectors and registered number mentioned above. 11. The use of the name personatus for the Mediterranean Dromiid has the advantages that (1) it is the nomenclaturally correct name for the species, 54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2) being described in the 10th edition of Linnaeus’s Systema Naturae it can never be replaced by an older name, (3) it does away with the ambiguous name caputmortuum which has been employed for two different species of Dromiidae. The fact that two different names (vulgaris and caputmortuwm) were currently used for the Mediterranean Dromiid makes it the more justifiable to switch to a third name. It seems best therefore to apply the Code here strictly. 12. As the generic name Dorippe Weber, 1795, has several times been referred to in the present proposal, it seems best to have this name placed on the Official List together with the name Dromia Weber. However, there exists a nomenclatural problem concerning this name. In 1763, for example, A. Vosmaer (Mém. Math. Phys. Acad. Sci. Paris 4 : 635-645, pl. 18) published a paper entitled “Mémoire sur un nouveau genre de Crabes de mer (Notogastropus), qui a des pattes sur le dos & sous le ventre’”’. The name Notogastropus is only used in the title and nowhere in the text. Vosmaer brought two forms to this “ genus ’’, the first was named by him “la premiére sorte ” the other “Je second crabe”’, no latin names being given. Vosmaer’s first species is Dorippe frascone (Herbst), the second Dorippe lanata (L.). The name Notogastropus Vosmaer, 1763, if an available name, thus would have to be used for the genus which is universally known as Dorippe Weber, 1795. Evidently most authors considered Vosmaer’s publication of Notogastropus to be not consistent with binominal nomenclature and therefore ignored it ; I know of not a single carcinologist who actually did adopt the name Noto- gastropus for this or any other genus. On the other hand, however, the name is listed in Neaves’s (1940) Nomenclator Zoologicus (8 : 354). Article 11(c)(i) of the Code states that ‘‘ Uninominal names published prior to 1931, in works that deal only with names above the species-group, are accepted as consistent with the principles of binominal nomenclature, in the absence of evidence to the contrary”’. Vosmaer not only dealt with a generic name, but he also mentioned specific names. The latter were not cited by him in binominal combinations, but were treated as uninominal names. Thus, in his text (:641) Vosmaer cited the Linnean species Cancer personatus and Cancer dorsipes as “le personatus”’ and “un dorsipes”’ respectively, not using binomina here. In citing other authors he on several occasions used uninomina (“le facchino ”’ : 639, 640, 645), binomina (“cancer hirsutus”’: 641; “cancer spinosus de Rumphius ” : 644) and polynomina (‘‘ Cancer hirsutus personatus maris superi, vulgo Facchino Ariminensibus dictus”’ : 639), but there is no indication that he accepted these names himself. As Vosmaer deals both with specific and generic names and since there is no indication whatever that he accepts the binominal system, his name Notogastropus according to Article 11 has to be rejected. This name should now be placed on the Official Index. In 1765 a Dutch translation of Vosmaer’s paper was published (Uitgez. Verh. Werken Soc. Weetensch. Europ. 10 : 119-135, pl. 64, figs. 1, 2) ; here the name of the “genus” is written Noto-gastropus. Also this name should be placed on the Index. 13. The type-species of the genus Dorippe Weber, Cancer quadridens Fabricius, 1793, is usually cited as Dorippe dorsipes (L.). This practice, however, cannot be tolerated, It was Miers (1884, Rep. zool. Coll. Alert : 257) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55 who pointed out that the species described as Cancer dorsipes by Linnaeus (1764, Mus. Ludov. Ulr. : 452) is identical with Cancer quadridens Fabricius, 1793. Miers consequently substituted Linnaeus’s specific name for that of Fabricius and named the species Dorippe dorsipes (L.). In his 1764 book, however, Linnaeus did not describe a new species, but referred the material of which he gave a short account to his old species Cancer dorsipes L., 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 630). Cancer dorsipes L., 1758, is based on a figure from Rumphius’s Amboinsche Rariteitkamer (1705 : pl. 10, fig. 3) and on a copy of that figure published by Petiver (1713, Aquat. Anim. Amboinae : pl. 6, fig. 2). Rumphius’s specimen thus is the holotype of Linnaeus’s (1758) Cancer dorsipes (or, in case Linnaeus had additional material which he referred to that species, it is made here the lectotype). As is clearly shown by Rumphius’s figure, this specimen belongs to the species of Raninid crabs, which at present is generally known as Notopus dorsipes (L., 1758). There can therefore be not the slightest doubt as to the fact that the specific name dorsipes L. cannot be used for the species of Dorippe : either Cancer dorsipes Linnaeus, 1764, is not a new name and thus belongs to the species of Notopus, or it is a new name and then falls as a junior homonym of Cancer dorsipes Linnaeus, 1758. As Miers (1884, Rep. zool. Coll. Alert: 257) correctly pointed out, the name Cancer frascone Herbst (1785) is a subjective synonym of and has priority over Cancer quadridens Fabricius, 1793. The type-species of the genus Dorippe Weber, 1795, thus should be known as Dorippe frascone (Herbst, 1785). 14. Dromia is the type-genus of the family DRommDAE, while Dorippe is the type-genus of the family DoRrPPIDAE. Both family names should now be entered in the Official List. The genus Notopus De Haan, 1841, which now also is proposed for insertion in the Official List, is currently regarded as belonging to the family RANINIDAE. 15. The concrete proposals now placed before the Commission are that they should : (1) use their plenary powers : (a) to set aside all type designations and selections for the genus Dromia Weber, 1795, made prior to the proposed ruling ; and having done so (b) to designate as the type-species of that genus the species Cancer personatus Linnaeus, 1758, as defined by the neotype selection made in the present application ; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names : (a) Dorippe (gender: feminine) Weber, 1795, Nomencl. Entomol. : 93 (type-species, by selection by Latreille, 1810 (Consid. gén. Crust. Arachn. Ins. : 96, 422): Cancer quadridens Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst. 2 : 464 (a subjective junior synonym of the name Cancer frascone Herbst, 1785, Vers. Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1(6) : 192) ; : (b) Dromia (gender: feminine) Weber, 1795, Nomencl. Entomol. : 92 (type-species, designated under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above: Cancer personatus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 628) ; 56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (c) Dromidiopsis (gender: feminine) Borradaile, 1900, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1900: 572 (type-species, by monotypy: Dromiaaustraliensis Haswell, 1882, Proc. linn. Soc. New S. Wales 6(4) : 755) ; (d) Notopus (gender: masculine) De Haan, 1841, Fauna Japon. Crust. (5): 137, 138, 139 (type-species, by monotypy : Cancer dorsipes Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 630) ; (3) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names : (a) australiensis Haswell, 1882, as published in the combination Dromia australiensis (name of the type-species of the genus Dromidiopsis Borradaile, 1900) ; (b) dormia Linnaeus, 1763, Amoenit. Acad. 6 : 413, as published in the combination Cancer dormia ; (c) dorsipes Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cancer dorsipes (name of the type-species of the genus Notopus De Haan, 1841) ; (d) frascone Herbst, 1785, Vers. Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1(6) : 192, as published in the combination Cancer frascone (oldest available name for the type-species of the genus Dorippe Weber, 1795) ; (ec) lanatus Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1044, as published in the combination Cancer lanatus ; (f) personatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cancer personatus (the name of the type-species of the genus Dromia Weber, 1795, as designated under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above) ; (4) place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following names : (a) DORIPPIDAE (emendation by White, 1847 (List. Crust. Brit. Mus. : 53) of portpPrpEA) De Haan, 1841, Fawna Japon. Crust. (5) : 120 (type-genus : Dorippe Weber, 1795) ; (b) DROMIIDAE (emendation by Ortmann, 1892 (Zool. Jb. Syst. 6 : 543) of prom1acEA) De Haan, 1833, Fauna Japon. Crust. (1) : ix (type-genus : Dromia Weber, 1795) ; (5) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names : (a) Dorippe Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst.:322, 361 (a junior homonym and a junior objective synonym of Dorippe Weber, 1795) ; (b) Dromia Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst.: 320, 359 (a junior homonym of Dromia Weber, 1795) ; (c) Notogastropus Vosmaer, 1763, Mém. Math. Phys. Acad. Sci. Paris 4 : 635 (a name published in a non-binominal work) ; (da) Noto-gastropus Vosmaer, 1765, Uitgez. Verh. Werken Soc. Weetensch. Europ. 10 : 119 (a name published in a non-binominal work) ; (6) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the following names : Bull. zool. Nomenel., Vol. 19 Plate 3 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 57 (a) caputmortuum H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 178, as published in the combination Dromia caputmortuum (an invalid junior secondary homonym of caputmortuum Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1050, as published in the combina- tion Cancer caputmortuum ; rejected on grounds of homonymy by Rathbun, 1919, Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 32 : 197) ; (b) dromia Fabricius, 1781, Spec. Ins. 1 : 501, as published in the combination Cancer dromia (an erroneous spelling of the name dormia Linnaeus, 1763, Amoenit. Acad. 6 : 413, as published in the combination Cancer dormia) ; (7) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the following names : (a) DORIPPIDEA De Haan, 1841 (an incorrect original spelling of DORIPPIDAE) ; (b) DortpPrENS H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 151 (a vernacular (French) name) ; (c) DROMIACEA De Haan, 1833 (an incorrect original spelling of DRoMI- IDAE) ; (d) pRomiENS H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 168 (a vernacular (French) name). Explanation of Plate 3 Cancer personatus Linnaeus, 1758 Neotype designated by Holthuis (L.B.) in the application submitted by him to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (: 51-57) in the present volume. Photograph H. F. Roman. 58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PARTHENOPE FABRICIUS, 1798, AND LAMBRUS LEACH, 1815; PROPOSED VALIDATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF PARTHENOPE WEBER, 1795 (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA) UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS Z.N.(S.) 1487 By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) Like several previous applications, the present one is concerned with a serious confusion in carcinological nomenclature caused by the rediscovery of F. Weber’s (1795) booklet ‘‘ Nomenclator entomologicus secundum Ento- mologiam systematicam ill. Fabricii adjectis speciebus recens detectis et varietatibus ”, by M. J. Rathbun (1904, Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 17 : 169- 172). In his book Weber published several generic names which he took from the, at that time, unpublished manuscript of Fabricius’s Supplementum Entomologiae Systematicae, which did not appear till 1798. As these generic names in many instances were accompanied in Weber’s book by the names of described species, they gained availability through their publication by Weber. As Weber often included in these genera species different from those which were later placed in them by Fabricius, several very intricate and confusing cases of homonymy and synonymy arose. The names proposed by Fabricius for example have been generally adopted by later authors, while the older names of Weber have been entirely ignored. Weber’s names, being either senior homo- nyms or senior synonyms of those of Fabricius, invalidated the latter in many instances (e.g., Alpheus, Ligia, Idotea, Euryala, Crangon). Also the name Parthenope falls in this category. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is now asked to use their plenary powers to validate the more commonly used name. 2. The references to the generic names dealt with in the present proposal are : Lambrus Leach, 1815, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond.11 : 310. Gender: masculine. Type-species, by monotypy: Cancer longimanus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 629. Parthenope Weber, 1795, Nomencel. entomol. : 92. Gender : feminine. Type- species, selected by Rathbun, 1904 (Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 17 : 170, 171) : Cancer longimanus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 629. Parthenope Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 315, 352. Gender : feminine. Type-species, selected by H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Cuvier’s Régne Animal (Discip. ed.) 18 : pl. 26, fig. 2: Cancer horridus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 629. Daldorfia Rathbun, 1904, Proc. biol Soc. Washington 17: 171. Gender : feminine. Type-species, by monotypy: Cancer horridus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed.10) 1 : 629. 3. Before 1904 the name Parthenope Fabricius was always employed for the genus containing the species Cancer horridus L., while the genus containing C. longimanus L. was indicated by the name Lambrus Leach. As at the time of its original publication the genus Parthenope Weber, 1795, did not include Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59 the species Cancer horridus L., that species could not become its type and it could not be made a synonym of Parthenope Fabricius, 1798. Rathbun’s (1904) action in selecting Cancer longimanus L. to be the type of Parthenope Weber therefore was perfectly justified. Now, however, Parthenope Weber, 1795, invalidated both Parthenope Fabricius, 1798, and Lambrus Leach, 1815, by becoming a senior homonym of the one and a senior synonym of the other. Rathbun (1904) proposed the new name Daldorfia as a replacement name for Parthenope Fabricius. 4. Practically all European authors ignored the changes proposed by Miss Rathbun and they continued to use the names Parthenope Fabricius and Lambrus Leach in the old sense. These names are still used, and may be found in all monographic accounts dealing with the Brachyura of European, African and Indo-West Pacific seas, like that by Bouvier (1940, Faune de France 37 : 308-314) for the French coast, by Nobre (1936, Fauna marinha Portugal 4 : 84-86) for Portugal, by Zariquiey Alvarez (1946, Publ. Biol. Medit. Inst. Esp. Est. Medit. 2 : 166-168) for the Mediterranean coast of Spain, by Monod (1956, Mem. Inst. Franc. Afr. Noire 45 : 57 1-597) for West Africa, by Barnard (1950, Ann. S.Afr. Mus. 38 : 63-66) for S. Africa, by Flipse (1930, Siboga Exped. 39(c2) : 1-96) for the entire Indo-West Pacific area, by Stephensen (1945, Danish sci. Invest. Iran 4: 111-113) for the Persian Gulf, by Sakai (1938, Studies Crabs Japan 3 : 328-341) for Japan, and Shen (1932, Zool. Sinica (ser. A) 9(1) : 41-45) for N. China, while also Balss (1957, Bronn’s Klass. Ordn. Tierr. (ed. 2) 5(1)(7)(12) : 1629-1631) used these names in his fundamental treatise on the Decapoda. These authors are followed by practic- ally all non-American authors who studied the crabs of the regions mentioned, though there are exceptions (e.g., Sendler, 1923, Abh. Senckenb. naturf. Ges. 38 : 41; Urita, 1926, Checklist Brachyura Kagoshima : 29 : Buitendijk, 1939, Temminckia 4 : 265,266). The names Daldorfia Rathbun, 1904, and Parthenope Weber, 1795, are used by most American authors, notably by Rathbun (1925, Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 129 : 510-530) in her monograph on the Spider Crabs of America, and Garth (1958, Allan Hancock Pacif. Exped. 21(1) : 432-458) in his fundamental revision of the Brachyura Oxyrhyncha of the Pacific coast of America. Also the American authors dealing with the Indo-West Pacific fauna, like Rathbun and Edmondson in several publications, used the “American ” nomenclature. 5. Though the “American” nomenclature has been adopted throughout in the literature dealing with the American fauna and is also used in publications on the Indo-West Pacific fauna by American and a few European authors, there can be little doubt that the literature using the “ European ’’ nomen- clature is far more extensive, even if only the literature published since 1904 is taken into account. This is perhaps due to the fact that in European and Indo-West Pacific seas the species of PARTHENOPIDAE are more common and more easy to collect than in American waters. 6. Notwithstanding the fact that it does not seem right to let those carcino- logists who kept strictly to the Rules pay the penalty for obeying the law, I believe that it is in the interest of the stability and uniformity of carcino- logical nomenclature to ask the Commission to suppress under their plenary 60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature powers the generic name Parthenope Weber, 1795, and so to make the “ Euro- pean ’’ nomenclature the legal one. 7. Both genera dealt with here are currently considered to belong to the family PARTHENOPIDAE. It is suggested that this family name be placed on the appropriate Official List. 8. The Commission is now asked to:— (1) use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and that of Homonymy the generic name Parthenope Weber, 1795; (2) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names : (a) Lambrus Leach, 1815 ; (b) Parthenope Fabricius, 1798 ; (3) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names : (a) horridus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cancer horridus (the name of the type-species of the genus Parthenope Fabricius, 1798) ; (b) longimanus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cancer longimanus (the name of the type-species of the genus Lambrus Leach, 1815) ; (4) place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the family name PARTHENOPIDAE (correction by Bell (1844, Hist. Brit. stalk-eyed Crust. (1) : 45, 46) of PARTHENOPINA) Macleay, 1838, Smith’s Illustr. Zool. S. Afr. (Invert) : 55. (Type-genus Parthenope Fabricius, 1798) ; (5) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names : (a) Daldorfia Rathbun, 1904 (an objective junior synonym of Parthe- nope Fabricius, 1798) ; (b) Parthenope Weber, 1795 (a name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above). (6) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the name PARTHENOPINA Macleay, 1838 (type- genus: Parthenope Fabricius, 1798) an Invalid Original Spelling for PARTHENOPIDAE). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61 EURYALA WEBER, 1795, AND CORYSTES LATREILLE, [1802- 1803] (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA); PROPOSED ACTION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS Z.N.(S.) 1486 By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked to use its plenary powers in order to save the well-known and widely used name Corystes Latreille for a European genus of crabs by suppressing its senior objective synonym Euryala Weber, an ignored name. The references to the two genera are : Corystes Latreille, [1802-1803], Hist. nat. Crust. Ins. 3:27. Gender : masculine. Type-species, by monotypy: Hippa dentata Fabricius, 1793, Ent. Syst. 2: 475 (an objective junior synonym of Cancer cassivelaunus Pennant, 1777, Brit. Zool. (ed. 4)4 : 6). Euryala Weber, 1795, Nomencl. Entomol.:94. Gender: feminine. Type- species, by monotypy : Hippa dentata Fabricius, 1793, Ent. Syst. 2 : 475 (an objective junior synonym of Cancer cassivelaunus Pennant, 1777, Brit. Zool. (ed. 4) 4 : 6). 2. The monotypic genus Corystes Latreille, [1802-1803], which inhabits the Mediterranean and the Atlantic coasts of Europe south of the Kattegat, should under a strict application of the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature be known as Huryala Weber, 1795. The two genera have the same type-species and thus are objectively synonymous. The first author who pointed out that Huryala is the correct name for the genus was Rathbun (1904, Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 17: 171) who in her well-known paper “Some changes in Crustacean Nomenclature ”’ reintroduced several of Weber’s Crustacean generic names which until then had been overlooked, and which upon this rediscovery became the cause of much nomenclatural instability. 3. Though there could be no doubt about the fact that Huryala is the valid name for the genus, the European carcinologists refused to accept it and until this day continue to indicate the genus with the name Corystes. Thus, Bouvier (1940, Faune de France 37 : 217) in his important treatise on the French Decapoda Reptantia mentioned Luryala as a synonym of Corystes, but used the latter name. Balss (1957, Bronn’s Klass. Ordn. Tierr. (ed. 2) 5(1)(7)(12) : 1634) in his fundamental account of the Decapoda stated under Corystes : “ der von Rathbun, 1930 ausgegrabene Name Huryala Weber, 1795 wird besser nicht verwendet ’’. These two examples illustrate very well the feeling about this name among European carcinologists ; I do not know of any European handbook in which the name Luryala is used. 4. As the genus does not occur in American waters, and as the followers of Rathbun as a rule were mostly found among American carcinologists, the name Huryala has hardly ever been used in carcinological literature. The Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962. 62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature family name based on this genus, EURYALIDAE, is found more often as this family does occur in America. So in her important monograph of the Cancroid Crabs of America, Rathbun (1930, Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 152 : 10) did use the name EURYALIDAE, being followed in this by American authors. In European literature, however, the name CorysTIDAE is practically unanimously accepted. 5. There can be no doubt that usage is overwhelmingly in favour of the name Corystes, this name having been used now practically consistently for more than 150 years, while Huryala has hardly ever been employed at all, notwithstanding it is now about 50 years since its validity was demonstrated. Therefore it is clearly in the interest of nomenclatorial stability to have the name Corystes validated under the plenary powers of the Commission, even though the species has no economic value and is not important for applied biology. The suppression of the name Huryala will not cause any complications. 6. In the original description of Hippa dentata, the type-species of both Corystes and Euryala, Fabricius (1793) gave a rather vague description and a reference to Pennant’s Cancer cassivelaunus. As the identity of the material that Fabricius had before him cannot be positively determined (if it actually does originate from the Indo-West Pacific area as may be implied from the original account, it may be no Corystes at all), I now select as lectotype of Hippa dentata Fabricius, 1793, the male specimen figured by Pennant (1777, Brit. Zool. (ed. 4) : pl. 7 lower figure) under the name Cancer cassivelaunus. This same specimen is now also selected to be the lectotype of Cancer cassive- launus Pennant, 1777. By these actions Hippa dentata Fabr., 1793, and Cancer cassivelaunus Pennant, 1777, become objectively synonymous. 7. Summarizing, the Commission is now asked : (1) to use their plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, the generic name Huryala Weber, 1795 ; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Corystes Latreille, [1802-1803] ; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name cassivelaunus Pennant, 1777, as published in the combination Cancer cassivelaunus (name of the type-species of the genus Corystes Latreille, [1802-1803}) ; (4) to place on the Official List of Family Group Names in Zoology the name CORYSTIDAE Samouelle, 1819, Entomol. usef. Compend.: 82 (type- genus: Corystes Latreille, [1802-1803]) ; (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Euryala Weber, 1795, as suppressed in (1) above ; (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name dentata Fabricius, 1793, as published in the com- bination Hippa dentata (an objective junior synonym of cassivelaunus Pennant, 1777, as published in the combination Cancer cassivelaunus) ; (7) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family Group Names in Zoology the name EURYALIDAE Rathbun, 1910, Proc. US. Nat. Mus. 38 :576. Type-genus Euryala Weber, 1795 (a genus placed on the Official Index in (5) above). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63 CERATIOCARIS M’COY, 1849 (CRUSTACEA, ARCHAEOSTRACA) ; PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES. Z.N.(S.) 1489 By W. D. Ian Rolfe (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U JS.A.) The object of the present application is to request that the nominal genus Ceratiocaris (Crustacea, Archaeostraca) be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, and to insure the suppression of the nominal genus Leptocheles in accordance with the Principle of the First Reviser. 2. The nominal genus Ceratiocaris was established by M’Coy in 1849 (: 412) for the carapace of two nominal species : C. solenoides and C. ellipticus. 3. Earlier in the same paper (: 344) M’Coy established a nominal subgenus Leptocheles of the genus Pterygotus Agassiz for what he considered to be the “didactyle pincers ” of a separate crustacean. 4. Barrande (1853: 341-342) demonstrated that these “ pincers ’’ were only the trifid tailpiece of Ceratiocaris and that it was therefore legitimate “den Namen Leptocheles als liberfliissig ansehen ”’. 5. In accordance with Article 28 and with the Principle of the First Reviser (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 66-67, Decisions 123-124), there- fore, it is clear that Ceratioggris as selected by Barrande stands in preference to Leptocheles which has page precedence. 6. With the few exceptions listed by Van Straelen and Schmitz (1934 : 244), Barrande’s selection has led to universal acceptance of the genus Ceratiocaris, and it is proposed that this name be placed on the Official List. 7. The family name cERATIOCcARIDAE based on Ceratiocaris M’Coy, 1849, was formed incorrectly by Salter (1860 : 162) and should be corrected to CERATIOCARIDIDAE. 8. In view of the above facts, I recommend that the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature : (1) place the generic name Ceratiocaris M’Coy, 1849 (gender : feminine), type by subsequent designation by Miller, 1889 (: 537), Ceratiocaris solenoides M’Coy, 1849 (to be given precedence over Leptocheles M’Coy, 1849, by the action of Barrande, 1853, as First Reviser) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (2) place the specific name solenoides M’Coy, 1849, as published in the binomen Ceratiocaris solenoides (type-species of Ceratiocaris M’Coy, 1849) (holotype in Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge=b/41) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (3) place the family name CERATIOCARIDIDAE (correction of CERATIOCARIDAE) Salter, 1860 (type-genus Ceratiocaris M’Coy, 1849) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ; (4) place the family name CERATIOCARIDAE Salter, 1860 (type-genus Ceratio- carts M’Coy, 1849) (an invalid original spelling for CERATIOCARIDIDAE) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962. ~ 64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature REFERENCES Barrande, J., 1853, Wiederholung der Silur-Fauna Béhmens in Wisconsin und New York nach D. D. Owen und J. Hall ; iber Dithyocaris m.1. Hlzschn. N. Jahrb. Min. Geol. Paldont., Jahrg. 1853 : 335-347. M’Coy, F., 1849. On the classification of some British Fossil Crustacea, with Notices of new Forms in the University Collection at Cambridge. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2)4 : 161-179, 392-414. Miller, S. A., 1889. North American Geology and Palaeontology for the use of amateurs, students and scientists. Cincinnati. Salter, J. W., 1860. On new Fossil Crustacea from the Silurian Rocks. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (3) 5 : 153-162. Van Straelen, V., and Schmitz, G., 1934. Crustacea Phyllocarida (= Archae- ostraca). Fossiliwum Catalogus, 1: Animalia, pars. 64 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF CICADELLA LATREILLE, 1817. Z.N.(S.) 457 (see volume 18, pages 163-167) By W. J. Le Quesne (Chesham, Bucks., England). The case of Cicadella is complex. A number of taxonomic works have appeared using it in different senses over the past 20 years—here are some examples :— Cicadella = Tettigella: Ribaut, 1952. Cicadella = EBupteryx: Evans, 1947 ; Oman, 1949 (Beirne, 1956) ; Ossiannilsson, 1946 ; Kloet & Hincks, 1945 ; China, 1950; Esaki & Ito, 1954 ; Lindberg, 1947 ; Medler, 1942 ; Dlabola, 1954. This selection of general works and check lists which came to hand suggests that Wagner’s publication in Bombus (1950) has been followed by Ribaut, while three other authors in the last decade have kept the name Teftigella (or the derived subfamily name). After reading all the facts of this very confused case and some consideration, I feel that the unfortunate lapse of 11 years between Wagner’s original application and the present have strengthened the case for retaining Cicadella Duméril, 1806, with picta Fabricius, 1794 (=atropunctata Goeze, 1778) as the type-species. This course, I think, will cause the less confusion. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF ANJLIUS OKEN, 1815. Z.N.(S.) 1046 (see volume 18, pages 181-183) By Hobart M. Smith (Professor of Zoology, University of IUinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) The survey of herpetozoan names in Oken, 1816, is a valuable contribution to taxonomy. Since Anilius has been used almost without exception since Stejneger, 1907, for the snake known previously as Jlysia, and since the literature using J/ysia is not of such magnitude or variety as to be confusing, it is clearly in the interest of nomenclatural stability to preserve the name Anilius as applied for the past half century. . 2 FEB 1962 a hy wy ~ he, EY of td Y y ; ca xy; SOM ate > ins —. 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. Scientific Assistant : Margaret Spillane, B.Sc. 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 Page Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762 (Insecta, Coleoptera) ; ern validation under the plenary powers (W. E. China) ? 3 : Brisson, 1760 ‘‘ Ornithologie ” ; Proposed restriction of validation 4 granted under the plenary eval to certain pal of that ; work (Francis Hemming) 9 Family-group names in Heteroptera East for the Official List and Official Index (Insecta, Hemiptera) (T. Jaczewski) we 15 Eight dubious nominal species of birds; Proposed use of the plenary powers to place these names on the Official Index (Ernst Mayr) ave oa 2 “ 23 Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862 Risamiuieneyt aaa deat of a type-species under the Beary penis ee A. ae Aen and. T. Barnard) 27 Ammonites laevigata Lamarck, 1822 ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers together with the validation of two nominal species named Ammonites laevigata by J. de C. siphiaia te 1827 (D. T. Donovan and C. W. Wright) thes 35 Planorbina Haldeman, 1842, Taphius Adams & Adams, 1855, and Armigerus Clessin, 1884 ; Proposed gir cae under the plenary powers (C. A. Wright) bie 39 Amyot, Méthode Mononymique ; Request for a Direction that this work be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature (Wolfgang Stichel)... ae 42 CONTENTS (continued from inside back wrapper) Argyrodes Simon, Dipoenura Simon, Robertus O. Pickard-Cambridge, and T’heonoe Simon (Arachnida, Araneae) ; Proposed eee tion under the plenary powers (Herbert W. Levi) eet Sigara atomaria Illiger, 1807 (Insecta, Heteroptera) ; iierin suppression under the plenary powers (T. Jaczewski) .. Dromia Weber, 1795 (Crustacea, Decapoda) ; Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers (L. B. Holthuis) ... Proposed validation of Parthenope Fabricius, 1798, and Lambrus Leach, 1815, by suppression of Parthenope Weber, 1795, under the plenary powers (Crustacea, Decapoda) (L. B. Holthuis) .. Proposed suppression of Huryala Weber, 1795, and validation of Corystes Latreille, [1802-1803] under the aaaeete — (Crustacea, Decapoda) (L. B. Holthuis) .. Ceratiocaris M’Coy, 1849 (Crustacea, Rea ence : geen addition to the Official List of Generic Names ae ae D. Ian Rolfe) Bie Comments Comments on the proposed validation of Pei ae 1844 (S. Dillon Ripley, Salim Ali)... Comment on the proposed designation of a neotype for Corvus benghalensis Linnaeus, 1758 (Krishna Kant Tiwari) Comment on the proposed suppression of Dera at ens dubia Rathke, 1863 (Hobart M. Smith) EN Comments on the proposed suppression of Salamandra RE Rafinesque, 1818 (James E. Huheey, Hobart M. Smith) Comments on the proposed validation of Myelophilus Hichhoff under the plenary powers (F. G. Browne, J. T. Wiebes) aS Aphis Linnaeus, 1758 ; Its type-species and the Sole name derived from it (Editorial Note ; Miriam A. Palmer) . Comment on the proposed suppression of mane spe names of Turtles (Hobart M. Smith) +t Comment on the proposed validation of Poms, Ménard de la Groye (R. K. Dell) a Comment on the proposed validation of Cicadella “Latell 1817 (W. J. Le Quesne) : oe Comment on the proposed validation of Anilius Oken, 1815 (Hobart M. Smith) - ; © 1962. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by MeTCALFeE & Cooper LimiTeD, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC2 58 61 63 a eee a ee a ae ee os. — Volume 19. Part 2. 23th March, 1962 pp. 65-128, 1 pl. “le BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE CoNTENTS Page Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Date of commencement of voting by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on applications ra in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature a 65 . Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on we Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 65 (continued inside back wrapper) 10 APR 1962 LONDON : PURCHASED Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature i and We 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 Re 1962 hi Price Three Pounds tet (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Professor James Chester Brapitey (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. Curna (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 Amara (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. Voxxs (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) go 7% Hotruvis (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. Minter (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (29 October 1954) er na Ferdinand Pranti (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) {30 October 54) Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kiiuneur (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 TorTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturaie “G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16 December ~ 1954) 5 Dr. Per. Brrncx (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 Hemmune (London, England) (23 July 1958) Dr. Henning Lemcue (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Mr. Norman Denbigh Ritzy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) (Secretary) Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaozewsxi (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur-Museuwm u. Forschwngs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Erich Martin Herre (Zoologisches Musewm der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (23 July 1958) Dr. D. V. Osrvcuev (Palacontological 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) (31 May 1960) Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), London) (31 May 1960) ae G. ea Canadian Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) une 1 De N.S. Donets (Institute of Zoology, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R.) (28 September 1961) BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 19, Part 2 (pp. 65-128) 23th March, 1962 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 Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816 (Pisces). Z.N.(S.) 920. (2) Suppression of W. G. Tilesius von Tilenau, 1814-1818, ‘‘ Ueber das nachtliche Leuchten des Meerwassers”’; validation of several emendations ; designation of a type-species for Metapenaeus Wood- Mason, 1891; suppression of Mangalura Miers, 1878 (Crustacea, Decapoda). Z.N.(S.) 962. (3) Validation of xENOPHORIDAE Deshayes, 1864 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 1483. (4) Designation of a type-species for Cyrnus Stephens, 1836 (Insecta, Trichoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1491. (5) Validation of Quinqueloculina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminifera). Z.N.(S.) 1494, (6) Designation of a type-species for Lepidopa Stimpson, 1858 (Crustacea, Decapoda). Z.N.(S.) 1495. c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary London, 8.W.7, England. International Commission on 10 January 1962. Zoological Nomenclature {% . r ", > 7 een0S) «10 APR 1962 NI? «af SUR ie) es SAL Ao PURCHASED 66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO STABILIZE THE GENERIC NAMES CARCHARHINUS BLAINVILLE, 1816, CARCHARODON SMITH, 1838, AND ODONTASPIS AGASSIZ, 1838. Z.N.(S.) 920 (see volume 18, pages 273-280) By E. Tortonese (Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Genova, Italy) (1) It does not seem necessary to suppress the name Carcharias Rafinesque, 1809, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, repealing the ruling given in Opinion 47. Carcharias Raf. is clearly a synonym of the later Odontaspis L. Agassiz, 1838, and has been largely used in the modern literature. It is found in Bigelow-Schroeder’s book on Selachians (Fishes W.N. Atlantic), which surely is, and will be for a long time, of basic importance. As everybody knows, the name Carcharias has been the subject of many discussions, until it was agreed that it must be applied to the “‘ sand shark ” and its allies. It would be now rather surprising to have it suppressed and to see once more changed the name of such well-known sharks. The preservation of the name CARCHARIIDAE is involved of course. (2) I fully agree that the name Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816, must be preserved and have a definite type. Carcharias milberti Miiller-Henle, 1839, is a good choice, but it must be pointed out that this name is a synonym of Squalus plumbeus Nardo, 1827 (see: E. Tortonese, Boll, Pesca, etc. Rome, X XVI, V, 1, 1950, p.11—E. Tortonese, Doriana, Genoa, I, 20, 1951, p.3). In the first of these papers, I made the proposal that plumbeus would become the type-species of Carcharhinus. It is regrettable that no type-specimen of Squalus plumbeus is in existence, as far as I know. Perhaps it would be preferable to have as type of the genus a valid species, instead of a synonym as milberti is. No objections, in my opinion, are to be made concerning the name Carcharodon, Prionace, etc. as dealt with in the paper quoted above. By E. I. White and N. B. Marshall Professor Tortonese seems to us to have missed the main point in the matter of the replace- ment of Carcharias Rafinesque by Odontaspis Agassiz. Until Opinion 47 was published in 1912 Odontaspis was, so far as we know, universally used for over 70 years for the sand-sharks, and Carcharias for the carcharinids, and no confusion between the two groups was possible. After this ruling Odontaspis was replaced by Carcharias by the few Recent zoologists, who have had to deal with only two accepted species, O. ferox and O. taurus, and four rare or doubtful species; but with negligible exceptions Odontaspis has always been used by palaeontologists for the 50 or more fossil species which are repeatedly referred to in the geological literature, both palaeontological and stratigraphical, Carcharias or Carcharinus being generally used for the 40 extinct species of carcharinids. As it is, readers must know the date of the identification (i.e., before or after 1912), when the name Carcharias is mentioned, before they know to which group of sharks reference is being made. This may not be unduly difficult for Recent zoologists with so few species of living sand-sharks involved ; but for palaeontologists dealing with over 50 species constantly quoted in geological literature, the situation would be intolerable. Such a ruling would doubtless be ignored as it has been in the past. That Bigelow and Schroeder (1948, p.98) have used Carcharias instead of Odontaspis for one species, C. tawrus, cannot be accepted as a factor of importance. Further, we would point out that Opinion 47 is partly based on an error, since it clearly states that Carcharias taurus is the type of Odontaspis Agassiz, which it is not—C. ferox is ; Bigelow and Schroeder (idem.) make the opposite mistake in regard to Trriglochis Miller and Henle, of which the type is C. taurus. Opinion 47 was one of the most deplorable rulings of the Commission from the palaeontolo- gists’ point of view, and if followed would cause endless confusion. It was regretted even by its authors. Finally, Professor Tortonese remarks that the preservation of the family name “‘Carchariidae” isinvolved. The removal of this equivocal name from the Official List of Family Names, used for about a century for carcharinids and since 1912 by some zoologists for odontaspids, is urgent. By Wolfgang Schmidt (G@eologisches Landesamt Nordrhein- Westfalen) In a proposal by White, Tucker and Marshall there is a demand to re-establish Odontaspis Agassiz, 1838, as a name for the sand-shark, and to do away with the ambiguity that the use of Carcharias Rafinesque, 1809, produces. I feel that this proposal is very useful. In the geological literature Odontaspis has been univer- sally used almost without exception even to the present day. Therefore I support this proposal. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 67 By H. A. Toombs (British Museum (Natural History), London) The stabilization of the generic name Odontaspis Agassiz is very desirable, not only for the palaeontologist and curator, but also for the stratigrapher. The teeth of sharks of this genus are the commonest vertebrate fossils brought to the Museum for identification and the name has appeared in almost every faunal list of marine Caenozoic fossils published in the past hundred years. The suppression of the generic name Carcharias Rafinesque would not cause comparable inconvenience to zoologists since there are so very few recent species. So little seems to be known about the relationships of the Atlantic forms of Carcharinus to those of the Australian region that it might be as well to ignore Pterolamiops (and Lulamia) at present and be content with defining Carcharinus and its type-species. By Wilhelm Weiler (Worms/Rh., Germany) In this case the rigorous application of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature is not to be recommended. The consequences would be disadvantageous because in the geological and palaeontological literature Odontaspis has been universally used even to the present day instead of Carcharias Rafinesque, 1809. Therefore I recommend energetically the proposal of Messrs. White, Tucker, and Marshall, to avoid complications and confusions in the future. By E. M. Casier (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles 4) Ayant pris connaissance de la récente note de MM. E. I. White, D. W. Tucker et N. B. Marshall, je me permets de vous faire savoir que je souscris pleinement aux arguments exposés par ces auteurs en faveur de choix du terme générique Odontaspis de préférence & Carcharias qui a beaucoup contribué a jeter la confusion. Le premier terme est adopté par la quasi-totalité des paléoichthyologistes et c’est celui que j’ai toujours utilisé dans mes publications ot il m’a été donné de traiter de la dentition de ‘‘ sand-sharks ”, notamment dans mon mémoire, en cours de publication (Mem. British Museum, Nat. Hist.) sur la Faune ichthyologique du London Clay. By J. P. Lehman, (Institute Paléontologie, Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) Comme le Docteur White le propose je souhaite voir réemployé le nom d’Odontaspis de maniére a supprimer toute ambiguité en ce qui concerne le nom de Carcharias. By E. Kuhn-Schnyder (Paldontologischen Institutes und Museums der Universitét Zurich, Switzerland) I agree with the proposal made by Dr. Errol I. White to re-establish Odontaspis as a name for the sand-shark, and to do away with the ambiguity that the use of Carcharias produces. In our paleontological literature Odontaspis is generally used, because the application of the International Rules would be very harmful in this case. By B. Schaeffer (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) I wish to support the proposals listed in Vol. 18, pp. 277-279. The need for re-establishing the name Odontaspis has been clearly set forth in this paper, as well as the reasons for suppressing the name Carcharias. 68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF PNOEPYGA HODGSON, 1844 (AVES). Z.N.(S.) 1457 (see volume 18, pages 209-210) By Kenneth C. Parkes (Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) I have long been opposed to the notion that the plenary powers of the Commission ought to be invoked every time a change of names is proposed when so required by the Law of Priority. I belong to no dogmatic school of thought at either extreme with respect to absolute adherence to priority versus automatic conservation of all currently used names. I number myself among those who believe that the plenary powers should be invoked when, and only when, a clear case can be made for the proposition that a change in names will seriously inconvenience workers, particularly those other than students of taxonomy and nomenclature. The specialists have managed to take in their stride for many years the changes necessitated by adherence to the code in which we all profess to believe, and I do not doubt that most can continue to do so. The case presented by Professor Mayr (Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 18, part 3, June 1961 (received here 10 July 1961), Z.N.(S.) (1457) appears at first glance to be relatively simple ; the generic name Pnoepyga Hodgson, 1844, has been consistently used for the wren-babblers in the past although according to the revised rules it is a junior synonym of the earlier Microwra Gould, 1837. Dr. Mayr states ‘‘ It is unlikely that there is a single ornithologist, except a few biblio- graphers and specialists in nomenclature, who would know to what bird the name Microura refers ”’. This may well have been true as of the date of Dr. Mayr’s proposal to the Commission, to the best of his knowledge. However, facts apparently not then known to Dr. Mayr, highly pertinent to this question, lead me to believe that the action by the Commission requested by Dr. Mayr would not be in the best interests of present and future workers. The geographic range of the wren-babblers extends from the Himalayas into the Indo-Chinese countries and to Formosa. Of the works cited by Dr. Mayr as having used the name Pnoepyga, only Vaurie on Palearctic birds is a modern standard check-list, and the birds in question are only peripherally Palearctic. A recent reference work on birds of Burma (Smythies, 1953) and a recent check-list of Malaysian birds (Gibson-Hill, 1949) do, indeed, continue to use Pnoepyga. However, there are three standard reference works of major importance, which among them virtually blanket the range of the birds in question, and in which the earlier name Microura has been used, in conformity with the requirements of the Law of Priority ; Dr. Mayr was apparently unaware of this point. These works are the check-list of birds of the Indian sub-continent (Ripley, 1961), and check-lists for Thailand (Deignan, in press) and Formosa (Deignan, in preparation). These check-lists will serve as a standard of nomenclature for the vast majority of workers actually living within the range of the wren-babblers. These are the workers from whom we can anticipate any non-taxonomic information on these birds. It is, to a great extent, in their interests that we seek to promote nomenclatorial stability. I do not see that it would promote any sort of stability if the Commission were now to rule that the generic name, employed for the wren-babblers in the check-lists in daily use in the areas inhabited by the birds, shall be suppressed. Perhaps the most authoritative check-list of allis that begun by the late J. L. Peters, now being continued by a committee under Dr. Mayr’s direction. The volume covering the family Timaliidae, including the wren-babblers, has not yet appeared. If this check-list of birds of the world were to conform with the regional check-lists of Ripley and Deignan in using Microura for the wren- babblers, I can foresee a completely painless transition from the use of Pnoepyga to the use of Microura by those few workers who have any occasion to refer to these little birds in print. I therefore strongly urge that Dr. Mayr’s proposition to invoke the plenary powers to conserve the name Pnoepyga be rejected, pointing out that this in no way reflects adversely on Dr. Mayr, as he did not know at the time of his application of the use of the name Microura in the three major check-lists cited. By B. Biswas (Zoological Survey of India, Indian Museum, Calcutta) Prof. Mayr’s application for the suppression of the long-forgotten name Microura Gould and validation of Pnoepyga Hodgson which has been in use for more than 100 years, appears to me only to ratify an existing legal status of these names as per rules adopted in Copenhagen and confirmed at London. As one of the systematists directly involved and as a believer in the principles expressed in the Preamble to the Rules, I whole-heartedly support Prof. Mayr’s application. By B. P. Hall (British Museum (Natural History), London) I should like to say that I fully agree that this is an occasion on which the plenary powers of the Commission should be used to suppress the earlier name Microwra Gould, 1837, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, and to place Pnoepyga Hodgson, 1844, on the Official List. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69 FURTHER NOTES ON THE TYPE-SPECIES OF THE GENUS PTEROPHORUS SCHAFFER (LEPIDOPTERA, PTEROPHORIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 1463 By P. E. S. Whalley (British Museum (Natural History), London) In a recent comment, Prof. Dr. E. M. Hering (Vol. 18 : 333) disagrees with my selection (Whalley, Vol. 18: 159) of pentadactylus L. as type of Pterophorus Schaffer, 1766. Hering proposes monodactylus L. as the type of this genus and disagrees with my selection on three joints : : (1) monodactylus L. is the first name in the list given by Fabricius (1775). This list gives the first species actually included in Pterophorus since Schaffer’s use of the genus in 1766. Although Schaffer’s description renders the name Pterophorus available he did not place any species in it ; (2) monodactylus L. has been used frequently over the last eighty years with “ Pterophorus Geoffroy ”’; (3) using pentadactylus L. will cause confusion in the nomenclature of the plume moths. The reason for my request to retain Pterophorus was to avoid loss of the well-known name, and more particularly, its availability as a basis for the family name Pterophoridae. I agree with Hering that monodactylus L. is the first name included by Fabricius, but I disagree with his other two points. Since 1880, monodactylus L. and pentadactylus L. have both been cited as type of “‘ Pterophorus Geoff.” (Frey 1880 and Meyrick 1910 cited the former ; Tutt 1906 and Fletcher 1929 cited the latter). In 1840 Duponchel wrote, referring to pentadactylus L.—‘‘ Cette espéce peut étre considérée comme le type du genre Pterophore. C’est en effet la plus grande, la plus généralement connue, et en méme temps la mieux caractérisée du genre ”’. Formerly, Alucita L. and “‘ Pterophorus Geoff.” were considered synonyms, and the first citation of a type for this complex seems to be by Cuvier (1798), when he cited Pterophorus as a synonym of Alucita and put pentadactyla L. in this group. In 1801, Lamarck put pentadactylus L. into Pterophorus. In [1802-3] Latreille cited didactylus F. as the type of Pterophorus. This has never subsequently been used and didactylus has been cited as type of Geina Tutt by Adamczewski (1951). Phalaena pentadactylus L. is cited as type of Pterophorus by Leach (1815) and Curtis (1827). Be 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, 0.B.E., Se.D. Scientific Assistant : Margaret Spillane, B.Sc. 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) Opinions Page Opinion 620 (Papilio dardanus Brown, 1776) she eA : 12: Opinion 621 (PHAENOMERIDIDAE Ohaus and PHAENOMERINA Faust) 74 Opinion 622 (Fenestella Lonsdale, 1829) cat a8 i‘. aoe 76 Opinion 623 (Macronema Pictet, 1836) ee uF oy sit 80 Opinion 624 {Crocodilus palustris Lesson, 1831) er) ae eat 82 _ Opinion 625 (Strophalosia King, 1844) ag: ea “oe nS 84 - Opinion 626 (Echinus minutus Buckman, 1845) Bt os Ap 88 Opinion 627 (Mallophagen names of De Geer, 1778) eas ime 91 Opinion 628 (Menopon Nitzsch, 1818)... wn ae ime oh 97 aes New Applications Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816 (Class Chondrichthyes, Order Selachii) ; Proposed designation of a tie svar under the . plenary powers (J. A. F. Garrick) : 100 f ‘Penaeid Generic Names (Crustacea, Dedaponal) (L. B. Holthuis) .. 103 _ XENOPHORIDAE Deshayes, 1864 ee: Proposed nate : tion under the plenary powers (K. V. W. Palmer) nh 115 _ Cyrnus Stephens, 1836 (Insecta, Trichoptera) ; Proposed use of fe plenary powers to designate a type-species (F. C. J. Fischer)... 117 Quinqueloculina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminifera) ; Proposed valida- tion under the plenary powers and designation of a neotype for Serpula seminulum Fi Nea 1758 S R. Loeblich and H. Tappan) .. ahi 118 Lepidopa Stinigeon: 1858 eahinabas ‘Decapoda ; Proposed use of the Say powers to designate a type-species (L. B. Holthuis) 125 CONTENTS (continued from inside back wrapper) Comments Comments on the proposed use of the plenary powers to stabilize the generic names Carcharhinus Blainville, 1818, Carcharodon Smith, 1838, and Odontaspis Agassiz, 1838 (E. Tortonese ; E. I, White and N. B. Marshall ; W. Schmidt ; H. A. Toombs ; W. Weiler ; E. M. Casier ; J. P. Lehman ; E. Kuhn. Boi data B. Schaeffer) ; Comments on the proposed validation of sane sas Hoe 1844 (K. C, Parkes ; B. Biswas; B. P. Hall) .. Further notes on the type-species of the fuer phages oh, pine 1766 (P. E. S. Whalley) : Comments on the proposed use of the plenary powers to preserve Argyrodes Simon, Dipoenura Simon, Robertus O. P.-Cambridge, and Theonoe Simon Be Braun, H. cee O. Kraus and C. F. Roewer) Comment on the proposed addition of the generic name Puntius Hamilton, 1822, to the Official List he I. Follett and L. J. Dempster) Comment on the proposed addition of T'richocera Meigen, 1803, to the Official List of Generic Names (Paul Freeman) Comment on the proposed validation of Cicadella Latreille, 1817 (J. Dlabola) : i ee 4 23. By sie Comments on the proposed preservation of Cerastes for the Sand Vipers (Hobart M. Smith ; R. Mertens and K. Klemmer) Comment on the petition regarding the nominal tebe Tygue Hahn, 1833 (Dennis Leston) ape Comment on the proposed designation of a be i Nt 9 for Clathurella Carpenter, 1857 (Myra Keen)... : Comment on the proposed suppression of abc ener Kihn, 1890 (A. L. Taylor and A. M. Golden) © 1962. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper Laren, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 Page 67 68 69 70 H 79 87 114 I 2 aes aie ae aF--? —~ © pees. — 222, (an erroneous spelling of the name istrianus Scopoli, 1763, suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above) ; (e) strianus Scopoli, 1763, Entomol. Carniol. : 409, as published in the combination Cancer istrianus (a name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above) ; (f) linnaeana Leach, 1820, Dict. Sci. nat. 18 : 54, as published in the combination Pisidia linnaeana (an objective junior synonym of longicornis Linnaeus, 1767, placed on the Official List in (3)(a) above) ; (7) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoology the following publications : (a) Linck, J. H., 1783-1787. Index Musaei Linckiani, oder kurzes systematisches Verzeichnis der vornehmsten Stiicke der Linckischen Naturaliensammlung zu Leipzig, 3 vols. (vol. 1, 1783 ; vol. 2, 1786 ; vol. 3, 1787) ; (b) Statius Miiller, P. L., 1766. Deliciae Naturae selectae ; oder auserlesenes Naturalien-Cabinet, welches aus den drey Reichen der Natur zeiget, was von curidsen Liebhabern aufbehalten und gesammelt zu werden verdient. Ehemals herausgegeben von Georg Wolfgang Knorr ; fortgesetzt von dessen Erben. 3 vols. (ed. 1 in 1766; ed. 2 in 1778; a Dutch translation in 1771). 182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature STEREOMASTIS BATE, 1888 (CRUSTACEA DECAPODA), PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. _ Z.N.(S8.) 1497 By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is invited to make use of its plenary powers to save the name Stereomastis Bate, 1888, for a genus of deep-sea lobsters belonging to the family POLYCHELIDAE. This name is threatened by its older subjective synonym Eryoneicus Bate, 1882, which so far, however, has only been used to indicate the larval stages of this genus and the related genus Polycheles Heller, 1862. 2. The family POLYCHELIDAE contains three recent genera: Polycheles Heller, 1862, Willemoesia Grote, 1873, and Stereomastis Bate, 1888. The first two of these genera have been placed on the Official List in Opinion 519 (1958, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 19(6) : 137, 138). It is now requested to have also the third name, Stereomastis, placed on the List, but to this end recourse to the plenary powers is necessary. 3. The larval stages of the family PoLYCHELIDAE differ so strongly from the adults that at first they were considered to represent a distinct genus, which received the name Eryoneicus from Bate (1882, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 10 : 456). Sund (1915, Nature, Lond. 95 : 372) was the first who came with strong arguments to show that Eryoneicus is not a distinct genus, and that its ‘‘ species ” are larval stages of the genera Polycheles and Stereomastis. The publication of Balss’s account (1925, Wiss. Ergebn. Tiefsee-Exped. Valdivia 20(4) : 189-203) of the PoLYCHELIDAE collected by the German “ Valdivia ” Expedition removed the last doubts as to the larval nature of Hryoneicus. At that time many “ species ” of Zryoneicus had been described and in many instances it was impossible to know which adult and larval species belonged together. For convenience’s sake therefore the generic name Hryoneicus was continued to be employed for the larvae and even as recently as 1953 Bernard (Dana Rep. 37 : 1-93) gave a revision of the “ genus” Eryoneicus of which he described 14 new species. 4. The nomenclature of the larvae and that of the adults thus are still quite independent of one another and even the larvae of which the adults are known are often still indicated with the larval name, as Hryoneicus coecus Bate for the larvae of Stereomastis sculpta (Smith). Though the generic name Eryoneicus is employed for the larvae of both of the genera Polycheles and Stereomastis, nomenclaturally it is a senior subjective synonym of Stereomastis since the type-species of Eryoneicus, E. coecus Bate, proves to be the larva of Stereomastis sculpta (Smith). 5. A strict application of the Code necessitates the replacement of the name Stereomastis Bate, 1888, by Eryoneicus Bate, 1882. This would certainly lead to a great confusion since the name Eryoneicus, which has never been used for any adult Polychelid, to every carcinologist denotes the Polychelid Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 3. May 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 183 larval stages. It would therefore be most awkward if the generic name Stereomastis had to be replaced by Eryoneicus. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is now asked to suppress under its plenary powers the generic name LHryoneicus, with the understanding that this name may still be used as a term to indicate larval stages, but apart from that has no standing under the Law of Priority. 7. Faxon (1893, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard Coll. 24 : 197, 198) used the spelling Hryonicus for Eryoneicus. As he gave no reasons for so doing this spelling must be considered an erroneous spelling and should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Some years later, however, Faxon (1895, Mem. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard Coll. 18 : 108) made it clear that his change of EHryoneicus to Eryonicus was intentional. Eryonicus Faxon (1895) therefore is an (invalid) emendation and as such is an available name. As this name is a junior synonym of Stereomastis Bate, 1888, there is no need to ask for its suppression. 8. Neither Stereomastis nor Eryoneicus have ever been made the type of a taxon of the family group. 9. The concrete proposals which I now submit to the International Com- mission are that they should :— (1) make use of their plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the generic name Hryoneicus Bate, 1882 ; (2) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Stereo- mastis Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : 154 (type-species, by present selection : Pentacheles suhmi Bate, 1878, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 2 : 278) (gender : feminine). (3) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names : (a) sculptus Smith, 1880, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 2 : 346, as published in the combination Polycheles sculptus ; (b) suhmi Bate, 1878, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 2 : 278, as published in the combination Pentacheles suhmi (the name of the type- species of the genus Stereomastis Bate, 1888) ; (4) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names :— (a) Eryoneicus Bate, 1882, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 10 : 456 (type- species, by monotypy: EHryoneicus coecus Bate, 1882, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 10 : 457) (gender: masculine) (a name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) ; (b) Eryonicus Faxon, 1893, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard Coll. 24 : 197, 198 (an erroneous spelling of Hryoneicus Bate, 1882). 184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ARCTOPSIS LAMARCK, 1801 (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA) ; PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, AND RELATED MATTERS. Z.N.(S.) 1498 By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) In 1801, Lamarck (Syst. Anim. s. Vert. : 155) erected a new genus Arctopsis, his total account of which runs as follows : “ARCTOPSIS. Arctopsis. Six antennes droites, trés-longues, simples, garnies de poils verticilles. Corps ovale-conique, pointu antérieurement. Dix pattes onguiculées : les deux antérieures terminées en pinces. *Arctopsis lanata. n. Ex Musaeo nostro.” This description is practically useless : no crab has six antennae, so that the the first sentence must be erroneous, while the next two lines are so general as to fit the majority of oxyrhynchs and a few other crabs as well. 2. Desmarest (1823, Dict. Sci. nat. 28 : 260) placed Arctopsis in the synonymy of Pisa Leach, 1814, while Latreille (1825, Encycl. méthod. Hist. nat. Entomol. 10 : 139) identified Lamarck’s species with Pisa armata (Latreille, [1802—1803)). Latreille explained the first faulty sentence of Lamarck’s description as follows: “‘ Quelquefois aussi des corps étrangers s’attachent au museau, et e’est sur un individu de la Pise armée étant dans cet état, que M. de Lamarck avoit établi le genre Arctopsis’. H. Milne Edwards (1834, Hist. nat. Crust. 1 : 308) was of the same opinion, though he did not express himself so positively as Latreille. The possibility that Latreille actually did examine Lamarck’s specimen is not imaginary. As far as is known to me, the only author actually adopting the Lamarckian names in question was A. White (1847, List Crust. Brit. Mus. : 5; 1850, List Spec. Brit. Anim. Brit. Mus. 4 : 5, 6; 1857, Pop. Hist. Brit. Crust. : 13, 20, 21), who substituted Arctopsis for Pisa ; however, most other authors, including even Lamarck himself (1818, Hist. nat. Anim. s. Vert. 5) totally disregarded both names. Miers (1886, Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 17: x, xvii, xviii, xxxviii, xliv, 53-55) also doubtfully identified Arctopsis with Pisa. He stated: “Arctopsis lanata of Lamarck has been referred to this form [= Pisa tribulus] by A. White, and Lamarck’s generic name has priority over the almost universally used Pisa of Leach, but Lamarck’s description is so brief, vague, and obviously incorrect, that I do not think myself justified in using his name in preference to one about which there is no uncertainty, and which has been generally adopted” (:55). Miers then proposed to use Arctopsis as a possible subgeneric designation. Stebbing (1893, Hist. Crust. : 116) stated that “‘ Pisa Leach, 1813, is open to the suspicion of being a synonym of Arctopsis, Lamarck, 1801’, but continued to use the name Pisa. Since then Pisa has been practically unanimously used for the genus. 3. Miers’s (1886) above-cited observation excellently characterizes the Bull, zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 3. May 1962. ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 185 situation as it still is at present. Arctopsis might well be considered a forgotten name. It is clear therefore that the suppression of this forgotten name for a genus which is insufficiently described but which may be identical with the well-known genus currently and uniformly indicated with the name Pisa Leach, 1814, can only be in the interest of the stability and uniformity of nomenclature. 4. Another name which has been suggested as having priority over Pisa Leach, 1814, is the name Blastus Leach, 1814 (Brewster’s Edinb. Encycl. 7 :431; type-species by monotypy: Cancer tetraodon Pennant, 1777, Brit. Zool. (ed. 4) 4:7). Blastus and Pisa were published by Leach on the same page of his 1814 paper, Blastus being mentioned before Pisa. In 1815 Leach (Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 11 : 327) synonymised Blastus and Pisa, adopting the name Pisa for the genus. Leach’s 1815 choice, being that of the first reviser has to be respected, and Pisa thus has priority over Blastus. However, Stebbing (1904, Mar. Invest. S. Afr. 2:2), evidently basing himself on the principle of line priority remarked : “‘ Since Pisa, Leach, is a synonym of the same author’s Blastus, Pisinae, if upheld, would become Blastinae, or as a family, Blastidae.” So far as I know the name Blastus (or actually the name BLASTIDAE, as the generic name Blastus is not mentioned in his paper) is adopted by only one other author, viz., Barnard (1950, Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 38 : 10, 48). All other modern authors use the names Pisa and PISINAE. No action by the Commission is thus necessary here. The name Blastus, being a subjective synonym of Pisa is still available for those authors, who may consider Cancer biaculeatus Montagu and Cancer tetraodon Pennant as belonging to two different genera orsubgenera. Since Blastus is not currently distinguished from Pisa, there is no need to have it placed on the Official List. 5. To find the valid name for the type-species of the genus Pisa provides another complicated problem. Until 1913 this type-species and a related form have been continuously confused with one another and it has been the great merit of Pesta (1913, S.B. Akad. Wiss. Wien (mathem.-naturwiss. Kl.) 122(1) : 1213-1223) to have solved this problem in his paper “ Kritik adriatischer Pisa-Arten aus dem Formenkreis armata-gibbsi-nodipes ”. The names that have been used for the two species (which for reasons of convenience are indicated here as Species A and Species B, as has also been done by Pesta) are the following : Cancer tribulus Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1045 Arctopsis lanata Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. s. Vert. : 155 Maja armata Latreille, [1802-1803], Hist. nat. Crust. Ins. 6 : 98 Cancer biaculeatus Montagu, 1813, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 11(1)::2 Pisa Gibbsii Leach, 1815, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 11(2) : 327 Pisa nodipes Leach, 1815, Zool. Miscell. 2 : 50 Inachus musivus Otto, 1828, Nova Acta. Leop. Carol. 14(1) : 334 6. Carcinologists at present are unanimous in assigning the names Cancer biaculeatus and Pisa gibbsii to Species A, and the names Pisa nodipes and Inachus musivus to Species B. Pisa gibbsii even is objectively synonymous with Cancer biaculeatus, being a substitute name for the latter. 7. As far as Cancer tribulus L. is concerned, Miers (1886) was, as far as is 186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature known to me, the first author to identify that species with a species of Pisa. Linnaeus’s description, however, is such that there exists a grave doubt as to the correctness of Miers’s identification. Neither the arrangement of the spines on the carapace described by Linnaeus, nor the character of the long filiform legs agree with any Pisa. Personally, I believe it far more probable that Cancer tribulus L. is a species of the genus Inachus Weber, 1795. However this maybe, the name tribulus has been ignored by subsequent authors and in modern carcinological literature is used neither for a species of Pisa nor for one of Inachus. As it seems unlikely that the species Cancer tribulus L. will ever be satisfactorily identified and as it, as a nomen dubium, will form a continuous threat to the stability of junior names, it is now requested that the name be suppressed under the plenary powers of the Commission. 8. The same holds true for the specific name Arctopsis lanata Lamarck. As has been shown above, this name is a nomen dubium like the generic name Arctopsis and its suppression is likewise requested here. 9. The specific name armata was introduced by Latreille [1802-1803] who gave a short diagnosis of his Maja armata and referred under it to “ Herbst, Cane. tab. 15, fig. 92.—Planc. tab. 4, B.” From Latreille’s description it is clear that a species of Pisa is meant, and Herbst’s and Plancus’s figures fully confirm this. Both figures represent species A; especially Plancus’s figure being excellent. In order to settle the question of the identity of Maja armata Latreille ([1802-1803], Hist. nat. Crust. Ins. 6 : 98) once and for all I now select as its lectotype the specimen figured by Plancus (1760, De Conchis minvs notis : app. pl. 4 fig. B) under the name (: 107) ‘‘ Cancer Cordatvs, sev Sagittatvs totvs hirsvtvs”’. The correct name for Species A is thus Pisa armata (Latreille, [1802-1803]) and for Species B Pisa nodipes Leach, 1815. Pesta in his excellent 1913 revision came to this same conclusion. After the publication of Pesta’s paper the name nodipes has been adopted by the majority of authors for Species B and this name is found in most of the modern publica- tions dealing with the Mediterranean fauna. Its nomenclature therefore forms no problem. Strangely enough, several authors did not follow Pesta in the use of the name Pisa armata for Species A, notably Bouvier (1940, Faune de France, 37 : 331) and Monod (1956, Mém. Inst. Franc. Afr. Noire 45 : 486), who both adopted for that species the name Pisa gibbsit Leach, 1815. Bouvier (1940) justified this action by saying: “rien ne prouve que le Maia armata Latreille 1805, 98, appartienne 4 cette espéce [= Pisa gibbsir] plutét qu’a la précédente [= P. nodipes]”’ (: 331), and “Au surplus... ily a tout avantage 4 supprimer le nom d’armata qui préte aux confusions, attendu que la plupart des auteurs ne l’appliquaient point 4 Gibbsi ” (: 328). I cannot agree at all with Bouvier. Firstly there is not the slightest doubt that Maja armata Latreille was based on Species A ; it is possible that Latreille assigned a mixture of species to his Maja armata, but though we can prove that his new species included Species A, we cannot prove that Latreille placed also other species in it. The lectotype selection for Maja armata made in the present paper removes the last doubt as to its identity with Species A. 10. Also Bouvier’s conclusion, that the name gibbsii is to be preferred to armata because the latter name has often been used for species different from Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 187 Species A, is misleading. The early authors like Latreille and Risso did not distinguish between Species A and B and used the name armata for both. Roux (1830, Crust. Médit. (4-9) : pls. 33, 34) it is true, gave the name P. gibbsii to Species A and that of P. armata to Species B. H. Milne Edwards (1834, Hist. nat. Crust. 1 : 307, 308) on the other hand used the name P. gibbsii for Species B and P. armata for Species A, as may be seen from his descriptions ; unfortunately he cited Inachus musivus Otto in the synonymy of P. armata. Heller (1863, Crust. siidl. Huropas : 41-43) used the same nomenclature as did H. Milne Edwards. The main character that these two authors used to distinguish between Species A and B is that in Species A the intestinal spine of the carapace is sharply pointed, while in Species B it is a blunt tubercle. This character is still considered to be of great importance ; the only dis- advantage of it is that it can only be seen in the denuded carapace. The velvety hair cover of the carapace, namely, obscures the outline of the spine and therefore the pubescence may give the impression that also in Species A the spine is blunt ; as soon as the hairs are removed the feature shows very clearly. Any species described in the literature as being either species A or B and having the intestinal spine sharp is without any doubt Species A. But if the intestinal spine is said to be blunt, the species may be either A or B. We may be confident therefore that H. Milne Edwards’s and Heller’s Pisa armata, which was described as having the intestinal spine sharp is Species A, while their P. gibbsii may have been a mixture. The publications of H. Milne Edwards and Heller were fundamental and formed the base for practically all later research, so that their interpretation of Pisa armata and P. gibbsii has been adopted by the majority of later workers. Bouvier’s (1940) argument for using the name gibbsii for Species A and rejecting armata because the latter had been often used for Species B, does not hold good at all, since the name gibbsvi in this respect is far worse compromised than armata is. Furthermore the name gibbsii is invalid as it is an objective junior synonym of the available name biaculeatus Montagu. 11. After 1913, the year that saw the publication of Pesta’s revision, both the names armata and gibbsii have been used for Species A. In very few instances (e.g., Nobre, 1931, Crust. Decap. Stomatop. Portugal : 154, 155 ; 1936, Fauna marinha Portugal 4 : 95, 96) the name armata was used for Species A and the name gibbsii for Species B. 12. Considering all sides of the question I do not see any justification for not adhering strictly to the Law of Priority, and I suggest therefore that the name armata be adopted as the valid name for Species A. There would be little sense in validating the name gibbsii, as to achieve that end not only the name armata, but also the name biaculeata should have to be suppressed under the plenary powers of the Commission. 13. The genus Pisa is currently considered to be the type of the subfamily PISINAE, and it is now requested that that name be entered in the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 14. The concrete proposals that I lay before the Commission are that they should :— (1) make use of their plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the 188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the following names, all three of which are nomina dubia :— (a) the generic name Arctopsis Lamarck, 1801 ; (b) the following specific names :— (i) lanata Lamarck, 1801, as published in the combination Arctopsis lanata ; (ii) tribulus Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Cancer tribulus ; (2) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Pisa [Leach, 1814], Brewster’s Edinb. Encycl. 7 : 431 (type-species, by monotypy: Cancer biaculeatus Montagu, 1813, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 11(1) : 2 (ajunior subjective synonym of Maja armata Latreille, [1802-1803]) (gender : feminine) ; (3) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names : (a) armata Latreille ({1802-1803], Hist. nat. Crust. Ins. 6 : 98) as published in the combination Maja armata (the oldest available name for the type-species of the genus Pisa [Leach, 1814)) ; (b) nodipes Leach (1815, Zool. Miscell. 2:50) as published in the combination Pisa nodipes ; (4) place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name PISINAE Dana (1852, U.S. Explor. Exped. 13(1) : 79) (type-genus : Pisa [Leach, 1814) ; (5) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Arctopsis Lamarck (1801, Syst. Anim. s. Vert. : 155) (type-species, by monotypy : Arctopsis lanata Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. s. Vert.: 155) (gender: feminine), as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above ; (6) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the following names : (a) lanata Lamarck (1801, Syst. Anim. s. Vert.: 155) as published in the combination Arctopsis lanata (a name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(b)(i) above) ; (b) tribulus Linnaeus (1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1045) as published in the combination Cancer tribulus (a name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(b)(ii) above). a, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 189 DENDRASPIS FITZINGER, 1843 (REPTILIA, SERPENTES); PRO- POSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1500 By Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum und Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main, Germany) The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Dendraspis Fitzinger, 1843 (Syst. Rept. : 28), which according to the Law of Priority would be the correct generic name for the Indian King Cobra, Ophiophagus hannah (Cantor, 1836). 2. The generic name for the four species of “ Mambas”’, well-known venomous snakes of Africa, has been cited in the earlier literature as Dendraspis, attributed to Schlegel, 1848 (Schlegel, Over Elaps jamesonii Traill etc., Natura Artis Magistra 1848: 5) and with Hlaps jamesonii Traill, 1843 (Edinb. New Phil. J. 34(66) : 54) as type-species (designation by monotypy). In 1936 Brongersma (Zool. Mededeel. 19 : 136) pointed out that the generic name introduced by Schlegel was not Dendraspis but Dendroaspis, Dendraspis being no more than an invalid subsequent spelling first introduced by Duméril, 1856 (Rev. Mag. Zool. (2) 8 : 558). Since that time the correct use of this spelling is to be found more frequently in scientific publications. 3. The binomen Naja hannah Cantor, 1836 (Asiat. Research 19(1) : 187) has frequently been used as the scientific name for the Indian King-Cobra, the well-known largest species of poisonous snakes. In recent literature however we find the opinion that this species represents a separate monotypical genus, for which Ophiophagus Giinther, 1864 (Rept. brit. Ind. : 340), with Hamadryas elaps Giinther, 1858 (=hannah Cantor, 1836) as type-species was consistently regarded as the valid name. In the synonymy of Hamadryas elaps, Giinther (1858) quotes Naja elaps Schlegel, 1837, having misidentified the latter, which is in fact a synonym of Micropechis ikaheka (Lesson, 1830). It had been overlooked that Fitzinger, 1843 (Syst. Rept. : 28) designated Naja bungarus Schlegel, 1837 (=hannah Cantor, 1836) as type-species of the genus Dendraspis Fitzinger, 1843, so that according to the Law of Priority the correct name for the King-Cobra must be Dendraspis hannah (Cantor, 1836). 4. In contrast to the opinion of Brongersma, 1936, who states that the name Dendroaspis is to be rejected as the generic name for the ethiopian Mambas (Zool. Mededeel. 19 : 136) we conclude following the Code that Dendraspis Fitzinger, 1843, and Dendroaspis Schlegel, 1848, are not homonyms. But it seems inadvisable to replace the name Ophiophagus, a name often used in the meantime for the genus, by Dendraspis Fitzinger ; the result would be permanent confusion with Dendroaspis (or its invalid emendation Dendraspis Duméril, 1856, in the old sense) not only in zoological but also in applied medical literature. Both the genera concerned even belong to the same family of elapids. There- fore it is proposed to suppress the generic name Dendraspis Fitzinger, 1843, Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 3. May 1962. 190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature by use of the Commission’s plenary powers in order to validate Ophiophagus Giinther, 1864. 5. I therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature : (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Dendraspis Fitzinger, 1843, 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) Dendroaspis Schlegel, 1848 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Hlaps jamesonii Traill, 1843. (The date of publication (cf. Brongersma l.c.) is herewith fixed as 1848) ; (b) Ophiophagus Gimther, 1864 (gender : masculine), type-species by monotypy, Hamadryas elaps Giinther, 1858. (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) jamesonii Traill, 1843, as published in the binomen Elaps jamesonii (type-species of Dendroapsis Schlegel, 1848) ; (b) hannah Cantor, 1836, as published in the binomen Naja hannah. (4) to place the generic name Dendraspis Fitzinger, 1843, suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. a eee ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 191 CHILODUS MULLER & TROSCHEL, 1844, AND CAENOTROPUS GUNTHER, 1864 (PISCES) ; PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES. Z.N.(S.) 1502 By J. R. Gery (Strasbourg, France) and J. J. Hoedeman (Zoological Museum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) The object of the present application is to ask the Commission to give a Ruling confirming the validity of type-designations for the genera Chilodus Miiller & Troschel, 1844, and Caenotropus Giinther, 1864. 1. The genus Chilodus was established in 1844 by Miiller & Troschel (Synopsis generum et specierum familiae Characinorum. Arch. Naturgesch. 10(1) : 85) for a South-American fish of the family cHaRactDAE s. lat. (Cypriniformes = Ostariophysi auct.). The only species included at the time of the original publication was Chilodus punctatus Miiller & Troschel, 1844 (loc. cit. : 85-86). 2. The generic name Microdus was applied by Kner, 1859 (Zur Familie der Characinen. III. Folge der Ichthyologischen Beitriige. Erste Abtheilung. Denkschr. Akad. Wiss. Wien (Math.-natur. KI.) 17 :; 149) for a new genus of South-American fishes of the same family, to include the single species Microdus labyrinthicus Kner, 1859 (loc. cit. : 149-151). 3. According to the Rules, the action of Miiller & Troschel is correct, and the generic name Chilodus is valid, taking as type-species by monotypy the species Chilodus punctatus, whereas Kner’s generic name Microdus was pre- occupied by Microdus Emmons, 1857, an Elasmobranchiomorph genus. 4. Giinther 1864 (Catalogue of the Fishes in the British Museum, Volume 5, Catalogue of the Physostomi : 297) established the generic name Caenotropus for a specimen from the River Capin, Amazon, identified by him as the species labyrinthicus of Kner, 1859. He also stated (in footnote) that both the genera (generic names) Chilodus and Microdus are preoccupied, thus ranging both in the synonymy of Caenotropus. Since Chilodus is mentioned first in the synonymy, and whereas Chilodus is a perfectly valid generic name, this would either (a) render Caenotropus a synonym of Chilodus ; or, preferably (b) require that the replacement of Microdus (which was indeed preoccupied) by Caenotropus be given proper status. In the latter case Caenotropus would take automatically the type-species of Microdus Kner (Microdus labyrinthicus) as its type-species. 5. The action of Giimther (1864) remained without comments (to our knowledge) until Eigenmann, 1910 (Reports of the Princeton University Expeditions to Patagonia, 1896-1899, 3(4), Catalogue of the Fresh-water Fishes of Tropical and South Temperate America: 424) recognised Caenotropus Giinther with type-species Microdus labyrinthicus Kner, and Chilodus Miiller & Troschel with type-species Chilodus punctatus Miiller & Troschel. 6. Finally the action of Travassos, 1951 (Catalogo dos generos e Subgeneros da subordem Characoidei (Actinopterygii-Cypriniformes), Dusenia 2(4), 31 de julho : 279-280 (separate : 27—28)) to make Chilodus punctatus Miiller & Troschel 1844, type-species of Caenotropus seems to be incorrect. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part. 3 May 1962. 192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7. The International Commission is therefore asked : ; (1) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Chilodus Miller & Troschel, 1844 (gender: masculine), type- species, by monotypy, Chilodus punctatus Miiller & Troschel, 1844 ; (b) Caenotropus Giinther, 1864 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, through Microdus Kner, 1859, Microdus laby- rinthicus Kner, 1859 ; (2) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) punctatus Miiller & Troschel, 1844, as published in the binomen Chilodus punctatus (type-species of Chilodus Miiller & Troschel, 1844) ; (b) labyrinthicus Kner, 1859, as published in the binomen Microdus labyrinthicus (type-species of Caenotropus Giimther, 1864) ; (3) to place the generic name Microdus Kner, 1859 (a junior homonym of Microdus Emmons, 1857) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. PURCHASED i —_~ 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, F.C.C.S., A-L.A. Scientific Controller: W. E. China, C.B.E., Se.D. Scientific Assistant : Margaret Spillane, B.Sc. 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) Decisions of the Commission Page Opinion 629 (Pediculus dentatus Scopoli, 1763) aie ae Pena Opinion 630 (Phasianella Lamarck, 1804) .. a a .. 140 Opinion 631 (Aedipoda pellarini Le Guillou, 1841) .. oe 2 Se Opinion 632 (Regina Baird & Girard, 1853) .. 33 af oe aa Opinion 633 (Norella Bittner, 1890) .. i a i 76 48 Opinion 634 (Myalina trigonalis Etheridge, 1876) .. Kr ae ROLES Opinion 635 (Notophthalmus Rafinesque, 1820) ee i. ie, Le New Applications Doto Oken, 1815 (Gastropoda) ; Proposed validation under the plenary powers (Henning Lemche) a5 > 156 Cynips caricae Linnaeus in Hasselquist, 1762 Nisecsies Hiymenop. tera ; Proposed validation under the Bieney gids Sh ilet China) ay 160 Lystrophis Cope, 1885 (Reptilia) ; Pied validation under the plenary powers (Joseph R. Bailey) +5 ; 164 Gryllus campestris Linnaeus, 1778 (Insecta, Deuces): pied designation of a ener: under the Pe \ gia Aa K. McE. Kevan) ke 170 Dasiops alveofrons Moffitt & Vat ai, 1961 (Insecta, an: Proposed suppression under the plenary bai in favour of Dasiops alveofrons EN ee 1961 (J. F. McAlpine, H. R. Moffitt and F. L. Yaruss) . oi bes ae sia ak tee CONTENTS (continued from inside back wrapper) Asterias nodosa Linnaeus, 1758 (Asteroidea) ; Selection of a lecto- type and addition to the Official List (A. M. Clark) Pisidia Leach, 1820 ; Proposed designation of a type-species ; and Cancer istrianus Scopoli, 1763 (Crustacea, Decapoda) ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (L. B. Holthuis). . Stereomastis Bate, 1888 (Crustacea, Decapoda) ; Proposed validation under the plenary powers (L. B. Holthuis) “iS Arctopsis Lamarck, 1801 (Crustacea, Decapoda) ; Proposed aa pression under the eee hasta and related matters (L. B Holthuis) : A Dendraspis Fitzinger, 1843 (Reptilia) ; Proposed eae under the plenary powers (Robert Mertens) Chilodus Miiller & Troschel, 1844, and Caenotropus Giinther, 1864 (Pisces) ; Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names (J. R. Gery and J. J. Hoedemann) Comments Statement regarding the argument of W. I. Follett and Daniel M. Cohen concerning the ein esi of the tii metic (G. S. Myers) Comment on the proposed validation of Pnoepye eee 1844 (A. L. Rand) ar Comment on the proposed validation of eee eras 1838 (L. S. Gliickmann and D. V. Obruchev) Comment on the proposed addition of hi eo Lard 1766, to the Official List (L. Bigot) Amendment to the proposed validation of pales BS 1834, under the plenary powers (W. E. China) : Comments on the proposed designation of . type-species - Xenostegium Walcott, 1924 docenhe Shaw ; H. B. Sais hia : J. T. Temple) Amendment to the proposal to validate under the eal powers the specific name Trombidium akamushi ee 1910 AW E. China) Comment on the perce ry Aare of four Gastropod family group names (L. R. Cox) . Comment on the proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers for Blissus Burmeister, 1835 (E. Wagner) oS © 1962. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by METCALFE & Cooper Limitep, 10-24 Scrutton St., Londen EC2 Page 174 177 182 184 189 191 130 131 139 141 144 147 155 159 172 | vi a ¥ a, ~ Sea. oe a 4 : Volume 19. Part 4. 16th July, 1962 pp. 193-256, 1 plate, 5 text-figures, THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL | NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE . CoNTENTS Page Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Commission News Be we a zz ore es) Oe Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature dex a cae ee Notice of the possible use b y the International Commission on Zoological Nom enclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 194 (continued inside back wrapper) 25 JUL 1962 dan 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 1962 “a Price Three Pounds is a ‘a (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 AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12 August 1953) ous ee : Dr. W. E. Cumna (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) 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 1958) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxzs (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Sroun (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) pe ‘2 Hoxrauis (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. Mittzr (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (29 October 1954) ey Ferdinand Pranti (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30 October Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kiunett (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) a5 7 Enrico TortonEsE (Museo di Storia Naturale “G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16 December Dr. Per. Brinox (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 (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (23 July 1958) Mr. Francis Hemmaune (London, England) (23 July 1958) Dr. Henning Lemone (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Mr. Norman Denbigh Ritzy (British Musewm (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) (Secretary) Professor Dr. Tadeusz JaczEwsk1 (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 Herre (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 Ucutipa (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) a G. imp (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) une Dr. N. 8. Borcusentus (Institute of Zoology, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R.) (28 September 1961) Dr. W. E. Cuuxa (British Museum (Natural History), London) (21 May 1962) Prof. E. Bryprr (Museum d’ Historic Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962) OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 19, Part 4, pp. 193-256, 1 plate, 5 text-figures. 16th July, 1962 Commission News New Commissioners. The following have been elected by the Executive Committee :— 1. From candidates nominated by the Swiss Academy of Natural Sciences, Professor E. Binder, malacologist at the Natural History Museum in Geneva, Switzerland. 21 May 1962. 2. As Commissioner at large, Dr. W. E. China, C.B.E., Assistant Secretary to the Commission, formerly Keeper of Entomology in the British Museum (Natural History), London. 21 May 1962. Resignation of Secretary and appointment of Acting Secretary. I have found it necessary to tender my resignation of the Secretaryship, which has been accepted by the other members of the Executive Committee, as from 30 June 1962. I am happy to be able to report, however, that Dr. China, a commissioner since 21 May 1962, has accepted the Executive Committee’s invitation to be Acting Secretary to the Commission until the Congress meets in Washington in 1963. The Code The following translations of the Code are now available :— German—published 28 May 1962 by the Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main. Translated by Otto Kraus, and approved by the German-speaking Commissioners E. M. Hering (Berlin), W. Kiihnelt (Wien) and R. Mertens (Frankfurt am Main). Spanish—published by the Real Sociedad Espajfiola de Historia Natural, Instituto “‘ Jose de Acosta ” de Zoologia, Madrid. Translated by the Spanish Commissioner, Rafael Alvarado. XVIth International Congress of Zoology, Washington, 1963 Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with Article 77(1) of the Code, amendments to the Code can only be considered by the Congress if they have been received by the Commission not later than 22 August, 1962, provided only that under the above Article the Commission may relax this rule in favour of proposed amendments received at a later date. 194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 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 and interpretation of the generic name Endothyra Phillips, [1846] (Foraminifera). Z.N.(S.) 768. (2) Designation of a type-species for Boa Linnaeus, 1758 (Reptilia). Z.N.(S.) 1188. (3) Validation and interpretation of the specific name Culex aegypti Linnaeus, 1762 (Insecta, Diptera). Z.N.(S.) 1216. (4) Suppression of the specific name Pachyodon nucleus Brown, 1843 (Pelecypoda). Z.N.(S.) 1470. (5) Validation of the emendations Dorhynchus (of Dorynchus Thomson, 1873), and stirhynchus (of stirynchus (Awius) Leach, 1815) ; designa- tion of a type-species for Callinectes Stimpson, 1860 ; validation of the family name POTAMONIDAE Ortmann, 1896 ; validation of the specific names Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, 1896, and Goneplax seadentatus Risso, 1827 (Crustacea, Decapoda). Z.N.(S.) 1499. (6) Validation of Mérch, 1853-1858, Catalogus Conchyliorum and designa- tion of a type-species for Pseudamussium Morch, 1853. Z.N.(S.) 1501. c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary London, 8.W.7, England. International Commission on April 1962. Zoological Nomenclature Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 195 DISCUSSION OF THE CASE “APHIS LINNAEUS, 1758, ITS TYPE-SPECIES AND THE FAMILY-GROUP NAME DERIVED FROM IT (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 881.” (see volume 18, pages 177-180) By Louise M. Russell (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) I recommend that the Commission approve the first three items of the request listed on page 180 of the Bulletin because the nomenclature of the aphids will be stabilized by such action. I recommend that apurpae be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names, and that APHIDIDAE be rejected as the family name for the aphids. Reasons for these recommendations are given below. (a) Approval of aPHIDIDAE disregards or conflicts with previous rulings of the Commission. Opinion 143, rendered in 1943, states that the family name for the tingids, based on the generic name Tingis, is TINGIDAE instead of TINGITIDAE or TINGHUDAE. Aphis and APHIDAE are similar to Tingis and TrNemDAE. Opinion 450, rendered in 1957, approves the family name PYRALIDAE rather than the emended spelling pyRALIDIDAE, based on the generic name Pyralis. The name PYRALIDAE was adopted for reasons similar to those that resulted in the spelling PreRIDAE, rather than the emended PIERIDIDAE, based on the generic name Pieris (Hemming, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 68-69). The latter two cases are comparable to Aphis, and APHIDAE versus APHIDIDAE, in that the simpler spellings were approved. The simple spellings are applicable to the spelling of the family name of the aphids, and previous Commissions have shown by their decisions that aAPHIDAE is preferable to APHIDIDAE. Uniformity in the spelling of family names is desirable, especially within an order ; hence in the Hemiptera, aPHIDAE, in conformity with TINGIDAE, is more logical than APHIDIDAE. Moreover, other well-known hemipterous family names based on generic names ending in -is are spelled the simpler way—for example, Cercopis and CERCOPIDAE, Membracis and MEMBRACIDAE, Miris and mrripak, and Nabis and NaBmaAr. Uniformity in the spelling of family names is a mnemonic aid. It is helpful if the family name fits the common name, and thus APHIDAE for the aphids is more acceptable than apHipipar. If the latter were used, aphidids would be the logical common name for the insects, and APHIDIDAE and aphidids are less articulate and less euphonious than APHIDAE and aphids. In a 1950 Recommendation concerning the removal of ambiguities from Article 4 of the Rules in the formation of family names, the Commission (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4(7-9) : 246) stated that the choice should be made in favour of whichever method shows mostclearly “the relationship between the generic name on the one hand and the name of the family on the other and provides the simpler and more euphonious form compatible with that relationship ”’. The spelling apHrpAar complies with this Recommendation more satisfactorily than does APHIDIDAE. (b) Approval of aPHIDIDAE conflicts with Professor Grensted’s 1947 (Ent. mon. Mag. 83 : 137- 141) statements and conclusions on the formation of family names. Professor Grensted treated the case of Tingis and TrINGIDAE adequately and classically and stated (p. 127) “...Iam going to argue that the decision given in Opinion143, establishing the family name Tingidae as correct, has implications which are far-reaching and which, if accepted, will greatly simplify one of the more awkward problems as to the formation of such [family] names.’’ Professor Grensted also stated (p. 141) “‘. . . an opinion should decide between Aphidae and Aphididae, either of which is equally tenable. Personally I prefer Aphidae.’”’ His suggestions (pp. 140- 141) indicate that apHrpaz is more acceptable linguistically than aPHIDIDAE, even though both are “‘ tenable ” classically. (c) Approval of apHipIpaE would indicate the abandonment by the present Commission of the principles of family name formation and spelling incorporated in Opinions 143 and 450 by former Commissions. This would result in confusion and lack of uniformity in the formation of family names. If workers cannot be guided by Opinions and Recommendations in the formation of family names because of inconsistencies and disparities in the actions of the Commission, they will be unlikely to follow the Commission in other nomenclatural matters. As Professor Grensted (p. 137) stated, “. . . the procedure of the Commission should be such as to inspire confidence in its learning and scientific integrity ...’ The spelling apHipIDAE apparently without a precedent would destroy confidence, but the spelling aPHIDAE, with TINGIDAE, PIERIDAE, and PYRALIDAE as precedents, would inspire confidence in the decisions of the Commission. (d) aputpaz is the oldest correctly formed name dating from Leach, 1815. There apparently is no greater linguistic reason for changing the spelling apuipm of Latreille 1802-1803, to APHIDIDAE than to APHIDAE. 196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (e) The approval of aPHIDIDAE would condemn workers who, since the rendition of Opinion 143, have consistently used APHIDAE in compliance with the Commission’s decision on a very similar family name. It would support workers who have ignored Opinion 143 and have used APHIDIDAE. Disregard of Opinion 143 is the reason why the spelling of apHipIDAE has been used a greater number of times than APHIDAE. There is only one reason, its greater number of uses, for the approval of aPpHIDIDAE, and there are several reasons for its rejection. There is only one reason, its lesser number of uses, for the rejection of APHIDAE, and there are several reasons for its acceptance. I therefore recommend that APHIDAE be approved as the family name of the aphids. By Clyde F. Smith (North Carolina State College, School of Agriculture, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.) Miss Russell presents some very strong arguments for the use of the name APHIDAE and I wish to go on record as recommending that apHIDAE be placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names and that apHipIDsE be rejected as the family name for the aphids. In addition to the reasons given by Miss Russell, I should like to add the following : (1) I question whether or not aPHipmpaE has been used a greater number of times than APHIDAE. Certainly the papers listed represent only a very small portion of the papers which have used the family name spelled aPHIDAE or APHIDIDAE. (b) The subfamily apHrpiNaE (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) may be raised to family status at a future date. If this is done, aPHIDIIDAE would be the logical spelling for the family name. [This has already been done by Mackauer, 1961, Zeztschrift f. Pasasiten- kunde 30 : 576. Editor.] In view of the above and the reasons submitted by Miss Russell, I wish to recommend that APHIDAE be approved as the family-name of the aphids. By Mortimer D. Leonard (Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) I have been able to see Miss Louise M. Russell’s memorandum to you in support of the adoption of the family name apHIDAE instead of the proposed name APHIDIDAE. As a long-time student of aphids I have always used aPHIDA® and I propose to do so again in a comprehensive ‘‘ List of the Aphids of New York” which I am now ready to send off for publication. I believe Miss Russell has presented a strongly adequate case for the use of the name APHIDAE and I am in entire agreement with her arguments in this matter. I trust that the Commission will act favourably in the retention of the family name APHIDAE. By George F. Knowlton (Utah State University, Logan, Utah, U.S.A.) This letter is my plea and opinion that we should spell the aphid family name aPHIDAE and not APHIDIDAE. This would be in line with Tingis, TINGIDAE ; Pyralis, PYRALIDAE ; Cercopis, CERCOPIDAE ; Nabis, NABIDAE ; and Miris, MIRIDAR. Aphis, APHIDAE more clearly shows the relationship between the type-genus and the family than does Aphis and APHIDIDAE. I recommend that aPHipar be approved as the family name for the aphids. By George A. Schaefer (Cornell University, Geneva, New York, U.S.A.) I recommend that APHIDAE be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names, and that APHIDIDAE be rejected as the family name for aphids. This recommendation is based on the justifications previously forwarded by Miss Louise M. Russell. The linguistic appeal of APHIDAE in contrast to APHIDIDAE cannot be overemphasized. APHIDAE is more generally used than APHIDIDAE by workers in this area. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 197 By Frej Ossiannilsson (Institutionen for Vaautsjukdomslira, Uppsala, Sweden) Miss Russell has sent me a manuscript copy of her Discussion of the case “Aphis Linnaeus, 1758, its type-species and the family group name derived from it (Insecta, Hemiptera)”. I take the liberty of making the following comments. Tt is very easy to understand that many workers in the Hemiptera would like uniformity in the spelling of family names in this order. Apart from aPHrIpipar, however, this uniformity is not complete as it is, cimtcIDAE and PIESMATIDAE being exceptions. And the existing relative uniformity would be still more incomplete if some names were not originally wrongly formed (from the linguistic point of view). Thus, the correct form of a family name based on Nabis the best course would be to change Article 29 in the Code! On the contrary, Table 2 of the Appendices of that Code contains many examples of family names being formed on the basis of imparisyllaba of the third declension. Since this Table has been constructed as a guidance for zoologists in the forming of family group names, it does not seem likely that the Commission It is true that there exists some doubt concerning the linguistic status of the generic name Aphis, which seems to be a word of obscure origin. I think that since Linnaeus himself did use the plural form Aphides, this should be regarded as correct. Then the stem of the word is Aphid-, not Aph-. A point of view apparently overlooked by Professor Grensted is that Aphid- has been accepted as the correct stem in the formation on many specific names such as aphidum, aphidivorus, aphidiphilus, and so on. If the correct stem is thought to be Aph-, then all these specific names are wrongly formed, and zoologists basing new Specific names on some biological relation of their new species to aphis should write aphium (or possibly aphum), aphivorus and aphiphilus, resulting in a mixture of spellings of these names. Further, if the spelling APHIDAE is placed on the Official List, I think that also subfamily names based on genera ending in—aphis Miss Russell thinks that “if the latter (Aphididae) were used, aphidids would be the logical common name for the insects ” (instead of aphids). This is true only if APHIDIDAE is regarded as the only family belonging to the superfamily apHipompEA. Like Borner and others, I regard ©.8. LACHNIDAE, CHAITOPHORIDAE, ERIOSOMATIDAE and ADELGIDAE as separate families, and all these insects are aphids, but not aphidids. The latter word should be used only when you are talking about species belonging to the family aPHIDIDAB, expressly excluding other aphids. By A. N. Tissot (Agricultural Experimental Station, University of Florida, Gainsville, Florida, U.S.A.) Miss Louise M. Russell has brought to my attention the question of the family name aPHIDAR versus APHIDIDAR, which presently is before the International Commission. For many years I have been interested in the nomenclature of aphids and the uncertainty of the correct family name for the group has been of some concern to me. On occasions I have discussed this with language professors who have not been in full agreement regarding the formation of the family name for the generic name A phis. It certainly is good to know that official action will be taken finally to end the inconsistency of having two widely used family names for this important group of insects. My personal preference is for APHIDAE and I hope that it may be approved as the official family name of the aphids. Miss Russell very kindly sent me a copy of her recommendation in favour of the name aPHIpar. She has presented such a fine and completely adequate state- ment that I see no point in my trying to prepare a brief or make a separate recommendation. However, I do wish to endorse and strongly support Miss Russell’s recommendation that the name APHIDAE be approved. By Miriam A. Palmer (Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.) In regard to the proposal to place the family name aPHIDIDAR, so spelled, on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology : I have been privileged to read a copy of Miss Louise 198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Russell’s comment and wish to register my approval and support of all the points which she mentions and presents. This spelling APHIDAE is in conformity, as I understand it, with Opinion 143 rendered in 1943 and the recommendations set forth in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 1950, vol. 4, parts 7-9, p. 246. By M. E. MacGillivray (Canada Department of Agriculture Research Station, Fredericton, N.B., Canada) I recommend that careful consideration be given to the recommendations presented by Miss Louise M. Russell on the subject of the name Aphis. With her I concur that: (1) The Commission approve the first three items of the request listed on page 180 of the Bulletin. (2) That APHIDAE be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names and that APHIDIDAE be rejected as the family name for the aphids. Tf the classical adviser to the Commission, Canon L. W. Grensted, believes that the two forms are equally acceptable, and if there is proof that Stroyan’s suggestion regarding the stem of the word is correct, then the only reason for continuing the usage of APHIDIDAE is because it has been used more often. Since either stem of the word is acceptable, then the practice most commonly followed in the formation of family names should be employed here. Miss Russell has cited the examples PIERIDAE, PYRALIIDAE, MEMBRACIDAE, CERCOPIDAE, MIRIDAE, NABIDAE. There seems then only two questions to answer : (a) Is the Commission going to follow the accepted practice for the formation of family names and be consistent and designate APHIDAE ; or (b) Is the Commission going to use the name most commonly used because the writers have not accepted the practices of the Commission and designate APHIDIDAE. For the sake of conformity throughout Zoological Literature and at a sacrifice of the con- formity mainly in European literature dealing with this family I would propose that the commonly accepted practice for the formation of family names be followed and that the Commission designate APHIDAE as the family name for the aphids. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 199 ENDOTHYRA BOWMANI PHILLIPS, [1846] v. ENDOTHYRA BOWMANI BROWN, 1843 (FORAMINIFERA). Z.N.(S.) 768 By L. G. Henbest (U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) The object of the present application is to preserve in its accustomed sense the name Endothyra bowmani Phillips [1846]. This name is widely used in palaeontological and geological literature and was accepted for over 80 years as representing skew-coiled endothyrids. 2. In 1846, Phillips (: 277, fig. 1) introduced the name Endothyra bowmani as a new genus and species of the protozoan order Foraminifera. The species was collected from rocks of Mississippian age in Yorkshire and was described as follows: “ ... commencing with the Mountain limestone . . . I distinguish a beautiful concamerated shell, most probably a foraminifer, with a large opening in each septum, on the interior edge. Formerly I saw in the possession of Mr. John E. Bowman a specimen of this kind, visible to the naked eye, and named it Hndothyra Bowmanni. The volutions are swollen externally between the septa ”’. 3. The species was named after Mr. J. E. Bowman. Through some error the name was spelled “Bowmanni”’ by Phillips. Brady (1876 : 92) discussed and corrected the spelling to read ‘“‘bowmani”’. The corrected spelling has prevailed and would appear to be valid under the Code. 4. The description, sketch, and generalised stratigraphic source presented by Phillips indicate that an actual specimen was figured and that it was a Mississippian endothyrid. The sketch and description strongly suggest but are insufficient to verify that (a) the shell growth is intermediate between the extremes of skew to nearly planispiral coiling that may be seen in endothyrids such as Endothyra baileyi (Hall), which resembles EZ. bowmani Phillips, [1846], em. Brady, 1876, and (b) Phillips’s type-specimen is similar in evolutionary progress to H. bowmani as interpreted by Brady 1876. Inasmuch as the type- specimen is lost and as a great variation of growth form is common in the endothyrids, such conclusions as the above can be no better that educated judgments and are not subject to proof. 5. In 1876, Brady (: 92-94, Pl. 5, figs. 1-4) redescribed and refigured E. bowmani Phillips with new collections. He explicitly attempted to establish what he regarded as the form that Phillips originally described. This con- stituted a formal revision and was apparently the first one. In the century that followed Phillips’s publication, the definition of Hndothyra that Brady established as representing the skew-coiled endothyrid genus which has a wandering or revolving axis of coiling has prevailed. In Brady’s sense the name Endothyra has become one of the most widely used names of Foraminifera in specialized palaeontologic and stratigraphic literature and in textbooks of geology and palaeontology. 6. In 1939, Mikhailov (: 51, pl. 4) proposed that Endothyra bowmani Brady (1876, pl. 5, figs. 1-2) is a new species and not EH. bowmani Phillips, [1846]. He named Brady’s species HZ. bradyi. Though Mikhailov’s conclusion may be Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 4. July 1962. 200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature true, it can not be proved one way or another (see para. 4). Furthermore, this action ignored Brady as first reviser and it has inadvertently complicated current efforts to stabilise the nomenclature. 7. In 1950, however, Zeller (: 2-4) challenged both the validity of Phillips’s authorship and the concept of the character of Endothyra bowmani that was established by Brady. Zeller pointed out that Brown in 1843 (:17) had published the name ‘*“‘ Endothyra bowmani Phillips”’ and described the species —thus Brown, not Phillips, is the author of the name. Brown’s description is ambiguous as to family significance, but Phillips’s has generic meaning. There is, however, little resemblance between Phillips’s and Brown’s figures. Brown’s drawing represents a planispiral form, but as the figure is diagrammatic or conceptual, it cannot be proved whether Brown figured a millerellid or an endothyrid. In spite of this, Zeller transferred the generic name Endothyra to the planispiral form and gave the new generic name Plectogyra to the skew- coiled endothyrid genus of Brady and other authors with Plectogyra plectogyra n.sp. as the type-species. 8. The taxonomic nomenclature of Endothyra is threatened with an additional kind of complication. Several lines of evidence indicate that the skew-coiled and the planispiral modes of growth in endothyrids represent alternation of generations instead of separate generic stocks. So far the problem of dimorphism in Endothyra has not been fully examined and the evidence must be regarded as inconclusive. Nevertheless the probability is sufficient to add a material factor in the issue of conserving the generic name Endothyra Phillips. 9. I therefore object to the strict application of the Law of Priority in the present case for the following reasons: (a) The exact generic identity of the specimen or specimens figured by Brown and Phillips is not determinable. Either they figured different specimens or one of them took far more interpreta- tive liberties than the other. The two figures have little in common. The point here is that the rigid application of the Law of Priority adds little or nothing to solving the basic dilemma as to what the type-specimen or specimens of Endothyra bowmani actually were ; (b) Brady in his revision dealt with Endothyra bowmani Phillips and gave no indication that he was aware of what we now regard as Brown’s technical priority. Brady’s treatment of Endothyra leaves no question of its representing the kind of endothyrid that has a wandering or rotating axis of coiling ; (c) The term Endothyra Phillips, [1846], em. Brady, 1876, is one of the most widely used names of Foraminifera. Its use is so extensive in specialist and textbook literature that a change at this date will create confusion and will gain nothing in taxonomic precision ; (d) It is possible that the planispiral endothyrid is but the megalospheric generation of Endothyra. If this should prove to be true, another major name shift would be mandatory because most of the species of Hndothyra are involved in the name shift that is required by a rigid application of the Law of Priority. On the contrary, if the name £. bowmani Phillips is conserved, future proof or disproof of dimorphism will not affect the stability of the species of Endothyra and the literature thereon before 1950. 10. Brady, 1884 (: 66) published the family-group name ENDOTHYRINAE q : : | Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 201 for a subfamily. This was raised to family level in 1895 by Rhumbler (: 92) and is in current use—by some authors as a family, and by others as a subfamily of the family LirvoLipar. This name now should be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names. 11. For the reasons listed above, I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :-— (1) to use its plenary powers :— (a) to suppress the generic name Endothyra Brown, 1843, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy ; (b) to suppress the specific name bowmani Brown, 1843, as published in the binomen Endothyra bowmani, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy ; (c) to Rule that the nominal species Lndothyra bowmani Phillips, [1846] is to be interpreted according to the description and figures published by Brady, 1876; (2) to place the generic name Endothyra Phillips, [1846] (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Endothyra bowmani Phillips, [1846], on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name bowmani (emend. bowmanni) Phillips, [1846], as published in the binomen Endothyra bowmanni (type-species of Endothyra Phillips, [1846]) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the generic name Endothyra Brown, 1843 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (5) to place the following specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) bowmani Brown, 1843, as published in the binomen Endothyra bowmani (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above) ; (b) bowmanni Phillips, [1846], as published in the binomen Endothyra bowmanni (an incorrect original spelling for bowmani, Phillips, [1846]) ; (c) bowmaniti Brown, 1843, as published in the binomen Endothyra bowmanii (an incorrect original spelling for bowmani Brown, 1843). REFERENCES Brady, H. B., 1876, A Monograph of the Carboniferous and Permian Fora- minifera, Palaeontographical Society, vol. for 1876 , 1884, Challenger Reports (Zool.) 9 Brown, T., 1843, The elements of fossil conchology Mikhailov, A. V., 1939, Komitet delam geologii, Leningradskoe upravlenie, Sbornik No. 3, 1939, p. 51 Phillips, J., 1844-45 [1846], Proc. geol. polytech. Soc. West Riding Yorks. 2 Rhumbler, 1895, Nachr. k. Gesell. Wiss., Gottingen, Math.-Phys. 1 Zeller, E. J., 1950, Stratigraphic significance of Mississippian endothyroid Foraminifera ; Paleont. Contrib. Univ. Kansas, Protozoa, art. 4 202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ENDOTHYRA BOWMANI PHILLIPS, [1846] v. ENDOTHYRA BOW MANI BROWN, 1843 (FORAMINIFERA) ; AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL. By 8S. E. Rosovskaya (Palaeontological Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Moscow) 1. The aim of this application is to request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to secure a legal basis for the further use of the generic name Hndothyra Phillips, [1846], sensu Brady, 1876. This well-known genus of Foraminifera has a great stratigraphic importance (especially for oil-geology) because of its wide distribution in the Carboniferous (Europe, America). The name Hndothyra has been in use for nearly 120 years. This genus has given name to the family ENDOTHYRIDAE Brady, 1884, and to the order Endothyrida (Fursenko, 1959). The retention of the nominal genus Endothyra will promote the stability of nomenclature. 2. The genus Endothyra, as well as its type-species Endothyra bowmani (by monotypy), was first described by Brown (1843). Nevertheless, Brown regarded Phillips as the author of the genus and species, because Phillips was the first who found and named this foraminiferan, although he did not describe it until two years later (Phillips, 1845). Both Brown and Phillips figured cross-sections only. Brown (pl. VI, fig. 2) has figured a cross-section of a symmetrically coiled test with a great number of coils and chambers. Phillips (pl. VII, fig. 1) figured under the same name a cross-section also of a symmetric- ally coiled test, but of another specimen, incomplete and apparently belonging to another species ; it differs from Brown’s specimen by its more loosely coiled spiral, and by the smaller number of chambers and coils. Such figures are not adequate for the determination of the generic and specific characters of a test, and later authors found them useless. 3. Brady (1876) was the first to give a full and adequate description and figures of a longitudinal- and a cross-section, as well as a figure of the external aspect of a foraminiferan, which he also named Endothyra bowmani Phillips. This author was the only one who gave all the characteristic traits and during 84 years the genus Hndothyra and the species E. bowmani were understood in the sense given to them by Brady. 4, Subsequent authors did not attach any great significance to the fact that the specimen described by Brady is characterised by irregular coiling with considerable axial divergence, contrary to the specimens figured by Brown and Phillips. It was A. V. Mikhailov (1939) who first drew attention to the disparity between Hndothyra bowmani sensu Brady and Endothyra bowmani sensu Brown, and proposed to regard the first as a new species—Hndothyra bradyi Mikhailov. 5. Zeller (1950), establishing the genus Plectogyra with Pl. plectogyra Zeller as type-species and comparing it with the genus Endothyra Phillips, showed that the distinctive features of these genera consist of the different Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 4. July 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 203 ways in which the spiral is coiled : Plectogyra is characterised by three-measured coiling while to the genus Hndothyra Phillips, forms with regularly coiled spirals must be referred if one judges by Brown’s figure. It follows that the specimen figured by Brady under the name of Endothyra bowmani, characterised by an asymmetrical coiling, that is by its axis changing its direction several times, belongs to a species of the genus Plectogyra. 6. However, the features of Endothyra bowmani Phillips cannot be drawn from the diagnosis given by Brown and Phillips, because these authors have not described the wall-structure and have figured cross-sections only. In accordance with recent systematics it is possible to suppose with equal probability that the foraminiferan described by Brown and Phillips, characterised by a planispiral regularly coiled test with a rather large number of coils, could belong either to the family FUSULINIDAE (Pseudoendothyra Mikhailov, 1939, or Hostaffella Rauser, 1948), or to the family ENDOTHYRIDAE (Quasiendothyra Rauser, 1948, or Loeblichia Cummings, 1955 or other genera of this family characterised by a planispiral test and differing in cross-section but slightly from some fusulinids). Thus, the absence of data concerning the wall-structure and the absence of other than cross-sections deprives us of the possibility of determining which of the later diagnosed genera is a synonym of Hndothyra Phillips in Brown, 1843. 7. Attempts to study the original specimens or the topotypes were not successful. It has been impossible to establish the type-locality because Brown and Phillips did not exactly designate it (Mountain Limestone in Westmorland). On the other hand the original specimens were also inaccessible for further study as can be seen from the following obligingly written communication by Cummings: “. . . both the Brown Collection and the Phillips Collection have been lost and despite intensive search over the last few years, no trace of the missing specimens can be found. Furthermore neither of these two workers gave clear and precise information as to the localities from which the material was collected. Hence it is not possible to collect other type-specimens.”’ (Letter of 10 February 1960.) 8. All that has been stated above gives us the right to regard Endothyra bowmani Phillips as a nomen dubium because for more than a century no author has figured or described specimens which could be compared with those figured by Brown and Phillips and so the systematic position of their specimens is still obscure. Identical cross-sections can be found among the members of many different genera. 9. As the nominal genus Endothyra in the sense given to it by Brady (1876) has been widely known during the past 84 years, it is necessary for the stabilization of nomenclature to preserve the nominal genus Endothyra Phillips in Brown with Endothyra bradyi Mikhailov, 1939 (= Endothyra bowmani Brady, 1876) as its type-species. 10. In this case a strict application of the rules of zoological nomenclature is impossible. Many American palaeontologists have applied the name “Endothyra”’ to members of the genus Lostaffella Rauser, 1948 (Order Fusulinida). Russian micropaleontologists take the genus Endothyra in Brady’s sense, distinguishing only some of the species under the name of 204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Plectogyra Zeller, 1950 (Order Endothyrida). Renaming of the family, super- family and Order based on the nominal genus Endothyra will bring great confusion into the systematics of Foraminifera. And though the problem is disputable, there is no possibility of regulating it by the strict application of the rules of zoological nomenclature, as the characteristic features of the figured cross-sections given both by Brown and Phillips can be attributed to many genera of the order Fusulinida as well as to several forms of the Order Endothyrida. 11. The existing confusion in systematics has results reflected in the difficulty of deciphering the lists of Foraminifera and reduces their correlative and stratigraphical importance. 12. With the aim of stabilising the usage of the concerned names it is necessary for the Commission to take the following action : (1) (a) to use its plenary powers to suppress all former designations of type- species for the genus Hndothyra ; (b) to designate Endothyra bradyi Mikhailov, 1939 (=EZndothyra bowmani Brady, 1876 (non Phillips)) as the type-species of the genus Endothyra ; (2) to place the generic name Endothyra Phillips in Brown, 1843 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under plenary powers in (1) above, Endothyra bradyi Mikhailov, 1939, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.; (3) to place the specific name bradyi Mikhailov, 1939, as published in the binomen Endothyra bradyi (type-species of Hndothyra Phillips in Brown, 1843) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES Brady, H. B. A monograph of Carboniferous and Permian Foraminifera. Paleontol. Soc., London, 1876. — Report on the Foraminifera dredged by H.M.S. Challenger, during the years 1873-1879. Rep. Challenger Exped., Zool., 9, Atlas, 1884 Brown, T. The elements of fossil conchology, London, 1843. Cummings, R. New genera of Foraminifera from the British Lower Carboni- ferous. Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci. 45, No. 1, 1955 Fursenko, A. V. Fundamentals of Palaeontology, vol. I. Foraminifera, Moscow, 1959 Mikhailov, A. V. On the characteristics of the genera of the Lower Carboni- ferous Foraminifera of USSR, sbornik Glavnogo Geolupravleniya SSSR, N 3, 1939 Phillips, J. On the remains of microscopic animals in the rocks of Yorkshire. Proc. Geol. Polytechn. Soc. W. Riding Yorkshire, No. 2, 1845 Zeller, E. J. Stratigraphic significance of Mississipian Endothyroid Fora- minifera. Univ. Kansas Paleont. Contributions Protozoa, Art. 4, 1950 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 205 BOA LINNAEUS, 1758 (REPTILIA); PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS WITH ADDITION OF CONSTRICTOR LAURENTI, 1768, TO THE OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.) 1188 By Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) In 1758 Linnaeus established a genus Boa including nine species, as follows : scytale, canina, hipnale, constrictor, murina, cenchria, orophias, enydris and hortulana. These species are now placed in four genera (canina, hipnale, orophias, enydris and hortulana in Boa; scytale and murina in Eunectes ; constrictor in Constrictor ; and cenchria in Epicrates). The types of Hunectes and Epicrates are not now open to question. Unfortunately the others have never been agreed upon. All four genera are now, and long have been, placed in the family BorDAE, subfamily BOINAE. 2. Works published before 1900 generally accepted constrictor as the type of Boa, based directly or indirectly upon Fitzinger’s (1843: 24) explicit designation (the earliest known except for the possible designation by Laurenti discussed subsequently), and as a result the common as well as scientific name of ‘‘ boa constrictor’ became well established for the large and common Central and South American constrictor snake. The species canina was referred to Corallus Daudin, type Corallus obtusirostris Daudin = Boa enydris Linnaeus. 3. However, in 1901 Stejneger argued that Laurenti (1768) fixed canina as the type of Boa, and constrictor as the type of Laurenti’s new genus Constrictor. With no significant exception this arrangement was accepted until 1951 when Forcart disputed Stejneger’s reasoning and reinstated the pre-1900 terminology. Most authors since then have maintained the Stejnegerian arrangement, with a few notable exceptions. Since the animals involved are important zoo animals, and are frequently referred to in the literature, an authoritative fixation of names is highly desirable. Although in my opinion the spirit of the Code requires maintenance of the Stejnegerian interpretation, there is no completely unequivocal basis for this view, and the pre-1900 arrangement could thus be justified on other grounds. An authoritative fixation requires a decision by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, whose consideration of the case is here requested. 4, A factor of major significance in the present context is the fact that, some years after publishing his 1901 analysis, Stejneger submitted a hypo- thetical case, using no scientific names but referring to Linnaeus, Laurenti and Fitzinger by proper name and date, to the International Commission for its consideration. Unfortunately, the case was so ingenuously presented, omitting some facts and distorting others, that the Commission had in reality little choice. In Opinion 6 (1910) the Commission concurred with Stejneger’s conclusion of 1901. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 4. July 1962. 206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5. Stejneger reaffirmed his stand in reviewing Laurenti’s genera in 1936, repeating his assertion that the type of Boa Linnaeus is canina Linnaeus by virtue of monotypy, with the security of approval of Opinion 6 regarding the particular context of Laurenti’s work as providing monotypy. 6. In 1953 the Commission finally rejected the theory of its action in 1910 in Opinion 6, as expressed in the Copenhagen Decisions (1953: 72): “‘ The Colloquium recommends that ... Opinion 6... be revoked... but. . . at the same time . . . that protection should be accorded in any case where, on the faith of Opinion 6, the species currently accepted as the type-species of any given nominal genus has been determined in the foregoing manner and where, without such protection, it would be necessary to change the type-species of the genus concerned.” 7. No more appropriate application of this recommendation could possibly be made than to the present case, since directly from it Stejneger constructed his hypothetical case for which Opinion 6 was rendered. Since, however, (1) the Stejneger interpretation had been long accepted, (2) to reject it does require a change of commonly-used names, and (3) the change would not be in the interest of stability and would therefore be contrary to the spirit of the Code, the Commission is requested to designate canina as the type of Boa, placing both names on the Official Lists. So far as known, canina has not served as the type of any other generic names. Boa is, however, the type- genus of the family BoIDAE. 8. This request is made in spite of the facts that the general policy advocated by Opinion 6 is unwarranted, and even if it were, that monotypy itself could not possibly be a real factor in the present case. It is true that the three nominal species, all new, placed by Laurenti in the genus Boa (thalassina, aurantiaca, exigua) are synonyms of Boa canina Linnaeus (being based upon the same types), but none of them was mentioned by Linnaeus, and their conspecificity does not render canina the type of Boa by monotypy, especially since Boa is not Laurenti’s name. Had Laurenti originated the name Boa the type would indeed be canina, but since he did not, and none of his specific names under Boa was used by Linnaeus or designated as type of Boa Linnaeus, no objective grounds for regarding the type as fixed by Laurenti are evident. 9. The generic name Constrictor was proposed by Laurenti with five specific names, all new and none selected as type. However, formosissimus is based upon the same type (pl. 17, fig. 3, in Linnaeus’s Amoen. Acad. 1 : 497) as Boa constrictor Linnaeus, and was therefore clearly a substitute for that name ; Laurenti seemingly did not accept any of Linnaeus’s specific names, consistently substituting his own. The principle of “hidden tautonymy ”’, as expressed at the London meetings (1958) of the Section on Nomenclature of the International Congress of Zoology, would have provided an original designation of type, but this principle was rejected by the Commission (Inter- national Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 1961: xiii). The only subsequent designation of which I am aware is that of Forcart (1951 : 198), who selected Constrictor formosissimus Laurenti (=Boa constrictor Linnaeus) as type of Constrictor Laurenti. This selection is consistent with usage and should be upheld by addition of the name Constrictor to the Official List. So far as Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 207 known, neither formosissimus nor constrictor has served as type for any other generic name, and Constrictor has never served as type for a family. 10. In summary, it is here requested that the Commission : (1) use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Boa Linnaeus, 1758, and having done so, designate Boa canina Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type-species of that genus ; (2) place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Boa Linnaeus, 1758 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designa- tion under the plenary powers in (1) above, Boa canina Linnaeus, 1758 ; (b) Constrictor Laurenti, 1768 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation by Forcart, 1951, Boa constrictor Linnaeus, 1758 ; (3) place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) canina Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Boa canina, holotype in the Royal Museum, Stockholm (fide Andersson, 1899 : 27) (type-species of Boa Linnaeus, 1758) ; (b) constrictor Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Boa constrictor, two syntypes in the Royal Museum, Stockholm (fide Andersson, 1899: 27-28) (type-species of Constrictor Laurenti, 1768) ; (4) place the family name BorDAE Gray, 1825 (: 209) (type-genus Boa Linnaeus, 1758) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. LITERATURE CITED Andersson, Lars G., 1899. Catalogue of Linnean type-specimens of snakes in the Royal Museum of Stockholm. K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Handl. 24(4-6) : 1-35 Fitzinger, Leopoldo, 1843. Systema reptilium. p. 106 Forcart, Lothar, 1951. Nomenclature remarks on some generic names of the snake family Boidae. Herpetologica 7 : 197-199 Gray, J. E., 1825. A synopsis of the genera of reptiles and amphibia with a description of some new species. Ann. Philos. (n.s.) 10 : 193-217 Hemming, Francis (Ed.), 1953. Copenhagen decisions in zoological nomenclature. Intern. Trust Zool. Nomencl., London. xxix, pp. 135 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1910. Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Opinions 1-25, Smithsonian Inst. Publ. 1938 : 1-61 Stejneger, Leonhard, 1901. An annotated list of batrachians and reptiles collected in the vicinity of La Guaira, Venezuela, with description of two new species of snakes. Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 24 : 179-192 ——,, 1936. Types of the amphibian and reptilian genera proposed by Laurenti in 1768. Copeia 1936(2) : 133-141 208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CULEX AEGYPTI LINNAEUS, 1762 (INSECTA, DIPTERA); PRO- POSED VALIDATION AND INTERPRETATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE SPECIES SO NAMED. Z.N.(S.) 1216 By P. F. Mattingly (British Museum (Natural History), London) ; Alan Stone (Entomology Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) ; and Kenneth L. Knight (Naval Medical Field Research Laboratory, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, U.S.A.) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to such extent as may be necessary to provide a valid basis for the continued use of the name Culex aegypti Linnaeus, 1762, for the Yellow Fever Mosquito. Two problems are involved, for the foregoing name was published in a work which has been rejected by the International Commission for the purposes of zoological nomenclature and, as there seems no reasonable doubt, was applied by Linnaeus to an entirely different species. These questions are discussed separately in the following paragraphs. 2. The name Culex aegypti Linnaeus was published in 1762 in the work by Hasselquist entitled Reise nach Paldstina, a German translation of a work by Hasselquist which had been published in 1757 under the title [ter Palaestinum. In the Jter Palaestinum Hasselquist employed in a number of cases Latin binominal names supplied to him by Linnaeus, but, as these names were published before the starting point of zoological nomenclature they are not available for use in zoological nomenclature as from the above work. The same names appeared in the German translation published in 1762 and owing to their binominal form and the fact that they were published after the starting point of zoological nomenclature some of these names, including the name with which we are here concerned, later came into use. 3. The Reise nach Paldstina was no more than a direct translation of the pre-1758 Iter Palaestinum and until the early years of the present century it was a matter of doubt whether names published after 1757 in such a translation acquired the status of availability by reason of being so republished. This matter was set at rest in 1910 (Smithson. Publ. 1938 : 6) by the Ruling given by the International Commission in its Opinion 5 that a name published in a translation of the kind discussed above did not acquire availability unless “ reinforced by adoption or acceptance by the author publishing the reprint ”’. The question whether the names in the German (1762) translation of Hassel- quist’s book satisfied the test laid down in Opinion 5 formed the subject of a Ruling given by the Commission in Opinion 57, which was published in 1914 (Smithson. Publ. 2256 : 131-134). In that Opinion the Commission ruled that the author who published the German translation of Hasselquist’s book (i.e. T. H. Gadebusch) had not himself reinforced by adoption or acceptance the names published in the original edition of 1757, having done no more than publish without comment a translation of that book. The Commission accordingly ruled that the German translation of 1762, like the original of Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 4. July 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 209 1757, was unavailable for nomenclatorial purposes. Recently, under a General Directive given to it by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, when establishing the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature the International Commission carried out a review of the Opinions rendered prior to the above Congress and placed on the above Official Index the titles of all works that had so far been rejected for nomenclatorial purposes. In the Direction embodying the decisions so taken, Direction 32 (published in 1956, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 1 (C) : 307-308) the titles of the Iter Palaestinum of 1757 and of the Reise nach Paldstina of 1762 were placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works with the title numbers 35 and 36 respectively. 4. From the particulars given above it will be seen that the first step needed to give effect to the application now submitted will be for the Commission to use its plenary powers to validate the specific name aegypti Linnaeus, 1762, as published in the combination Culex aegypti on page 470 of the German translation of Hasselquist’s [ter Palaestinum published by Gadebusch under the title Reise nach Paldstina. Such action would be in complete harmony with the expressed wish of the International Congresses of Zoology that the Commission should use its plenary powers for the purpose of validating well- known names published in works rejected for nomenclatorial purposes (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 65), on the basis of which the Commission has, for example in its Opinions 441 and 442, recently validated certain important generic names in the Order Diptera (e.g. Stomoxys, Stratiomys, etc.) as published in 1762 in Geoffroy’s Histoire abrégée, a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes as one in which the author had not applied the principles of binominal nomenclature, by the Ruling given in Opinion 228. 5. We must now turn to the second part of our application, namely the need for securing an authoritative interpretation of the nominal species Culex aegypti Linnaeus, 1762, in a sense consistent with current usage. For many years this name was lost in the literature and the Yellow Fever Mosquito was known by the name Culex fasciatus Fabricius, 1805 (Syst. Antliat. : 36). The first author to employ the specific name aegypti Linnaeus in its current connotation was Dyar (H. G.) (1920, Insecutor Inscit. menst. 8 : 204). Dyar’s identification of this species was not immediately accepted without challenge, but for many years now it has been in general use having appeared in hundreds of papers in applied entomology and in medical literature. Its abandonment at this date would cause the greatest confusion and would give rise to strong opposition, especially in medical quarters. 6. One of the present applicants (Mattingly, 1957, Ann. trop. Med. Parasit. 51 : 392) has recently re-examined in detail the description given by Linnaeus (in Hasselquist) for Culex aegypti and has come to the conclusion that the name does not apply to the Yellow Fever Mosquito, being clearly applicable to Culex caspius Pallas, 1771 (Reise Prov. Russl. 1 : 475), a species now placed in the subgenus Ochlerotatus Lynch Arribalzaga, 1891. The other applicants (Stone and Knight) are in full agreement with the conclusions reached by Mattingly in this matter. The foregoing identification of Culex aegypti Linnaeus was first made by Gough (1914, Bull. ent. Res. 5 : 133) who had personal experience 210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of the small number of mosquitoes occurring in Egypt. It was strongly argued by Patton (1933, Ann. trop. Med. Parasit.: 182) on the basis of a comparison of the description given by Linnaeus (of which he had obtained a translation from the Professor of Latin at Liverpool University) with actual specimens of Culex caspius Pallas. The repetition of this comparison recently carried out by Mattingly both confirms the arguments advanced by Patton and in addition has disclosed further features in Linnaeus’ description which strongly reinforce Patton’s conclusions. A comparison of that description with specimens of Culex caspius Pallas either with the naked eye or with a lens of low magnification shows that the correspondence between the two is not only good but actually very striking. So much so that no trained taxonomist with a working knowledge of Latin could hold in his hand a specimen of the pale Egyptian form of Pallas’s species and doubt for a moment that it was the species on which Linnaeus based his description of Culex aegypti. 7. We have already explained (paragraph 5) that the substitution for aegypti Linnaeus of some other specific name would cause such serious and widespread confusion that it could not possibly be contemplated and that what is required is some action by the Commission which will securely link the specific name aegypti Linnaeus to the Yellow Fever Mosquito. We have considered what form that action might most conveniently take and are of the opinion that the best course would be to follow the precedent established in the case of the name Coluber sirtalis Linnaeus in which the Commission used its plenary powers to approve a neotype consisting of a species different from that to which Linnaeus had applied the name sirtalis (1956, Opinion 385, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 12 : 193). The two cases are almost exactly similar and we feel that the justification for such use of the plenary powers is even greater in the present instance owing to the medical importance of the species concerned and the very widespread use of the name aegypti in the general literature. We propose and have chosen as neotype a female, with associated larval and pupal exuvia, which is described and figured in Annexe I to the present application. 8. In choosing a specimen to serve as the neotype of Culex aegypti we have not felt compelled to restrict ourselves to Egyptian material. It is true that the Yellow Fever Mosquito has been known to occur in Egypt but this is a marginal part of its range and it is improbable that it has ever been abundant there. It is now believed to have been totally eradicated from Egypt so that, were an Egyptian neotype to be chosen, fresh topotypical material would no longer be available. Nor are suitable specimens available either in the British Museum or in the U.S. National Museum. In view of the large amount of genetical work currently being carried out on this species it has been felt desirable to choose a specimen representing approximately the mean of the range of variation. The present specimen has the additional advantage that it is accompanied by more than 150 other offspring from the same mother, with associated exuvia. 9. The name “ Stegomyia’’ was first published by Howard in his book “Mosquitoes” (New York, June, 1901). It is first employed in the legend to a figure, by Howard, of the adult female of the Yellow Fever Mosquito, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 211 “ Stegomyia fasciata”’ (a junior subjective synonym of Culex aegypti Linnaeus as required to be validated under Section 1 above). (Fig. 31, p. 127). Subse- quently (pp. 134, 155) Howard makes it clear that the name Stegomyia was devised by Theobald and on p. 234 he says “It will be noticed . . . that Mr. Coquillett and the writer have adopted the generic name Stegomyia for the mosquito which has in our previous writings been named Culex fasciatus. I have been induced to adopt this name through correspondence with Mr. Theobald, . . . It will be unfortunate should this use of the name antedate the publication of Mr. Theobald’s monograph, since the genus should be his not ours”. There follows (p. 235) a generic synopsis including characters for the recognition of Stegomyia devised by Coquillett. Theobald himself published the name Stegomyia for the first time in July 1901 (J. trop. Med. Hyg. 4: 235), together with a generic diagnosis. All subsequent authors have credited the name to Theobald. Howard included only two species in Stegomyia, viz. Stegomyia signifera Coquillett (now customarily placed in the genus Orthopod- omyia) and St. fasciata. Theobald does not list any included species in his paper of July, 1901, but he included St. fasciata, together with a number of other species, in a further discussion of Stegomyia, published in September, 1901 (Mem. Liverpool Sch. trop. Med. 4: Appendix, p. iii) and also in his “ Monograph of the Culicidae or Mosquitoes ”’ (Vol. I, p. 283, November, 190 ). St. fasciata was first formally designated as the type-species of Stegomyia by Neveu- Lemaire (Mém. Soc. zool. Fr. 15 : 212, 1902) and it has been universally accepted as such ever since. It is therefore requested that the generic name Stegomyia Theobald (1901, in Howard, Mosquitoes : 235) should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology at the same time that the specific manner recommended in paragraph 7 above. Finally, under the Completeness- of-Opinions Rule the specific name caspius Pallas, 1771, as published in the combination Culex caspius, should, as a valid name for a Species entering into the present case, also be entered on the above Official List. 10. No family-group name problem arises in the present case, the species concerned being currently placed in the family CULICIDAE. 11. For the reasons set out above, we ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : (1) to use its plenary powers : (a) to validate the specific name aegypti Linnaeus, 1762, as published in the combination Culesz aegypti ; (b) to direct that the nominal Culex aegypti Linnaeus, 1762, validated as Tecommended in (a) above, be interpreted by reference to the specimen described and figured in Annexe I to the present application ; (2) to place the under-mentioned Specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : 212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (a) aegypti Linnaeus, 1762, as published in the combination Culex aegypti and as validated under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above, the entry so to be made to bear an endorsement that the nominal species so named is to be interpreted in the manner directed under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above ; (b) caspius Pallas, 1771, as published in the combination Culex CASPLUS ; (3) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : Stegomyia Theobald, 1901 (gender : feminine) (type-species by selection by Neveu-Lemaire, 1902; Culex fasciatus Fabricius, 1805 [Note not for inclusion in the Official List: The name Culex fasciatus Fabricius, 1805, is a junior subjective synonym of Culex aegypti Linnaeus, 1762, as validated and interpreted under the plenary powers in (1) above]. ANNEXE I Description of Neotype of “Aedes aegypti’? Linnaeus, 1762, the Yellow Fever Mosquito. Description: An adult female with wing length 3 mm. Proboscis entirely dark, about equal in length to fore femur. Palps a little more than one-fifth as long as proboscis, with the apical segment white-scaled above. Tori with patches of silvery white scales on inner and outer surfaces. Clypeus with lateral patches of similar scales. Eyes well separated behind. Occiput with median longitudinal stripe of broad, flat, white scales continued forward between eyes. Eye margins with narrow line of very small silvery white scales. To either side of median white occipital stripe an area of pale brownish scales. Outside this an area of blackish scales and outside this again a line of silvery white scales followed by an area of blackish scales and, finally, towards the under surface a patch of whitish scales. All decumbent scales of vertex and occiput broad and flat except for the small, narrow scales round the eye margins. Upright forked scales pale brown, restricted to nape. Pronotal lobes widely separated with broad silvery white scales. Scutum with narrow dark brown scales over most of the surface. Anterior border with a line of narrow white scales interrupted in the mid line by a distinct apical spot of similar scales, elongated in the anteroposterior direction. On the anterior half of the scutum, just inside the lateral borders, a pair of narrow, crescentic patches of broad silvery white scales. These crescentic patches continued backwards to the posterior border as two narrow, submedian, longitudinal lines of white scales. Inside these, on each side, a longitudinal line of very narrow yellow scales continuing backwards on either side of the mid-line from just behind the median anterior white spot to a short distance in front of the pre-scutellar bare space. The latter bordered at the sides by a few narrow whitish scales Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 213 and with a small patch of similar scales at its anterior edge. Small patches of narrow whitish scales present above wing roots. Scutellum with all scales broad, flat and silvery white except for some broad, dark scales at apex of mid-lobe. Postnotum bare. Posterior pronotum with flat, white scales below and some narrow, dark brown scales above. White scales present on para- tergite, hypostigmal areas, upper and lower sternopleuron and sternopleural knob and upper and lower mesepimeron. Postspiracular area bare. All coxae with conspicuous patches of white scales. Fore femur with anterior surface extensively pale on basal half, pale below nearly to tip. Mid femur with anterior surface wholly pale for a short distance at base and with a narrow but conspicuous white line nearly to tip. Anterior surface of hind femur entirely pale on about the basal two-thirds, pale above nearly to tip. Fore femur with posterior surface much like anterior. Mid femur with posterior surface mainly pale, dark above towards tip. Hind femur pale behind on about the basal two- thirds. Tibiae dark. First two fore and mid tarsals narrowly pale at base. Remainder dark. First three hind tarsals narrowly pale at base, fourth pale except narrowly at tip, fifth entirely pale. Fore and mid claws toothed. Hind claws simple. Wings dark except for a small white spot at base of costa. Wing scales narrow. Anterior fork cell a little less than twice as long as its stem. Squama with relatively short hairs or hairlike scales. Alula with mixed narrow and moderately broad scales confined to border, without decumbent scales. First abdominal tergite with an extensive median patch of pale scales. Tergites II-VII with narrow basal white bands and a single row of small white scales along posterior border. Paired silvery white lateral patches present on these tergites but clearly visible from above only on tergite VII. Anterior sternites largely pale, the more posterior ones with an increasing number of dark scales. VI with a median, apical pale patch separated from the basal pale area by a dark band curving inwards from the apicolateral corners. VII almost entirely dark except for the extreme posterior edge and two small sublateral pale spots a little anterior to this. The fourth stage larval and pupal exuviae of the neotype are figured in detail in Figs. 2, 3, 4 and 5, pp. 215-219. 2. Locality of Neotype: Kuala Lumpur, Selangor, Malaya, September 1957, W. W. Macdonald. The neotype was reared in the laboratory of the Institute for Medical Research in Kuala Lumpur from eggs laid by a wild-caught mother. The mother laid three successive egg batches and she and 170 brothers and sisters of the neotype are available as paratype material. 107 of the brothers and sisters have individually associated larval and pupal skins. Part of the remaining skins have been preserved in bulk. The mother was not mated in the laboratory. On the evidence at present available it would not, however, be prudent to rule out the possibility of multiple fertilization and, therefore, of a mixed paternal ancestry. 3. Reference number allotted to Neotype: The neotype bears the reference number 0325B/14, which was allotted to it in the laboratory in Kuala Lumpur. The number 0325 is that of the mother. The letter B implies that the neotype was reared from the second egg batch. The number 14 is that of the individual specimen. The whole of the type material is at present in the British Museum 214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Natural History). Paratypes will be presented to the U.S. National Museum. Other museums will receive paratypes on request. 4. Figures of Neotype: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 19 : Plate 5, Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. FIGURES Culex aegypti Linnaeus, 1762 Neotype designated by P. F. Mattingly, Alan Stone and Kenneth L. Knight in the Annexe to Application Z.N.(S.) 1216. eared in laboratory of Institute for Medical Research, Kuala Lumpur. Adult female. Wing length 3 mm. With associated larval and pupal exuviae. Plate I. Adult. a, head and thorax in dorsal view ; b, abdomen in dorsal view. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19 Plate 5 M! ay ht! yin if no (rt figs iy 7 Si igh ae ay yh ee ooh : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 215 Arthur Smith del. Fig.1. Adult. a’, a”, a’’’, fore, mid and hind femur, respectively, in anterior view ; b’, b’’, b’’’, the same in posterior view ; c, d, e, fore, mid and hind tibiae and tarsi in anterior view, 216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature AS Arthur Smith del. Fig. 2. Pupa. a, b, cephalothorax from exterior ; ¢, abdomen in dorsal view on right and ventral view on left. Setae numbered according to the system of Belkin (1953, Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 55 : 318). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 217 Arthur Smith del, Fig.3. Larva. Head and thorax in dorsal view on right and ventral view on left. Setae numbered as in Fig. 3. m, mentum. 218 Fig. 4. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Arthur Smith del. en in dorsal view on right and ventral view on left. Larva. Abdom Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 4 Terminal segments, AS Arthur Smith del, 219 220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature REQUEST FOR A RULING THAT JORDAN AND EVERMANN DID NOT DESIGNATE TYPE-SPECIES VALIDLY IN EITHER THEIR WORK DATED 1896-1900 OR THAT OF 1896 (PISCES). Z.N.(S.) 1279 By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) HISTORY OF THE CASE On 6 June 1958, Dr. W. I. Follett and Dr. D. M. Cohen, published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 16 (part 2) : 73-78 an application to the Commission for a ruling as to the species to be accepted as the type-species of the nominal genus “‘ Bathylagus ’’ Gimther (A.C.L.G.), 1878 (Class Pisces). In paragraph 19 (p. 77) they requested that Bathylagus antarcticus Giinther, 1878, should be ruled as type-species of Bathylagus by selection by Jordan, 1919 (Genera of Fishes (3) : 395). 2. On 8 September 1958, Mr. Melville received a comment from Mr. Cyril F. dos Passos, Mendham, New Jersey, U.S.A., supporting Follett’s and Cohen’s application. He wrote : ‘‘ This request has been examined carefully and I find myself in complete agreement with the conclusions expressed in paragraphs 10, 13, 16, 17 and 19 thereof. While the search for a first reviser is often an elusive one, there is little chance that one occurred between 1878 when the names Bathylagus antarcticus and B. atlanticus were proposed, and 1919, when Jordan selected a logotype for that genus without such a selection having been dis- covered by the applicants or some other specialist.” 3. On 15 September 1958, Eugenie Clark of the Cape Haze Marine Laboratory, Placida, Florida, U.S.A., wrote to the Commission supporting the application as follows :— ‘“‘T would like to support the request for a ruling that the type-species of the nominal genus Bathylagus is the nominal species B. antarcticus as well as the other four proposals made by Drs. Follett and Cohen.” 4, On 20 March 1959 Follett in reply to a letter from Mr. Melville (25.11.59) passing on certain criticisms from Dr. Lemche, which subsequently proved to be irrelevant, wrote, after consulting Cohen, as follows :— “Our primary purpose in submitting this request for a ruling by the International Commission was, and is, as follows :— ‘* (1) To determine whether or not Jordan and Evermann (1896a, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus.47(1):528) adequately selected the type-species despite the questionable matters noted in paragraphs 3 through 9 of our request (1958, B.Z.N. 16(2) : 73-75). (2) In case the Commission’s answer to that question should be in the negative, then to determine whether or not Jordan & Evermann (1896, Rept. U.S. Comm. Fish and Fish. 21 : 295) adequately selected the type-species despite the questionable matters noted in paragraphs 11 through 13 of our request (1958, B.Z.N., 16(2) : 75). ‘You will note that in the case of Bathylagus, Jordan and Evermann’s Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 4. July 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 221 reference to ‘the species taken by the describer as the type of the genus’ is demonstrably erroneous, since the original describer (Giinther) gave no indication whatever of ‘ taking ’ either one of the species as type. “When Dr. Cohen first consulted me with regard to this problem, I told him that the question appeared to be a close one, but that if Rule (g) in Article 30 (‘ The meaning of the expression “ select the type ”’, is to be rigidly construed ’) were to be interpreted as having any effect, I thought that both of the foregoing actions of Jordan and Evermann would have to be regarded as insufficient to constitute a selection of the type. Dr. Cohen then told me that if Jordan and Evermann’s two purported ‘selections’ were to be rejected, Jordan’s (1919, Genera of Fishes (8) : 394-395) selection of Bathylagus antarcticus would apparently prevail (as noted in paragraphs 14 through 16 of our request). Dr. Cohen pointed out that there would be certain advantages in such a result because Bathylagus antarcticus is a better-known species than Bathylagus atlanticus. ** However, had Dr. Cohen and I not been convinced that the circumstances described in our request demonstrated the inadequacy of Jordan and Evermann’s purported ‘ selections ’, we should not have requested a ruling that Bathylagus antarcticus be deemed the type-species. “As I explained in my letter of 21 October 1957 to Mr. Francis Hemming : ‘The problem is of more than ordinary interest, since it involves the question whether type-species were selected by Jordan and Evermann in their monu- mental work entitled ‘“‘ Fishes of North and Middle America ”’, published in four volumes as Bulletin 47 of the United States National Museum, 1896— 1900’. Dr. Cohen and I would not have requested a ruling that Jordan and Evermann (1896a) did not select the type, if we had not been convinced that the Rules required such an interpretation. “Tn your letter of 25 February 1959, you state that Bathylagus atlanticus ‘is clearly the valid type-species of the genus’. If this is so, you have answered our query, in part. However, you have not explained whether you reached this conclusion (1) on the basis that Jordan and Evermann (1896a, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 47(1) : 528) adequately selected the type despite the questionable matters that Dr. Cohen and I pointed out, or (2) on the basis that Jordan and Evermann (1896a) inadequately selected the type, but that Jordan and Evermann (1896, Rept. U.S. Comm. Fish and Fish.) adequately selected the type. Dr. Cohen and I are greatly interested in learning on which basis the Commission reaches its decision, and we believe that every ichthyologist who is concerned with the fish fauna of North America will be equally interested, even if he is not concerned with the immediate problem of Bathylagus. We therefore urge that the Commission’s decision leave no room for doubt as to its basis. “In your letter of 25 February 1959, you suggest also that Dr. Cohen and I request some specialist to examine the type-material and to publish a paper putting the status of the species beyond reasonable doubt. We believe that this has already been done by Giinther (1887, Deep-sea Fish. ‘ Challenger ’, 22 : 219-221) and by Norman (1930, Discovery Reports 2 : 274-277). Both of those eminent ichthyologists referred the species atlanticus and the species 222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature antarcticus to the genus Bathylagus. We know of no one who has done otherwise. “At the expense of repetition, I wish to make it clear that Dr. Cohen and I do not contend that the species antarcticus should be the type-species for any reason other than our belief that the Rules require it.” Melville, 23 March 1959, replied to Follett’s letter as follows :— ‘On reading your original application more carefully in the light of your letter I see that I had misunderstood it as a definite request to set aside a valid designation of atlanticus as type-species of Bathylagus in favour of antarcticus. I think this also must have been the impression that Dr. Lemche got when he sent in his comment. I see now that there is no valid reason for accepting either Jordan and Everman, 1896, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 47 : 528 or Jordan & Evermann, 1896, Rept. U.S. Comm. Fish and Fish. 21 : 295 as having designated atlanticus as type-species, rigidly construed.” 5. Melville sent a copy of Follett’s letter to Lemche and wrote to him: ‘“‘ T should like to say that I thought there was some ground for your criticism, but that it now appears that I at least misunderstood the application. It seems that Follett and Cohen genuinely believe Jordan’s 1919 selection of antarcticus to be the first valid selection, but there is sufficient doubt about this to make an application to the Commission necessary. ‘“* You will see from Dr. Follett’s letter that he and Dr. Cohen do not consider either of the references by Jordan and Evermann 1896 (in two separate papers) as valid type designations ‘rigidly construed ’, the first because it rests on whether the original describer took a particular species as the type of the genus (which Giinther did not, in the case of Bathylagus) and the other because it consists merely of the citation of one specific name in combination with the generic name, without any indication of a purpose to designate the type-species. You will also see that their contention in favour of antarcticus is based on their reading of the Rules as applied to this case, not on the question of suitability. I want to frame this letter in such a way that your reply will be the last step in the case before the issue of the voting paper. I think that the best way to achieve this will be to ask you to explain what is in your view the first valid designation of a type-species for Bathylagus. If you conclude that under the Rules atlanticus is the type-species, in terms of a cited reference, then I should propose to submit a call for Alternative A (antarcticus) or for Alternative B (atlanticus), with a summary of the correspondence. If you concur with Follett and Cohen in thinking antarcticus to be the valid type-species, then I should call for a vote for or against antarcticus with a brief summary of the correspondence intended to meet the same objection should it arise in the minds of any other members of the Commission.” 6. Lemche’s reply was received by Melville on 17 June 1959. He wrote :— “Tt now turns out that what the Commission is going to decide is not the isolated case of Bathylagus and its type, but the more general question of whether Jordan and Evermann in their important paper of 1896-1900, ‘ The Fishes of North and Middle America’, 1-4, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 47, did establish types by citing single specific names after the genera mentioned. Follett and Cohen state that Jordan and Evermann did not so select types and ——— ————— Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 223 they cite some examples to show that Jordan and Evermann were so irregular in their actions that they cannot be regarded as having selected types as ‘rigidly construed ’ in a nomenclatorial sense.”’ Lemche went on to state that he had now studied the original paper by Jordan and Evermann and had come to exactly the opposite conclusion to that of Follett and Cohen. He considered that the invariable citation of a single specific name after new generic and subgeneric names constituted a type- selection. He quoted a number of examples which he said showed that Jordan and Evermann really intended to fix types even if they had not done so validly. He concluded : “‘ To me there is no doubt that Jordan and Evermann had the idea that in their paper all genera had been cited with types. They start in the first line of their synonymies with giving the original content of the genus, then following the history of it through restrictions—clearly so desig- nated—until only one species is left to function as type*. In all cases, it is in some way or other clearly stated what species is a type. Whether or not they have put the word ‘type’ in close connection to the specific name in question cannot be a decisive factor. I am, therefore, of the opinion that Jordan and Evermann (1896) did select types when they added a single specific name behind the citation of a generic one in cases where no type-selection had already been undertaken. I maintain that the said authors executed their right to establish a type in the case of Bathylagus, atlanticus being the type under the Rules, by subsequent selection by Jordan and Evermann 1896. Consequently, I find no need for any special decision of the Commission in the case of Bathylagus, but it may be appropriate to bring an end to all doubts by requesting the Commission to adopt the following Decision : ““*The authors D. 8S. Jordan and B. W. Evermann, in their work “‘ The Fishes of North and Middle America 1-4”’, Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 47 : 1896- 1900, are accepted as having executed their rights of type-selection “ as rigidly construed ”’ under the Rules by following their habit of placing single specific names in parentheses after their first citation of several generic ones’ ”’. 7. Melville (18 June 1959) wrote to Follett enclosing a copy of Lemche’s statement. He pointed out that there were only two alternative methods of settling Follett’s application, either of which would involve some delay. They were :— (1) “If Jordan and Evermann did not fix atlanticus as the type-species of Bathylagus in their first 1896 paper, then the case must proceed on the line indicated in Follett’s and Cohen’s application. If they did, then atlanticus is the type-species through their action and it only remains to justify the point of view. This cannot be done without adducing the argument that they designated type-species for all the genera mentioned in their work other than those for which a valid designation or indication already existed. However true this may be on purely nomenclatural grounds, it would be impossible to put a responsible proposal before the Commission to validate those selections as a whole without a thorough examination of all the names involved, preferably * Fixation by restriction ! !—W.E.C. 224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature by an ichthyologist. To sum up, this alternative really amounts to a request for a ruling that Jordan and Evermann did in fact make type-designations of the kind mentioned, and the fact that atlanticus was thereby the type-species of Bathylagus would be only an incidental feature in a broader picture. No exercise of the plenary powers would be involved, but the amount of work required to establish the position might be formidable. (2) ‘‘ Without taking into consideration the general question of whether Jordan and Evermann in general designated type-species in their first 1896 paper or not, it would be possible to use the plenary powers to set aside all previous designations so as to fix antarcticus as the type-species of Bathylagus. This would require supporting evidence that the action proposed was in the interests of stability and uniformity of nomenclature, or words to that effect ; in other words it would require at least a ‘reasoned prejudice ’ in your own minds in favour of one species. “The first alternative would require a detailed examination of Jordan and Evermann’s work in the light of current taxonomic usage and of relevant earlier literature before it could be decided to what extent, if any, their alleged general type-designations are valid. The second alternative, which requires the use of the plenary powers, would necessitate a new start, with a paper in the Bulletin and an advertisement of the possible use of the plenary powers.” 8. Melville at the same time also wrote to Lemche disagreeing with him that the Commission is, in effect, being asked to rule on the question whether Jordan and Evermann designated types for all the genera cited in their first 1896 paper. Follett and Cohen, he wrote, only asked for the acceptance of antarcticus as the type-species of Bathylagus because they thought that that was the type-species under the Rules. “A decision”’, wrote Melville, “‘that Jordan and Evermann effectively designated types for all the genera in their paper, except where a type had been previously designated or indicated, could not be taken without a great deal more advice from specialists than we at present have, since such a ruling might have the most serious taxonomic implications. As far as the individual case of Bathylagus is concerned, however, it would be difficult for the Com- mission to rule that they had designated atlanticus as the type-species in their first 1896 paper without explaining they had done so as part of a wholesale series of such designations. Follett and Cohen clearly believe that Jordan and Evermann did not designate a type for Bathylagus (and would presumably also be of the view that they did not designate types as a general rule in that paper). It is also clear that they consider antarcticus as the type-species under the Rules because it was the first species to be so designated ‘ as rigidly construed’. My own view is that, if there are not too many taxonomic difficulties, the Commission would probably accept your view as to the status of designations in Jordan and Evermann’s first 1896 paper, except where previous valid designations or indications exist. A proposal to the Commission on those lines would, however, demand considerable research by one or more specialists and it would be desirable to obtain a widespread expression of the views of other ichthyologists on the results of that research. The alternative would be to redraft the present case on the following lines : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 225 ‘Without prejudice to the general question, it is proposed that the plenary powers be used to designate antarcticus as the type-species of Bathylagus after using the same powers to set aside all previous designations.’ “This would involve publication of a new application in the Bulletin and the issue of Public Notices, since the existing application (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 16 (part 2) : 73-78, 1958) does not entail use of the plenary powers.” _ 9. Lemche in his reply (23 June 1959) agreed with Melville’s view that a decision to accept Jordan and Evermann’s types in a wholesale manner was dangerous unless ichthyologists are consulted on a broad base. But he insisted that it was equally dangerous to state that they did not so select types. He advised that the general principle involved should be decided by the Commission at the same time as the Bathylagus case, whimsically ignoring the vast amount of work that would need to be done by the very small Secretariat before it was possible to place the required evidence before the Commission. 10. Follett (18 July 1959) replying to Melville’s letter wrote :— “We believe that the Commission should not make its ruling without a direct reference to the requirement of Article 30g that ‘The meaning of the expression, select the type, is to be rigidly construed’. Whichever way the ruling may go, it is possible that undesirable results may ensue when that ruling is applied to other genera cited by Jordan and Evermann. Then and then only should resort be had to the plenary powers. We note Dr. Lemche’s comment that the decision will involve the more general question of whether Jordan and Evermann (1896a) selected type-species for all the genera that they cited. We believe that this consideration cannot properly be allowed to influence the decision in the present case. A decision so influenced would amount to a surreptitious use of the plenary powers.” 11. Melville replied, stating that he agreed with Lemche that, “the Commission could not deliver a ruling about Bathylagus in Jordan and Ever- mann’s first 1896 work without at the same time ruling on all the other generic names in that work. A ruling that those authors had fixed the type-species of Bathylagus in that work would imply that they had also done so for all the other genera where the question of the fixation of the type-species was still open ; a ruling that they had not fixed the type-species of Bathylagus would imply that they had not fixed the type-species of any genus.” “My own view ”’, wrote Melville, ‘‘ is that purely on the basis of internal evidence, and without considering the relationship of Jordan and Evermann 1896a to Jordan and Gilbert 1883, type-species were not fixed in that work in the sense of Article 30 Rule g. ‘ rigidly construed’. It seems clear, however, that they did effectively fix types in their 1896b Check List, for the following reason. On page 210, they say: ‘The name in parenthesis following the reference to the generic name is that of the species taken by the describer as the type of the genus’. The Paris Congress (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 182) added a provision to Rule g in Article 30 (New Code Art. 69(a)iii) that an author had validly designated a type-species even if he states or implies, either correctly or otherwise, that that nominal species had been selected by some previous author to be the type-species of that nominal genus... provided that the author concerned makes it clear that he himself accepts, for whatever reason, the 226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature species in question as the type-species of the genus concerned *. In the light of this rule (which still stands), it seems to me that Jordan and Evermann 1896b, definitely designated type-species, and those designations should stand, in so far as they are valid in all other respects. But here too, a ruling in this sense relating to Bathylagus would apply equally to all the other generic names in the work to which the question can apply. Thus, whichever of the two 1896 works is accepted as the one in which the type-species was fixed for Bathylagus, the same problem of the taxonomic implications of accepting the wholesale deal has to be tackled. As there are something over 1,000 generic names involved, the problem could be a formidable one.” 12. A copy of Melville’s letter was sent to Lemche. He replied (28 December 1959) : “‘ Dr. Cohen and Mr. Follett argue that the authors did not use the formal way of type selecting as prescribed half a century later. I quite agree. But why should we ask for such formalities : there must be a limit to retroactive actions. My view is that we must be realistic and accept as a selection any statement running like ‘ the type is ’, and reject any ‘the author N.N. regarded as the type ’ or ‘ this species is a typical one’. But to ask almost for a formal ‘I herewith select as the type’, in papers published long before rulings to that end had ever even been thought of, that is to go too far. “So, I still hold that Jordan and Evermann did select types in 1896 and I propose that we put this general question before the Commission in advance to any special case such as Bathylagus. But, before voting, please let us know the consequence if these type-selections are rejected. They might be grave.” 13. On 20 December Follett replied to Melville’s letter of 22 July 1959 as follows :— ““ We believe that the conflicting considerations with regard to Jordan and Evermann 1896a have been adequately presented by our application on the one hand and by Dr. Lemche’s comments on the other. I wrote to you further not with the thought of persuading the International Commission to decide this problem in the manner that we have suggested, but rather to explain our reasons for believing that the solution of the problem leans more toward the direction that we have pointed out than toward the opposite direction... Dr. Cohen and I contend that, Jordan and Evermann, did not make it clear that they themselves accepted, for whatever reason, the species in question as the type-species of the genus concerned. Those authors, it seems to us, merely reported, without acceptance or rejection, ‘the species taken by the describer as the type of the genus’. In other words, the present situation impresses us as similar to that involved in Opinion 275, where as you will recall, the International Commission ruled as follows : “*The statement by Grote (1865) that Hiibner, when establishing the nominal genus Amplyterus Hiibner, [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), had evidently regarded A. ganascus (Stoll) “‘ as the typical species of his genus ” does not constitute the selection by Grote, under Rule (g) Article 30, of that species as the type-species of the foregoing genus, for Grote gave no indication that he himself accepted the above species as the type-species of this genus ’. ee ee * But this Jordan & Evermann did not do !—W.E.C. —————————————————— Cl Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 227 “ We believe that the requirement of Rule (g) in Article 30 (‘ the meaning of the expression “select the type ”’ is to be rigidly construed ’) applies quite as well to the situation covered by B.Z.N. 4 : 182, as to any other situation involving the subsequent selection of a type-species. We therefore believe that the words ‘ made it clear ’ (which I have emphasized above) must themselves be rigidly construed.” PRESENT POSITION 14. Nothing more was done with the case which seemed to have reached a deadlock, when Mr. Melville left the service of the Commission on 1 November 1959 to return to his former work on the Geological Survey. On 14 June 1961, Dr. Cohen, while working in the Fish Section of the Zoological Department of the British Museum (Natural History), paid a visit to the Secretariat of the Commission and inquired about the Bathylagus case. It was agreed that the case should be revived. It seems to the writer that Dr. Lemche was hardly justified in interrupting the progress of Follett and Cohen’s case through the process of submission for a vote. Reading the evidence it is clear that there is a strong doubt as to whether, rigidly construed, Jordan and Evermann validly designated types in their 1896a work. The new Code (Art. 67c) follows the old Rules (Art. 30g) in stating that the term designation in relation to the fixation of a type-species must be rigidly construed ; a designation made in an ambiguous or qualified manner is invalid. It will be seen that Melville himself in (13) above stated : “ type-species were not fixed in that work in the sense of Article 30 Rule g ‘rigidly construed’. Follett and Cohen clearly demonstrated the fact. Lemche in his final comment, (14) above, also agreed that Jordan and Ever- mann did not use the formal way of type selecting as prescribed half a century later. But he still persisted that the general question should be submitted to the Commission although he admitted the consequences might be grave. The impracticability of checking the consequences of the validation or invalidation of the type-citations for all the 1,000 fish genera listed in Jordan and Evermann’s work seems not to have been considered by Dr. Lemche. Such wholesale assignments cannot be carried out effectively by the Secretariat of the Commission and must be done by the specialists themselves. The Meigen case, Z.N.(S.) 191, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 (part 1) : 9-64, is an example of what happens when such cases are considered by the Secretariat in respect of all their implications. There is also a legal precedent for the Bathylagus case in Opinion 275 quoted by Follett. There appears to be no reason at all why under the proper interpretation of the Code, Jordan and Evermann’s 1896 (Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 47(1)) so-called type-designations should be regarded as valid. The omission of the word type, which was given in Jordan and Evermann’s Synopsis of the Fishes of North America 1883 in front of the cited specific name, in effect made the cited specific names in the 1896 revision, merely examples and not type-species. 228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature There is, however, some doubt as to whether Jordan and Evermann did or did not fix types in their second 1896 work Rept. U.S. Comm. Fish and Fish. 21. As stated by Follett and Cohen, paragraph 12, in their preface to this later work Jordan and Evermann wrote as follows : ‘‘ The name in parenthesis following the reference to the generic name is that of the species taken by the describer as the type of the genus.’’ Now, in respect of the case under con- sideration at least, this statement was quite wrong because Giinther did not select either of his two originally included species as the type of the genus Bathylagus. Nonetheless, Article 69(a)(iii) of the new Code (subsequent designation) states ‘‘an author is considered to have designated one of the originally included species as type-species, if he states that it is the type (or type-species), for whatever reason, right or wrong, and if it is clear that he himself accepted it as the type-species.” Melville (13) above on the basis of this ruling, stated that “it seems clear, however, that they did effectively fix types in their 1896b Check List.” But did Jordan and Evermann by the statement in the preface to the second work really make it clear that they accepted the nominal species in parentheses as the type-species of the genera listed 2 Follett and Cohen do not think so and if Jordan had really meant to designate the type of Bathylagus as atlanticus in his 1896 works, he would not have designated antarcticus in his 1919 work. This seems to the writer conclusive evidence that Jordan and Evermann were not themselves actually citing types in their 1896 works. Melville, himself, stated (6) above “I see now that there is no valid reason for accepting either Jordan and Evermann 1896, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 47 : 528 or Jordan and Evermann 1896, Rept. U.S. Comm. Fish and Fish. 21 : 295 as having designated atlanticus as type- species, rigidly construed’. The writer is of the opinion that by a strict interpretation of the Rules Jordan and Evermann did not make it clear that they accepted the species cited as the type-species of the genera involved and no action is required by the Commission in either case on this score. 15. Nevertheless in order to clear up this Case and to complete the application of Follett and Cohen Z.N.(S.) 1279, Bull. zool. Ni omencl. 16 (Part 2) : 73-78, the International Commission is requested to take the following action :— (1) to give a ruling that Jordan and Evermann did not validly designate type-species (as prescribed by the Code) either in their work Fishes of North and Middle America (Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 47, 1896-1900) or in their Check List of the Fishes and Fish-like Verte- brates of North & Middle America (Rept. Commissioner of Fish & Fish. for 1895, Appendix 5 : 207-584, 1896). Any cases of hardship due to this ruling to be submitted to the Commission for decision by use of the plenary powers if necessary. (2) to place the undermentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Bathylagus Giinther, 1878 (gender : masculine) (type-species by selection by Jordan 1919, Genera of Fishes (3) : 395, Bathylagus antarcticus Giinther, 1878) ; (b) Argentina Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: feminine) (type-species by monotypy : Argentina sphyraena Linnaeus, 1758); Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 229 (3) to place the undermentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) antarcticus Giimther, 1878, as published in the binomen Bathylagus antarcticus (type-species of Bathylagus Giinther, 1878) ; (b) sphyraena Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Argentina sphyraena (type-species of Argentina Linnaeus, 1758); (4) to place the undermentioned family-group names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology : (a) BATHYLAGIDAE Gill, 1884 (type-genus : Bathylagus Giinther, 1878) ; (b) ARGENTININAE (correction of ARGENTININI) Bonaparte, 1846 (type- genus: Argentina Linnaeus, 1758); (5) to place the undermentioned family-group name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology : ARGENTININI Bonaparte, 1846 (type-genus Argentina Linnaeus, 1758) (an Invalid Original Spelling for arGENTININAE but available as the name for a taxon within the family-group belonging to a category for which there is no prescribed termination). COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF PANOPEA MENARD DE LA GROYE, 1807 (BIVALVIA). Z.N.(S.) 1049 (see volume 18, pages 184-188) By Robert Robertson (Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pa., U S.A.) I recently have noticed that Vokes and Cox have applied to the Commission to place the family name GLYCYMERIDAE Stewart, 1930, on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. Although the six month protest period has lapsed, I have decided that I should draw your attention to a publication by H. B. Stenzel, E. L. Krause and J. T. Twining (Univ. Texas publ. 5704, 1957) in which it is shown (pp. 59-60) that this family name should be spelled GLYCYMERIDIDAE, not GLYCYMERIDAE. One further matter : Vokes and Cox claim (p. 185) that the spelling Panopea is “ much more widely used” than Panope. This is not so. I have tallied usage for the last 30 years from the Zoological Record (1929-1958). Panopea has been used 14 times Panope has been used 12 times Panopaea has been used 11 times During the last twelve years abstracted by the Zoological Record (1947-1958), the spelling Panope has been used seven times, and Panopea only three times. Since the time of Dall, American workers have almost consistently used the spelling Panope. So have workers in some other countries. 230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PACHYODON NUCLEUS BROWN, 1843 (PELECYPODA) ; PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1470 By G. M. Bennison (The University of Birmingham, England) In 1843 T. Brown (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (1)12 : 394, pl. 16*, fig. 1) described and figured a new species of fossil pelecypod from the ‘‘ Coal Shale ” (Carboni- ferous Sandstone Series, Lower Carboniferous) of Woodhall, on the north side of the Pentland Hills, Scotland under the name Pachyodon nucleus. His brief description and single inadequate figure are insufficient to enable reliable identification of the species. Further, the original of the figure (assuming that it is based on one specimen and is not a composite interpretation) is lost or destroyed and, since the given locality is too imprecise to enable the horizon to be determined, the possibility of selecting a neotype is ruled out. 2. In 1873 R. Etheridge, Junr. (Quart. J. Geol. Soc. 34, pl. 2, fig. 20) figured a specimen from the Cementstones near Craiglockhart Hill, Edinburgh, referring it to Pachyodon (Unio) nucleus, but he gave no description. A specimen of tAnthracosia nucleus Brown among Etheridge’s material in the Royal Scottish Museum (Reg. No. 1882.58.46) from that locality is probably the specimen figured. The shell, which is incomplete and not specifically identifiable, is referable to Schizodus. 3. W. Hind in 1894 (Carbonicola, Anthracomya and Naiadites, Mon. Palaeont. Soc. : 80) suggested the possible synonymy of Pachyodon nucleus and Carbonicola antiqua Hind (non Brown). If he was correct, and if the horizon of Brown’s nucleus could have been found and a neotype selected, C. antigua Hind would stand as a subjective synonym of P. nucleus. Hind, however, in proposing the name C. antiqua figured three specimens from the Calciferous Sandstone Series of Kilminning, Fife. The first of these (op. cit., Pl. 11, fig. 28 ; Br. Mus. reg. no. L.46889) has been selected as lectotype and refigured by the writer (Bennison, Palaeontology 3, Pl. 25, fig. 1), together with one paratype (Hind, Pl. 11, fig. 29; Br. Mus. reg. no. L.46890). 4. Trueman and Weir, in dealing with a Westphalian form which they referred to Carbonicola antiqua (Brown) (Mon. Palaeont. Soc., 1947 : 28), appear to have overlooked a case of secondary homonymy. The species originally named Pachoydon antiquus (Brown, 1848, loc. cit. : 394, pl. 16*, fig. 4) was subsequently referred to the genus Unio by this author (Illustrations of the Fossil Conchology of Gt. Britain and Ireland, Lond. 1849 : 178) but, since the name Unio antiquus was already occupied by a Wealden species of J. Sowerby (Mineral Conchology of Gt. Britain, 1829, 6 : 190, pl. 594, figs. 3-5), Brown renamed his species Unio senex. In such a case of secondary homonymy it is incorrect to revert to the name antiqua (Code Art. 59c) : Brown’s West- phalian species remains as Carbonicola senex (Brown) and the name Carbonicola antiqua is therefore valid for Hind’s species of the Calciferous Sandstone Series. Bull, zool, Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 4. July 1962, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 231 5. For the reason set out above, I now ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name nucleus Brown, 1843, as published in the binomen Pachyodon nucleus, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the specific name nucleus Brown, 1843, as published in the binomen Pachyodon nucleus, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) antiqua Hind, 1894, as published in the binomen Carbonicola antiqua ; (b) senea Brown, 1849, as published in the binomen Unio senezx. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL TO PRESERVE THE FAMILY-GROUP NAME XENOPHORIDAE DESHAYES, 1864 (GASTROPODA) (see this volume, pages 115-116) By Robert Robertson (Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia) I wish to record my wholehearted support for the proposal of Dr. K. V. W. Palmer to preserve List of Specific Names in Zoology. Following Clench & Aguayo (1943, Johnsonia 1(8) : 1-2), she states that Trochus conchyliophorus Born, 1780 (also Gmelin, 1791) is a junior subjective Sitz.-Ber. K. Akad. Wiss. (Wien), Math.-Naturwiss. 77(1) : 173), is a species of Calyptraea Lamarck, 1799 (subgenus T'rochita Schumacher, 1817), as has been pointed out twice by Abbott 232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature FORTY-SEVEN GENERA OF DECAPODA (CRUSTACEA) ; PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.) 1499 By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) I submit herewith to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature a list of the names of 47 genera of Crustacea Decapoda for addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Each of these names is an available name in the sense that it is not a homonym of any generic name previously published for a genus in the Animal Kingdom. All these names are currently used in carcinological literature and have been proposed between 70and170 yearsago. Inanumber of cases some special problems are connected with these names, and these problems will be discussed in separate paragraphs placed before the paragraph containing the actual enumeration of the genera. 2. The names proposed here for insertion in the Official List are those of genera reported from the Mediterranean. Their submission to the Commission is one of the results of a project undertaken by five carcinologists (Isabella Gordon, London; R. Zariquiey Alvarez, Barcelona; Th. Monod, Dakar ; J. Forest, Paris, and the present author) to compile a check-list of the Decapoda of the Mediterranean. The nomenclatural and taxonomic status of the genera and species involved have been checked as carefully as possible so that the above named zoologists are now satisfied that the names listed here are nomen- claturally correct. It seems useful also, to give more authority to the check- list, to have these names placed on the Official List. 3. The following 12 cases need some special comment :— (1) Achaeopsis and Dorhynchus. According to some authors, notably Rathbun (1925, Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 129 : 27) the generic names Achaeopsis Stimpson, 1857, and Dorhynchus Thomson, 1873, are subjective synonyms, while other zoologists (among which are the above-mentioned group of five) believe that the two genera are distinct. It seems preferable therefore to place both names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, so as not to give Dorhynchus undue advantages over Achaeopsis. The original spelling of the generic name Dorhynchus is without an h after the r: Dorynchus. This spelling is consistently used in the two English, and the French, editions of Wyville Thomson’s book. As no derivation of the name is given, Dorynchus must be considered the valid original spelling of the name. Later authors like Miers, 1886 (Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 17 : x), Pesta, 1918 (Decapodenfauna Adria: 331) and several others, changed the spelling to Dorhynchus, which seems to be more correct grammatically. I avail myself of the present opportunity to ask the Commission to use its plenary powers to place the name Dorhynchus in this corrected spelling on the Official List. (2) Brachynotus. The specific name of the type-species of the genus Brachynotus De Haan, 1833, Goneplax seadentatus Risso, possibly is not the Bull. zool, Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 4, July 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 233 oldest name for the species in question. In 1790 Herbst (Vers. Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1(8) : 267, pl. 21, fig. 125) described and figured a species from an unknown locality which he called Cancer tridens. Both the description and the figure are rather poor, but might well represent the species which at present is known as Brachynotus sexdentatus (Risso, 1827). Rathbun, 1906 (Nouv. Arch. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris (4) 8 : 73) listed the species in her “ Liste des nomina nuda, des espéces indéterminables et des espéces rapportées par erreur aux Potamonidés’”’. Under “ Cancer tridens ” she gave references both to Cancer tridens Herbst, 1790, and to Cancer tridens Fabricius, 1798 (Suppl. Ent. syst. : 340). Fabricius’s species is different from that of Herbst and has been assigned to the POTAMONIDAE by De Haan (Fauna Japonica Crust. (1, 1833) : 23 ; (2, 1835) : 53). Neither C. tridens Herbst nor C. tridens Fabricius have ever been identified by later authors and both names have always been and still are considered nomina dubia. The type of C. tridens Herbst is no longer in existence as Dr. H.-E. Gruner of the Zoologisches Museum of Berlin was so kind as to inform me. Therefore it is impossible to ascertain the identity of the species. Since the name Cancer tridens Herbst is not employed at present by carcinologists, it seems best, in order to eliminate it as a potential danger to later names in carcinology, to suppress it under the plenary powers of the Commission. It should be suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority only, so as not to make the nomen dubium Cancer tridens Fabricius, 1798, a potentially valid name. (3) Callinectes. Portunus diacantha Latreille, 1825, the type-species of the genus Callinectes Stimpson, 1860, is a composite species for which so far no lectotype has ever been selected ; therefore its identity has never been definitely fixed. Latreille’s (1825, Encycl. méthod. Hist. nat. Entomol. 10 : 190) account is based upon a mixture of species belonging to the genera Portunus and Callinectes, the specific identity of most of which cannot be ascertained ; only his “‘ deux individus envoyés de Philadelphie ” according to the description are without any doubt Callinectes sapidus Rathbun (1896, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 18 : 352, pl. 12, pl. 24, fig. 1, pl. 25, fig. 1, pl. 26, fig. 1, pl. 27, fig. 1). Among the references to previous descriptions which Latreille gave under Portunus diacantha, two, namely those to Portunus pelasgicus Bosc (1801-1802, Hist. nat. Crust. 1 : 219, pl. 5, fig. 3) and to Lupa pelagica Say (1817, Journ. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1:97) both concern Portunus sayi (Gibbes, 1850) ; the reference to Cancer pelagicus De Geer (1778, Mém. Hist. Ins. 7 : 427, pl. 26, fig. 8-11) is in all probability based on Callinectes bocourti A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (cf. Holthuis, Zool. Verhand. Leiden 44 : 201, 204), while that to Ciri Apoa Marcgraf (1648, Hist. Rer. nat. Bras. : 183, fig.) might concern Callinectes danae Smith, 1869 (cf. Rathbun, 1930, Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 152 :118). Though it is probable that Latreille confused at least four species under the name Portunus diacantha, of only two is the identity fully certain, viz. Lupa sayi Gibbes (1850, Proc. Amer. Ass. Adv. Sci. 8 : 178) and Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, 1896. The selection of either Bosc’s or Say’s specimen as the lectotype of Portunus diacantha Latreille would cause an enormous confusion as in that way the type-species of the genus Callinectes would be a species of Portunus and the name Callinectes Stimpson, 1860, would disappear in the 234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature synonymy of Portunus Weber, 1795. The only other possibility is to make one of Latreille’s specimens from Philadelphia the lectotype of Portunus diacantha ; this selection would make Callinectes the correct name for the genus for which it is now generally employed. Therefore I now select as the lectotype of Portunus diacantha Latreille, 1825 (Encycl. méthod. Hist. nat. Entomol. 10 : 190) the largest of the two specimens from Philadelphia mentioned by Latreille in his description. This selection is in accordance with Rathbun’s (1930, Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 152 : 98) views, as she indicated in her monograph of the American Cancroid Crabs under the generic name Callinectes Stimpson : “type, C. diacanthus (Latreille) =C. sapidus Rathbun”. Though this action fixes the identity of the genus Callinecies in the usually adopted sense, an unpleasant consequence of it is that the name Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, 1896, now falls as a subjective junior synonym of Portunus diacantha Latreille, 1825. This is most regrettable since the species, after Rathbun (1896, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 18 : 349-375, pls. 12-28) straightened out the complicated taxonomy of the genus, has always been known as C. sapidus Rathbun. Callinectes sapidus is of extremely great economic importance as it forms the subject of an intensive fishery along the east and south coast of the U.S.A., while a very considerable literature on the species, both scientific and economic, has been built up in the last decades. A change in the name of the species would therefore cause a considerable confusion especially in the field of applied biology. In order to prevent such a confusion it seems perfectly justified in my opinion to take recourse to the plenary powers of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to suppress the specific name diacantha for purposes of synonymy and to have Callinectes sapidus Rathbun made the type of the genus Callinectes. This, I believe, is the only way to avoid a major upset in the nomenclature of the group. (4) Charybdis. The type-species of the genus Charybdis De Haan, 1833, Cancer sexdentatus Herbst, 1783 (Vers. Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1(2-5) : 153, pl. 7, fig. 52, pl. 8, fig. 53) is a composite species. Herbst’s main description and his pl. 7, fig. 52 concern a species, which Leene (1938, Siboga Exped. 39(c3) : 53) doubtfully identified with Charybdis amboinensis Leene, 1938. Apart from the specimen figured on his pl. 7, fig. 52, Herbst also mentioned and figured (pl. 8, fig. 53) a specimen, which in his text he brought with some doubt to Cancer sexdentatus (‘‘ Hiezu muss ich noch eine Art rechnen, von welcher ich nicht genau bestimmen kann, ob sie wirklich dieselbe, oder eine andre Art ist’”’). Furthermore Herbst in his description of Cancer sexdentatus referred to pl. 6, fig. P of Rumphius’s (1705) Amboinsche Rariteitkamer. Herbst’s second specimen (the one figured as fig. 53) as well as that figured by Rumphius both belong to Cancer feriatus L., 1758, a species which is better known as Charybdis cruciata (Herbst) or Charybdis crucifera (Fabricius). As (1) the identity of Herbst’s first specimen (figured by him as fig. 52) cannot be ascertained from either Herbst’s description or figure, while the specimen itself is no longer extant (cf. Leene, 1938, Siboga Exped. 39(c3) : 53), and (2) Herbst’s second specimen cannot be made the lectotype of Cancer sexdentatus since he only placed it conditionally in that species, I now select as the lectotype of Cancer sexdentatus Herbst the specimen figured as fig. P on pl. 6 of Rumphius’s Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 235 (1705) Amboinsche Rariteitkamer. This same specimen is now also selected as the lectotype of Cancer feriatus Linnaeus (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 627), so that Cancer seadentatus Herbst, 1783, falls as a junior objective synonym of Cancer feriatus L., 1758. In this way the name Cancer sexdentatus which has been interpreted in many different ways by different authors and currently was considered a nomen dubium, finally ceases to be a source of confusion and disappears from the carcinological scene. The original description of Cancer fertatus Linnaeus (1758) consists of a short two-line diagnosis, a reference to pl. 6, fig. P of Rumphius’s Rariteitkamer and to pl. 1, fig. 6 of Petiver’s (1713) Aquatilium Animalium Amboinae ; the latter figure is nothing but a copy of Rumphius’s pl. 6, fig. P. It seems highly probable that Linnaeus did not have any actual specimens before him when he drew up the description of Cancer feriatus, but based it solely on Rumphius’s and Petiver’s illustrations ; in that case Rumphius’s specimen is the holotype of Linnaeus’s species. For the event that Linnaeus did have additional material, Rumphius’s specimen is selected here as the lectotype. Herewith the identity of Linnaeus’s species is definitely fixed. The name Cancer feriatus L.., 1758, supersedes both the names Cancer cruciatus Herbst (1794, Vers. Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 2(5) : 155) and Portunus crucifer Fabricius (1798, Suppl. Ent. Syst. : 364) which are more commonly used for the species, but which are its subjective junior synonyms. In my opinion there is no need for suspension of the Rules to save either C. cruciatus or P. crucifer as there has itself is important neither from an economic point of view nor in applied biology. A. Milne Edwards, 1860 (Ann. Sci. nat. Zool. (4) 14 : 218, 224, 263) thought the name Charybdis De Haan, 1833, invalid because of the existence of the name Carybdea Péron & Lesueur, 1810, which had also been spelled Charybdea, and proposed the substitute name Goniosoma for De Haan’s genus. A. Milne Edwards’s name being a junior objective synonym of Charybdis should now be placed on the Official Index. The name Charybdis Cocco, 1832, is a nomen nudum and should also be placed on the Index. (5) Dorhynchus, see under par. 3(1). (6) Ergasticus. The generic name Ergasticus was first published in 188] by A. Milne Edwards (C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 93 : 879), but as no description or other indication was given for either the genus or its only species E. clouei, the names were at that time nomina nuda. When the next year an English appeared for the second time as a nomen nudum (A. Milne Edwards, 1882, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 9:38). In his Recueil de Figures de Crustacés nouveaux ou peu connus A. Milne Edwards (1883) published a figure of Ergasticus clouet (as the upper figure of the first plate of the Recueil) and gave the name in the legend of the plate. The Recueil, according to the date on the title page, was published “avril 1883’. In the same year a description and figure of the species under the name Ergasticus clouei was published by Studer (1883, Abh. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin 1882(2) : 7, 8, pl. 1, fig. 1). Studer’s publica- tion was “ ausgegeben am 15, Mirz 1883 ” according to a notice on its back 236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature cover, and therefore Studer’s names have priority over those of A. Milne Edwards, so that Studer has to be cited as the author of both the genus and the species. That Studer could publish these names before A. Milne Edwards did so is explained by the following statement made by Studer (1883: 7) : ‘‘ Bei einem Besuche im Jardin des plantes, wahrend dessen Professor A. Milne Edwards mir freundlichst das vom Travailleur gesammelte Material zeigte, erkannte ich, dass eine Krebsart, auf welche ich im Begriff war, eine neue Gattung zu griinden, mit dem von Milne Edwards erwihnten Ergasticus Clouei vollkommen identisch ist. Um keine Namenhiufung . . . zu verursachen, behalte ich diesen Namen bei ”’. (7) Eriphia. The type-species of the genus Hriphia Latreille, 1817, is best known as Hriphia spinifrons (Herbst, 1785). However, the name Cancer verrucosus Forskal, 1775, has priority over Cancer spinifrons Herbst, 1785, both being given to the same species. Taking into account that the species is of no economic importance and is not used in applied biology, it does not seem justified to invoke the plenary powers of the Commission here for the preserva- tion of the junior of the two names. Therefore the Commission is requested, to place the name verrucosus Forskal, 1775, and not spinifrons Herbst, 1785 on the Official List. In the original publication of Hriphia, Latreille, 1817 (Nowv. Dict. Hist. nat. (ed. 2) 10) used two spellings, viz., Hriphia (: 404) ; and Hriphis (: 405). The first subsequent user of the name, Desmarest (1823, Dict. Sci. nat. 28 : 244) used the spelling Hriphia, which thereby becomes the Valid Original Spelling. This spelling should be placed on the Official List, and the Invalid Original Spelling Hriphis be inserted in the Official Index. (8) Hthusa. In the original description of the genus Hthusa Roux (1830) remarked : “ Le Cancer astutus d’Herbst . . . me parait étre un Crustacé dans le cas de faire partie du genre Ethuse”’. In my opinion this remark does not definitely place Cancer astutus in EHthusa and therefore I consider Ethusa mascarone as the only species positively included by Roux in Hthusa, and thus its type by monotypy. If, however, the above sentence is explained in such a way that Hthusa is not a monotypic genus, then Cancer mascarone Herbst becomes the type of Hthusa Roux by subsequent selection by Fowler, 1912 (Ann. Rep. New Jersey State Mus. 1911 : 590). (9) Ita and Leucosia. Rathbun (1897, Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 11 : 160) showed that the type-species of the genus Leucosia Fabricius (1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 313, 349) is, by selection by Latreille (1810, Consid. gén. Crust. Ins. : 97, 422), Cancer nucleus Linnaeus (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 627). As Cancer nucleus L. is the type by monotypy of the genus Ilia Leach, 1817, this latter and Leucosia Fabricius, 1798, are objective synonyms. Rathbun therefore applied the name Leucosia Fabricius to the genus which until then had been generally indicated as Ilia Leach, while the genus that was known as Leucosia to the majority of carcinologists received the new name Leucosides from Rathbun. Rathbun’s views were accepted by some American authors only, and as Leucosides is an Indo-West Pacific genus, while Ilia inhabits the Mediterranean and the West African waters, regions studied almost exclusively Se en FF Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 237 by European zoologists, there are hardly any publications using the names in the sense suggested by Rathbun. A later nomenclatural discovery by Miss Rathbun (1904, Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 17 : 169-172) fortunately enough made it possible to adhere strictly to the Code in the present case and still not upset current usage. This new discovery concerned the publication of F. Weber entitled Nomenclator Entomologicus, a booklet which in many other instances has been the cause of much nomenclatural confusion. Weber in this paper used the generic name Leucosia and listed some described species as belonging to it. Leuwcosia Weber, 1795, thus is an available name which invalidates Leucosia Fabricius, 1798. As shown on previous occasions (e.g., in the Alpheus-Crangon case, cf. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 69), the generic names used by Weber and Fabricius are nomenclaturally distinct (so Alpheus Weber is a crab, while Alpheus Fabricius isa shrimp). The type selection for Leucosia Fabricius, 1798, therefore is not valid for Leucosia Weber, 1795. The first valid type selection for the latter genus known to me is the one made by Holthuis (1959, Rumphius Memorial Volume : 106), who selected Cancer craniolaris Linnaeus (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 626) to be the type of Weber’s genus. This selection makes Leucosides Rathbun, 1897, junior synonym of Leucosia Weber, 1795, while Leucosia Fabricius, 1798, falls as a junior homonym of Weber’s Leucosia. In this way Leucosia, be it with the author’s name Weber, 1795, can still be applied to the genus for which it has been used by the majority of carcinologists, while also Ilia Leach again is the valid name for the genus containing Cancer nucleus L. As to the exact status of the name Leucosides Rathbun, 1897, when publishing this name Rathbun (1897, Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 11 : 160) stated : “ Leucosia of Leach may be known as Leucosides, nov.”. Leucosia sensu. Leach (1817, Zool. Miscell. 3 : 21) contained two species : Cancer craniolaris L., 1758 and Cancer urania Herbst, 1801 (Vers. Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 3(2) : 17). So far as I know, no type-species has ever been selected for Lewcosides, and therefore I now select Cancer craniolaris Linnaeus, 1758. Hereby Leucosides Rathbun, 1897, becomes an objective synonym of Leucosia Weber, 1795, and should be placed on the Official Index. (10) Leucosia see par. (9) Ilia and Leucosia. (11) Ocypode. This generic name is often seen spelled Ocypoda, which is incorrect as both the original spelling by Weber, 1795 (Nomencl. Entomol. : 92) and that by Fabricius, 1798 (Suppl. Ent. Syst. : 312, 347) is Ocypode. The first author to use the incorrect spelling Ocypoda was Lamarck, 1801 (Syst. Anim. s. Vert.: 149). This erroneous spelling should now be placed on the Official Index. (12) Palicus. This genus was described for the first time as Cymopolia by Roux (1830, Crust. Méditerranée (5): pl. 21). As shown by Rathbun (1897, Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 11 : 93) the name Cymopolia Roux, 1830, is preoccupied by Cymopolia Lamouroux, 1816 (Hist. Polyp. Coral. Flex. : 292), and Palicus Philippi, 1838, the next available name, should be used instead. In a later paper Rathbun (1915, Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 28 : 180) revised her opinion because in 1897 she did not “ know that Lamouroux’s genus, though 238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature classed by him with the polyps, is in reality an alga. As the same name may be used for two genera in different kingdoms, Cympolia is tenable for a crab as well as an alga. The name Cymopolia Roux is therefore restored”. Miss Rathbun is mistaken here since Article 2(b) of the International Code states that ‘if a taxon is removed from the animal kingdom, its name or names continue to compete in homonymy with names in the animal kingdom ”’. Therefore the name Palicus is the correct name for the genus even though Cymopolia Lamouroux was transferred from the animal to the plant kingdom. (13) Philyra. The name of the type-species of the present genus, Cancer globus Fabricius, 1775, has passed through a remarkable metamorphosis of several stages. Being introduced by Fabricius (1775, Syst. Ent. : 401) as Cancer globus, it was cited under that name by a few later authors (Fabricius, 1781, Spec. Ins. 1 : 497; Herbst, 1783, Vers. Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1(2-5) : 90). For no obvious reason Fabricius (1787, Mant. Ins. 1 : 315) changed the name to Cancer globosus, keeping the same diagnosis as in his previous papers. This name globosus is also used by him in later publications (1793, Ent. syst. 2 : 441 ; 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 349 ; in the latter publication in the combination Leucosia globosa). Finally, Bosc, 1801-1802 (Hist. nat. Crust. 1 : 238), who gave a French translation of Fabricius’s diagnosis, used the name Leucosia globulosa for the species. Consequently, Cancer globus Fabricius, 1775, Cancer globosus Fabricius, 1787, and Leucosia globulosa Bose, 1801-1802, are objective synonyms of each other and the name Cancer globus has priority. De Man (1888, Journ. Linn. Soc. Lond. 22 : 202-205) discussed the species (under the name Philyra globosa) and described the two type specimens of Fabricius. These two specimens, a large adult male and a smaller female, showed some differences between each other. As De Man’s material checked well with the female specimen, he assigned it to Fabricius’s species. Though De Man did not select a lectotype from among Fabricius’s syntypes, his intention clearly was to consider the female as the true type. Also Alcock (1896, Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal 65(2) : 245) who discussed the problem did not unambiguously select a lectotype, though he made the suggestion “to leave the name P. globosa in possession of Fabricius’s female type’. In order to finally legalise the viewpoint of De Man and Alcock, I now definitely select from among Fabricius’s two type specimens of Cancer globus the smaller (the female) specimen as the lectotype of that species ; that specimen at the same time is the lectotype of Cancer globosus Fabricius, 1787, and of Leucosia globulosa Bose, 1801-1802. (14) Potamon. In the Mediterranean area two species of this genus occur. The type-species, Potamon potamios (Olivier) inhabits the eastern part of the area (S.E. Balkans, 8. Russia, and Turkey to Persia, Kashmir and the Sinai Peninsula) ; its nomenclature does not offer any problems. The second species inhabits Italy, the W. Balkans, and N.W. Africa (Morocco to Tunisia). It is commonly known as Potamon edule or as Potamon fluviatile, and its nomenclature needs to be considered here in some detail. The specific name edulis for this species was introduced by Latreille, 1818 (abl. encycl. méthod. Hist. nat. 24 : pl. 297, fig. 4) who used it in the combination Potamophilus edulis in the explanation of a figure. One year before, however, Latreille (1817, Cuvier’s Sh ee i ee ia i ies Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 239 Régne anim. (ed. 1) 3:18) in dealing with the genus ‘‘ Les Potamophiles ” (no latin name being given here to the genus) referred to “ Canc. fluviatilis. Bel. et Rondel.”’, so that the name Cancer fluviatilis Latreille, 1817, preoccupies Potamophilus edulis Latreille, 1818. Whether the name edulis Latreille, 1818, was overlooked by subsequent authors or whether it was considered a junior synonym of fluviatilis Latreille, 1817, is not clear, but anyway the latter name was generally accepted for the species throughout the nineteenth century. Even in the original description of the genus Thelphusa, Latreille 1819 (Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. (ed. 2) 33 : 503) indicated the species as Thelphusa fluviatilis. It was only after 1904, in which year Rathbun (1904, Nouv. Arch. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris 4(6) : 254) in her monograph of the Potamonidae reintroduced the specific name edulis, that the latter name became more commonly used. Rathbun, namely, was of the opinion that Cancer fluviatilis Latreille, 1817, is invalidated by Cancer fluviatilis Herbst, 1785, and that consequently the first available specific name for the species is edulis Latreille, 1818. Though several carcinologists followed Rathbun, some, notably Pesta (who wrote several papers on the Potamonidae of Europe and the Near East), still adhered to the more familiar name fluviatilis. In order to solve the problem of the correct name for the species of Potamon from the western Mediterranean area, the identity of Herbst’s 1785 (Vers. Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1(6) : 183, pl. 10, fig. 61) Cancer fluviatilis needs first to be established. Under the name Cancer fluviatilis Herbst united all the freshwater crabs known to him. He referred to Gesner, Rondelet, and Sachs, who had dealt with both Potamon edule and P. potamios. Furthermore Herbst published the figure of a West Indian freshwater crab which was copied from a manuscript by Charles Plumier (1646-1704), a French missionary, who spent most of his time in Martinique but also visited the nearby islands and even the American mainland. Rathbun, 1905 (Nouv. Arch. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris (4)7 : 320), basing herself on Herbst’s figure, placed Plumier’s species in the genus Epilobocera, but was unable to assign it with certainty to any of the known species of that genus. Herbst’s Cancer fluviatilis thus is a composite species since it includes two species of Potamon and one of Epilobocera. So far as is known to me no lectotype has ever been selected for this species and therefore I now select the specimen from Italy which was figured by Rondelet (1555, Univ. aquat. Hist. pars alt.: 208); this figure was copied by several later authors, like Gesner and Sachs. Through this type selection the name fluviatilis Herbst becomes the valid specific name for the species of Potamon from Italy, the W. Balkans and N.W. Africa; at the same time this name ceases to be a threat to the stability of the nomenclature of the West Indian freshwater crabs. The fact that the name fluviatilis has been used for so long a period for the European species and still is used by some authors, makes its validation all the more justifiable. It is requested that this name now be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (15) Uca. The name of the type-species of this genus was given by Leach (1814, Brewster’s Edinburgh Encycl. 7(2) : 430) in the following sentence : “To Uca, Cancer uca of Shaw’s Nat. Miscellany, plate 588, belongs ; the species to be named Una”. Shaw (1803, Naturalist’s Miscellany 14 : pl. 558), under 240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the name Cancer uka [the spelling Cancer uca is used in the index of Shaw’s book], reproduced Seba’s (1761, Locuplet. Rer. nat. Thesaur. 3 : pl. 18, fig. 8) figure of ‘Cancer Uka una, Brasiliensis”’ and in his text Shaw referred to Seba and doubtfully to Cancer Uka [recte uca] Linnaeus (1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1: 1041). Seba’s figure is that of the species at present best known as Uca heterochelos (Lamarck, 1801), while Linnaeus’s (1767) Cancer uca is Ucides cordatus (Linnaeus, 1763). The specimen figured by Seba (1761, Locuplet. Rer. nat. Thesauri 3 : pl. 18, fig. 8) is now selected to be the lecto- type of the species Uca una Leach, 1814 (Brewster’s Edinburgh Encycl. 7(2) : 430). Ocypoda heterochelos Lamarck (1801, Syst. Anim. s. Vert.: 150) is referred to as follows in the original publication : “‘ *Ocypoda heterochelos. n. Cancer vocans Lin. Seba Mus. 3, t. 18, f. 8. Herbst. Cancr. 1, p. 83, t.1, f.11 ”, no description or other indication being given. I now select as the lectotype of Lamarck’s species the same specimen figured by Seba, which has already been made the lectotype of Leach’s species Uca una. Lamarck’s reference to Herbst is to the latter’s subspecies ‘‘ Der grosse Winker. Cancer vocans major ”’ (Herbst, 1782, Vers. Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1(1) : 83, pl. 1, fig. 11). Herbst’s figure is again copied from Seba’s pl. 18, fig. 8, while in the text Herbst refers both to Seba and to Catesby (namely to Catesby’s Cancer arenarius, which is a species of Ocypode). Also for Cancer vocans major Herbst (1782) I now select as the lectotype the specimen figured by Seba (1761, Locuplet. Rer. nat. Thesaur. 3 : pl. 18, fig. 8). By these lectotype selections Cancer vocans major Herbst, 1782, Ocypoda heterochelos Lamarck, 1801, and Uca una Leach, 1814, become objective synonyms. The first of these three names becomes the valid name of the type-species of the genus Uca, so that the correct name of that species is Uca major (Herbst, 1782). As this species (1) has been known under many different names, (2) is not very common, (3) inhabits a region (the West Indies) the carcinological investigation of which is far from finished, and (4) is neither of economic value nor of importance in applied biology, there is no reason not to apply the Code here rigidly and to accept the specific name major Herbst as the correct name of the species, even though this name is little known, the species being best known as Uca heterochelos (Lam.). (15) ACANTHONYCHINAE. The genus Acanthonyx Latreille, 1825, is the type of the family ACANTHONYCHIDAE Stimpson (1870, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard 2 :127). This family group usually is treated as a subfamily of the family Masipaxn. It is current practice to place in this subfamily also the genera Hpialtus H. Milne Edwards, 1834, and Huenia De Haan, 1837. Now both of the latter two genera are also the types of families, viz., EPIALTIDAE Macleay (1838, Smith’s Illustr. Zool. S. Afr. (Invert.) :56) and HUENIDAE Macleay (1838, Smith’s Illustr. Zool. S. Afr. (Invert.) : 56), the names of which are older than the name ACANTHONYCHIDAE. As the taxonomy of the family MAJIDAE On the sub-family level is still very unsettled, it seems best not to place any of these names on the Official List. (16) caLocartDAE. The genus Calocaris Bell, 1846, has been made the type of the family caALocarIDAE Ortmann (1891, Zool. Jb. Syst. 6 : 47). At present, however, the genus is generally considered to belong to the family Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 241 AXIIDAE Huxley, 1879. Therefore the name CALOocARIDAE should not be entered in the Official List. (17) ERIPHIIDAE. The genus Hriphia Latreille, 1817, is the type of the family ERIPHIIDAE (correction by Stimpson (1870, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard 2.:141) of ERrPHIDAE) Macleay, 1838, Smith’s Illustr. Zool. S. Afr. (Invert.) : 59, 60. The genus Hriphia is currently considered to belong to the family XANTHIDAE, in which family some authors place the ERIPHIINAE as a subfamily. Since the division of the family xANTHIDAE into subfamilies is still highly unsatisfactory, it seems best, for the time being at least, not to insert the family name ERIPHIIDAE on the Official List. (18) PAGURISTINAE. The subfamily PaguRIsTINAE Makarov (1938, Faune USSR (Crust.) 10(3) : 157) (type : Paguristes Dana, 1851) is currently considered a synonym of the subfamily DIOGENINAE Ortmann, 1892, and is therefore not proposed for insertion in the Official List. (19) poramonipDAE. The family name POTAMONIDAE Ortmann (1896, Zool. Jb. Syst. 9 : 445) is at present in universal use for the family containing the genus Potamon Savigny, 1816. The genera T'richodactylus Latreille, 1828, and Pseudothelphusa de Saussure, 1857, which are currently also referred to that family, have likewise been made the types of family groups, viz., TRICHODACTYLINAE H. Milne Edwards, 1853, Ann. Sci. Nat. Zool. (3) 20 : 163, and PSEUDOTHELPHUSINAE Ortmann, 1893, Zool. Jb. Syst.7 : 487. Furthermore there exists the family name THELPHUSIDAE Macleay, 1838, Smith’s Illustr. Zool. 8S. Afr. (Invert.) : 63, 64, which has as its type the genus Thelphusa Latreille, 1819 (Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. 33 : 500), which is an available generic name, which is currently considered to be a subjective junior synonym of Potamon Savigny, 1816. The currently used name POTAMONIDAE Ortmann, 1896, thus has three available senior synonyms: THELPHUSIDAE Macleay, 1838, TRICHODACTYLINAE H. Milne Edwards, 1853, and PSEUDOTHELPHUSINAE Ortmann, 1893. The generic name Thelphusa was commonly used during the nineteenth century, but when at the end of that century it was pointed out that Potamon Savigny, 1816, has priority over Thelphusa Latreille, 1819, not only the generic name was no longer used, but also the family name POTAMONIDAE was adopted to replace the name THELPHUSIDAE. The names TRICHODACTYLINAE and PSEUDOTHELPHUSINAE were (and still are) only used to indicate subfamilies of the family PoTAMoNIDAE. It will be clearly against the interests of stability and uniformity in nomenclature if the old name THELPHUSIDAE be reintroduced at this late date, while also the replacement of the name POTAMONIDAE by either TRICHODACTYLIDAE or PSEUDOTHELPHUSIDAE would cause considerable confusion. This is the more true since the family POTAMONIDAE consists of a very great number of species of freshwater crabs, which are found in all tropical and subtropical regions of the world. I suggest therefore that the plenary powers be used to give the name POTAMONIDAE preference over the other names. The family-group names TRICHODACTYLINAE and PSEUDOTHELPHUSINAE should also be placed on the Official List, the more so since their respective type-genera have (in Opinion 73) already been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology a long time ago (under the respective numbers 200 and 189). 242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 4. The following list contains the required particulars regarding the forty- seven generic names which it is now recommended should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— Acanthonyx (masculine) Latreille, 1827, Encycl. méthod. Hist. nat. Entomol. 10(2) : 698 (type-species, by monotypy : Maia lunulata Risso, 1816, Hist. nat. Crust. env. Nice : 49) ; Achaeopsis (feminine) Stimpson, 1857, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 9 : 219 (type-species, by monotypy : Achaeopsis spinulosus Stimpson, 1857, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 9 : 219) ; Achaeus (masculine) Leach, 1817, Malac. podophthal. Brit. (16) : text to pl. 22C (type-species, by monotypy : Achaeus cranchii Leach, 1817, Malac. podo- phthal. Brit. (16) : text to pl. 22C) ; Anamathia (feminine) Smith, 1885, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 7 : 493 (substitute name for Amathia P. Roux, 1828 (Crust. Méditerr. (1) : pl. 3, an invalid junior homonym of Amathia Lamouroux, 1812, Nouv. Bull. Sci. Soc. philom. Paris 3(63) : 184) (type-species, by monotypy for Amathia P. Roux, 1828 : Amathia rissoana P. Roux, 1828, Crust. Méditerr. (1) : pl. 3) ; Anapagurus (masculine) Henderson, 1886, Proc. Trans. nat. Hist. Soc. Glasgow (n. ser.) 1 :337 (type-species, by present selection: Pagurus laevis Bell, 1845, Hist. Brit. stalk-eyed Crust. (4) : 184) ; Atelecyclus (masculine) Leach, 1814, Brewster’s Edinb. Encycl. 7(2) : 430 (type-species, by monotypy : Cancer (Hippa) septemdentatus Montagu, 1813, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 11:1 [Note (not for inclusion in the Official List): This specific name is a junior subjective synonym of Cancer rotundatus Olivi, 1792, Zool. Adriat. : 47]) ; Axius (masculine) Leach, 1815, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 11 : 335, 343 (type- species, by monotypy : Azxius stirhynchus Leach, 1815, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 11 : 343) ; Brachynotus (masculine) De Haan, 1833, Fauna Japon. Crust. (1): 5 (type- species, by subsequent monotypy, through De Haan, 1835 (Fauna Japon. Crust. (2) : 34): Goneplax sexdentatus Risso, 1827, Hist. nat. Hurop. mérid. 5 =13): Calappa (feminine) Weber, 1795, Nomencl. entomol. : 92 (type-species, by selec- tion by Latreille, 1810 (Consid. gén. Crust. Arachn. Ins. : 95, 422) : Cancer granulatus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 627) ; Calcinus (masculine) Dana, 1851, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 5 : 268 (type- species, by selection by Stimpson, 1858 (Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1858: 234): Cancer tibicen Herbst, 1791, Vers. Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 2(1) : 25); Callinectes (masculine) Stimpson, 1860, Ann. Lyc. nat. Hist. New York 7 : 220 (type-species, [actually by monotypy : Portunus diacantha Latreille, 1825, Encycl. méthod. Hist. nat. Entomol. 10 : 190, but here asked to be] designated under the plenary powers: Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, 1896, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 18 : 352); Calocaris (feminine) Bell, 1846, Hist. Brit. stalk-eyed Crust. (5): 231 (type- species, by monotypy : Calocaris macandreae Bell, 1846, Hist. Brit. stalk- eyed Crust. (5) : 233) ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 243 Catapaguroides (masculine) A. Milne Edwards & Bouvier, 1892, Ann. Sev. nat. Paris, Zool. (7) 13 : 211 (type-species, by present selection : Catapa- guroides microps A. Milne Edwards & Bouvier, 1892, Ann. Sci. nat. Paris, Zool. (7) 13 : 211) ; Charybdis (feminine) De Haan, 1833, Fauna Japon. Crust. (1) : 3, 10 (type- species, by selection by Glaessner, 1929 (Fossil. Catal. Anim. 41 : 113): Cancer feriatus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 627) ; Clibanarius (masculine) Dana, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 6 : 6 (type- species, by absolute tautonymy: Cancer clibanarius Herbst, 1791, Vers. Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 2(1) : 20) ; Cymonomus (masculine) A. Milne Edwards, 1880, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard 8(1) : 26 (type-species, by monotypy: Cymonomus quadratus A. Milne Edwards, 1880, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard 8(1) : 26) ; Dorhynchus (masculine) Thomson, 1873, Depths of the Sea: 174, 175 (type- species, by monotypy : Dorhynchus thomsoni Thomson, 1873, Depths of the Sea: 174, 175) ; Ergasticus (masculine) Studer, 1883, Abh. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin 1882(2) :7 (type-species, by monotypy : Hrgasticus clowei Studer, 1883, Abh. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin 1882(2) : 7, 8); Eriphia (feminine) Latreille, 1817, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. (ed. 2) 10 : 404 (type-species, by selection by H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Cuvier’s Reégne Anim. (Discip. ed.) 18: pl. 14, fig. 1): Cancer spinifrons Herbst, 1785, Vers. Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1(6) : 185. [Note (not for inclusion in the Official List): This specific name is a junior subjective synonym of Cancer verrucosus Forskal, 1775, Descr. Anim. : 93]) ; Ethusa (feminine) P. Roux, 1830, Crust. Méditerr. (4): pl. 18 (type-species, by subsequent designation by Fowler, 1912: Cancer mascarone Herbst, 1785, Vers. Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1(6) : 191) ; Eurynome (feminine) Leach, 1814, Brewster’s Edinb. Encycl. 7(2) : 431 (type- species, by monotypy : Cancer asper Pennant, 1777, Brit. Zool. (ed. 4) & : 8) ; Harpilius (masculine) Dana, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 6 : 17 (type- species, by monotypy: Harpilius lutescens Dana, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Scr. Philad. 6 : 25) ; Herbstia (feminine) H. Milne Edwards, 1834, Hist. nat. Crust. 1 : 301 (type- species, by monotypy: Cancer condyliatus Fabricius, 1787, Mant. Ins. 1 : 324); Heterocrypta (feminine) Stimpson, 1871, Ann. Lyc. nat. Hist. New York 10 : 102 (type-species, by original designation : Cryptopodia granulata Gibbes, 1850, Proc. Amer. Ass. Adv. Sci. 3 : 173) ; Heteropanope (feminine) Stimpson, 1858, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1858 : 35 (type-species, by selection by Balss, 1933 (Capita Zool. 4(3) : 32) : Hetero- panope glabra Stimpson, 1858, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1858 : 35) ; Ilia (feminine) Leach, 1817, Zool. Miscell. 3 : 19, 24 (type-species, by monotypy : Cancer nucleus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 627) ; Jaxea (feminine) Nardo, 1847, Sinon. moderna Opera Chiereghin: 4 (type- species, by monotypy : Jawea nocturna Nardo, 1847, Sinon. moderna Opera Chiereghin : 4) ; 244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Latreillia (feminine) P. Roux, 1830, Crust. Méditerr. (5) : pl. 22 (type-species, by monotypy : Latreillia elegans P. Roux, 1830, Crust. Méditerr. (5) : pl. 22) ; Leucosia (feminine) Weber, 1795, Nomencl. Entomol. : 92 (type-species, by selection by Holthuis, 1959 (Rumphius Memorial Volume : 106): Cancer craniolaris Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 626) ; Medaeus (masculine) Dana, 1851, Amer. Journ. Sci. (2) 12 : 125 (type-species, by subsequent monotypy, through Dana, 1852 (Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 6 : 76) : Medaeus ornatus Dana, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 6 3 76); Munida (feminine) Leach, 1820, Dict. Sci. nat. 18 : 52 (type-species, by mono- typy : Pagurus rugosus Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 412) ; Munidopsis (feminine) Whiteaves, 1874, Amer. Journ. Sci. (3) 7 : 212, 213 (type-species, by monotypy: Munidopsis curvirostra Whiteaves, 1874, Amer. Journ. Sci. (3) 7 : 212) ; Myra (feminine) Leach, 1817, Zool. Miscell. 3 : 19, 23 (type-species, by mono- typy : Leucosia fugax Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 351) ; Nematopagurus (masculine) A. Milne Edwards & Bouvier, 1892, Ann. Sci. nat. Paris, Zool. (7) 13 : 209 (type-species, by monotypy : Nematopagurus longicornis A. Milne Edwards & Bouvier, 1892, Ann. Sci. nat. Paris, Zool. (7) 18 : 210); Ocypode (feminine) Weber, 1795, Nomencl. Entomol. :92 (type-species, by selection by Latreille, 1810 (Consid. gén. Crust. Arachn. Ins. : 95, 422) : Cancer ceratophthalmus Pallas, 1772, Spicil. Zool. 9 : 83) ; Pachygrapsus (masculine) Randall, 1840, Journ. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 8 : 126 (type-species, by selection by Kingsley, 1880 (Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1880 : 198): Pachygrapsus crassipes Randall, 1840, Journ. Acad. nat. Sct. Philad. 8 : 127); Paguristes (masculine) Dana, 1851, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 5 : 268, 269, 271 (type-species, by selection by Stimpson, 1858 (Proc. Acad. nat. Scv. Philad. 1858 : 235): Paguristes hirtus Dana, 1851, Proc. Acad. nat. Sct. Philad. 5 : 272); Palicus (masculine) Philippi, 1838, Jahresber. Ver. Naturk. Cassel 2 : 11 (type- species, by monotypy: Palicus granulatus Philippi, 1838, Jahresber. Ver. Naturk. Cassel 2:11 [Note (not for inclusion in the Official List) : This specific name is a subjective synonym of Cympolia caronii P. Roux, 1830, Crust. Méditerr. (5) : pl. 21)) ; Paromola (feminine) Wood-Mason & Alcock, 1891, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6) 7 : 267 (type-species, by monotypy : Dorippe cuviert Risso, 1816, Hist. nat, Crust. env. Nice: 35) ; Philyra (feminine) Leach, 1817, Zool. Miscell. 3 : 18, 22 (type-species, by selection by H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Cuvier’s Régne Anim. (Discip. ed.) 18 : pl. 24, fig. 4) : Cancer globus Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 401) ; Pilumnopeus (masculine) A. Milne Edwards, 1867, Ann. Soc. entomol. France (4) 7 : 277 (type-species, by selection by Balss, 1933 (Capita Zool. 4(3) : 33, 34) : Pilumnopeus crassimanus A. Milne Edwards, 1867, Ann. Soc. entomol. France (4) 7:278 [Note (not for inclusion in the Official List): This Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 245 specific name is a subjective junior synonym of Ozius (?) serratifrons Kinahan, 1858, Journ. Roy. Dublin Soc. 1(3) : 113]); Plagusia (feminine) Latreille, 1804, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. 24: 125 (type- species, by selection by Latreille, 1810 (Consid. gén. Crust. Arachn. Ins. 96, 422) : Cancer depressus Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 406) ; Potamon (neuter) Savigny, 1816, Mém. Anim. s. Vert. 1 : 107 (type-species by monotypy: Potamon fluviatile Savigny, 1816, Mém. Anim. s. Vert. 1 : 107 [Note (not for inclusion in the Official List) : This specific name is a junior subjective synonym of Cancer potamios Olivier, 1803-1804, Voyage Empire Othoman 4& : 240]) ; Richardina (feminine) A. Milne Edwards, 1881, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 93 : 933 (type-species, by monotypy: Richardina spinicincta A. Milne Edwards, 1881, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 93 : 933) ; Rochinia (feminine) A. Milne Edwards, 1875, Rech. zool. Hist. Faune Amér. centr. Mexique 5(3) : 86 (type-species, by monotypy : Rochinia gracilipes A. Milne Edwards, 1875, Rech. zool. Hist. Faune Amér. centr. Mexique 5(3) : 86, pl. 18, fig. 1) ; Uca (feminine) Leach, 1814, Brewster’s Edinb. Encycl. 7(2) : 430 (type-species, by monotypy : Cancer vocans major Herbst, 1782, Vers. Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1(1) : 83); Xaiva (feminine) Macleay, 1838, Smith’s Illustr. Zool. S. Afr. (Invert.) : 62 (type-species, by monotypy : Xaiva pulchella Macleay, 1838, Smith’s Illustr. Zool. S. Afr. (Invert.) :62 [Note (not for inclusion in the Official List) : This specific name is a junior subjective synonym of Portunus biguttatus Risso, 1816, Hist. nat. Crust. env. Nice : 31)). 5. It is recommended that the specific names of the type-species of the genera specified in paragraph 4 above should be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, as far as these names are valid and at the same time are the oldest available names for the species concerned. The following list gives in the first column the specific names which fulfil the conditions mentioned above. In the second column is given the original combination in which these names have been used. In this column the spelling of both of the specific and generic names is emended in accordance with the Inter- national Code for Zoological Nomenclature and conform with the suggestions made in paragraph 3 of the present proposal. In column (3) is given the name of the genus of which the species cited in column (1) is the type-species. Original Combination Genus of which species Specific Name in which name cited in cited in Col. (1) is the Col. (1) was published type-species (1) (2) (3) asper Pennant, 1777 Cancer asper Eurynome Leach, 1814 ceratophthalmus Pallas, Cancer ceratophthalmus Ocypode Weber, 1795 1772 clibanarius Herbst, 1791 Cancer clibanarius Clibanarius Dana, 1852 clouei Studer, 1883 Ergasticus clowet Ergasticus Studer, 1883 condyliatus Fabricius, 1787 Cancer condyliatus Herbstia H. Milne Edwards, 1834 246 Specific Name (1) cranchii Leach, 1817 craniolaris Linnaeus, 1758 crassipes Randall, 1840 curvirostra Whiteaves, 1874 cuviert Risso, 1816 depressus Fabricius, 1775 elegans P. Roux, 1830 feriatus Linnaeus, 1758 fugax Fabricius, 1798 glabra Stimpson, 1858 globus Fabricius, 1775 gracilipes A. Milne Edwards, 1875 granulata Gibbes, 1850 granulatus Linnaeus, 1758 hirtus Dana, 1851 laevis Bell, 1845 longicornis A. Milne Ed- wards & Bouvier, 1892 lunulata Risso, 1816 lutescens Dana, 1852 macandreae Bell, 1846 major Herbst, 1782 mascarone Herbst, 1785 microps A. Milne Edwards & Bouvier, 1892 nocturna Nardo, 1847 nucleus Linnaeus, 1758 ornatus Dana, 1852 quadratus A. Milne Edwards, 1880 rissoana P. Roux, 1828 rugosus Fabricius, 1775 Original Combination in which name cited in Col. (1) was published (2) Achaeus cranchir Cancer craniolaris Pachygrapsus crassipes Munidopsis curvirostra Dorippe cuviert Cancer depressus Latreillia elegans Cancer feriatus Leucosia fugax Heteropanope glabra Cancer globus Rochinia gracilipes Cryptopodia granulata Cancer granulatus Paguristes hirtus Pagurus laevis Nematopagurus longi- cornis Maja lunulata Harpilius lutescens Calocaris macandreae Cancer vocans major Cancer mascarone Catapaguroides microps Jaxea nocturna Cancer nucleus Medaeus ornatus Cymonomus quadratus Amathia rissoana Pagurus rugosus Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Genus of which species cited in Col. (1) is the type-species (3) Achaeus Leach, 1817 Leucosia Weber, 1795 Pachygrapsus Randall, 1840 Munidopsis Whiteaves, 1874 Paromola Wood-Mason & Alcock, 1891 Plagusia Latreille, 1804 Latreillia P. Roux, 1830 Charybdis De Haan, 1833 Myra Leach, 1817 Heteropanope Stimpson, 1858 Philyra Leach, 1817 Rochinia A. Milne Edwards, 1875 Heterocrypta Stimpson, 1871 Calappa Weber, 1795 Paguristes Dana, 1851 Anapagurus Henderson, 1886 Nematopagurus A. Milne Edwards & Bouvier, 1892 Acanthonyx Latreille, 1827 Harpilius Dana, 1852 Calocaris Bell, 1846 Uca Leach, 1814 Ethusa P. Roux, 1830 Catapaguroides A. Milne Edwards & Bouvier, 1892 Jaxea Nardo, 1847 Ilia Leach, 1817 Medaeus Dana, 1851 Cymonomus A. Milne Edwards, 1880 Anamathia Smith, 1885 Munida Leach, 1820 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 247 Original Combination Genus of which species Specific Name in which name cited in cited in Col. (1) is the Col. (1) was published type-species (1) (2) (3) sexdentatus Risso, 1827 Goneplax sexdentatus Brachynotus De Haan, 1833 spinicincta A. Milne Richardina spinicincta Richardina A. Milne Edwards, 1881 Edwards, 1881 spinulosus Stimpson, 1857 Achaeopsis spinulosus | Achaeopsis Stimpson, 1857 stirhynchus Leach, 1815 Axius stirhynchus Axius Leach, 1815 thomsoni Thomson, 1873 Dorhynchus thomsoni Dorhynchus Thomson, 1873 tibicen Herbst, 1791 Cancer tibicen Calcinus Dana, 1851 6. In the case of six of the genera enumerated in paragraph 4 of present application, the name of the nominal species, which is the type-species of the genus concerned is not accepted by specialists as the oldest available name for the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species in question. These cases are :— Name of the nominal species Oldest available name Name of the genus which is the type-species of for the species the genus specified in the specified in the first column second column (1) (2) (3) Atelecyclus Leach, 1814 Cancer (Hippa) septemdenta- Cancer rotundatus tus Montagu, 1813 Olivi, 1792 Eriphia Latreille, 1817 | Cancer spinifrons Herbst, Cancer verrucosus 1785 Forskal, 1775 Palicus Philippi, 1838 = Palicus granulatus Philippi, Cymopolia caronii 1838 P. Roux, 1830 Pilumnopeus A. Milne _— Pilumnopeus crassimanus Ozius (2) serratifrons Edwards, 1867 A. Milne Edwards, 1867 Kinahan, 1858 Potamon Savigny, 1816 Potamon fluviatile Savigny, Cancer potamios 1816 Olivier, 1803-1804 Xaiva Macleay, 1838 Xaiva pulchella Macleay, Portunus biguttatus 1838 Risso, 1816 7. The concrete proposals which I now submit for consideration are that the Commission should :— (1) use its plenary powers : (a) to validate the emendation Dorhynchus of the generic name originally published as Dorynchus by Thomson in 1873 ; (b) to validate the emendation stirhynchus of the specific name originally published in the combination Azius stirynchus by Leach in 1815; (c) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the following specific names : 248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (i) diacantha Latreille, 1825, as published in the combination Portunus diacantha ; (ii) tridens Herbst, 1790, as published in the combination Cancer tridens ; (d) to set aside all designations or selections of type-species for the genus Callinectes Stimpson, 1860, made prior to the proposed ruling ; and having done so (e) to designate as the type-species of that genus the species Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, 1896 ; (f) to direct that the family group name POTAMONIDAE Ortmann, 1896, be protected from its senior subjective synonyms THELPHUSIDAE Macleay, 1838, TRICHODACTYLINAE H. Milne Edwards, 1853, and PSEUDOTHELPHUSINAE Ortmann, 1893, in the manner specified in paragraph 3 (19) of the present application ; (2) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the forty-seven names enumerated in paragraph 4 of the present application with the particulars there specified ; (3) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) the forty specific names specified in paragraph 5 of the present application ; (b) the specific names of the six nominal species listed in Column (3) of paragraph 6 of the present application ; (c) the name fluviatilis Herbst, 1785, Vers. Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1(6) : 183, as published in the combination Cancer fluviatilis ; (d) the name sapidus Rathbun, 1896, as published in the combination Callinectes sapidus (the name of the species designated under the plenary powers in (1)(e) above as the type-species of the genus Callinectes Stimpson, 1860) ; (4) place the under-mentioned names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology : (a) ATELECYCLIDAE Ortmann, 1893, Zool. Jb. Syst.'7 : 27 (type-genus : Atelecyclus Leach, 1814) ; (b) AxmmDAE Huxley, 1879, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1878 : 785 (type- genus: Azius Leach, 1815) ; (c) CALAPPIDAE (correction by White, 1847 (List Crust. Brit. Mus. : 44) of CALAPPIDEA) De Haan, 1833, Fauna Japon. Crust. (1) : ix (type-genus: Calappa Weber, 1795) ; (d) ~mNaE Stimpson, 1870, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard 2 : 155 (type-genus : Ilia Leach, 1817) ; (e) LATREILLUDAE (correction by Stebbing, 1904 (Mar. Invest. S. Afr. 2 : 23) of LATREILLIDEA) Stimpson, 1858, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1858 : 226 (type-genus : Latreillia P. Roux, 1830) ; (f) LEUCOsIIDAE (correction by Miers, 1886 (Rep. Voy. Challenger Zool. 17 : 297) of LevUcosIaADAE) Samouelle, 1819, Entomol. usef. Compend. : 91 (type-genus : Leucosia Weber, 1795) ; (g) OCYPODIDAE (correction by Macleay, 1838 (Smith’s Illustr. Zool. S. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 249 Afr. (Invert.) : 63, 64) of ocypopra) Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse de la Nature : 96 (type-genus : Ocypode Weber, 1795) ; (h) PALICIDAR Rathbun, 1898, Bull. Lab. nat. Hist. State Univ. Iowa 4 : 280 (type-genus : Palicus Philippi, 1838) ; (i) PLAGUSINAE (correction by Miers, 1878 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 1 : 147) of PLAGUSINAE) Dana, 1851, Proc, Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 5: 247, 252 (type-genus : Plagusia Latreille, 1804) ; (j) POTAMONIDAE Ortmann, 1896, Zool. Jb. Syst. 9 : 445 (type-genus : Potamon Savigny, 1816) (a family-group name to be given preference under the plenary powers under (1)(£) above over the family-group names PSEUDOTHELPHUSINAE Ortmann, 1893, (type-genus : Pseudothelphusa De Saussure, 1857), THELPHUSIDAE Macleay, 1838, Smith’s Illustr. Zool. 8. Afr. (Invert.) : 63, 64 (type-genus : Thelphusa Latreille, 181] 9), and TRICHODACTYLINAE H. Milne Edwards, 1853 (type-genus : T'richodactylus Latreille, 1828), by any author who may consider the genera Potamon Savigny, Pseudothelphusa De Saussure, Trichodactylus Latreille, and/or Thelphusa Latreille as belonging to the same family-group taxon) ; (k) PSEUDOTHELPHUSINAE Ortmann, 1893, Zool, Jb. Syst. 7 : 487 (type-genus : Pseudothelphusa De Saussure, 1857) (a family- group name to be rejected in favour of the name POTAMONIDAE Ortmann, 1896, by any author who may consider the genera (3) 20 : 163 (type-genus : Trichodactylus Latreille, 1828) (a family-group name to be rejected in favour of the name belonging to the same family-group taxon) ; (5) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Acanthonyx Hampson, 1902, Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 2 : 318, 323 (a junior homonym of the name Acanthonyx Latreille, 1827, which is placed on the Official List in (2) above) ; (b) Amathia P. Roux, 1828, Crust. M, éditerr. (1): pl. 3 (a junior homonym of Amathia Lamouroux, 1812, Nouv. Bull. Sci. Soc. (c) Axius Mulsant, 1850, Ann. Soc. Agric. Lyon (2) 2 (Spec. Col. Securipalpes) : 1002 (a junior homonym of the name Axius Leach, 1815, which is placed on the Official List in (2) above) ; (d) Brachynotus Kirby, 1837, Richardson’s Fauna Bor. Amer. 4 : 249 (a junior homonym of the name Brachynotus De Haan, 1833, which is placed on the Official List in (2) above) ; (e) Calappa Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 309, 345 (a junior 250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature homonym and objective synonym of Calappa Weber, 1795, which is placed on the Official List in (2) above) ; (f) Charybdis Cocco, 1832, Effem. Sci. Lett. Sicil. 2 : 204 (a nomen nudum) ; (g) Clibanarius Gozis, 1882, Mitt. Schweiz. entom. Ges. 6 : 295 (a junior homonym of the name Clibanarius Dana, 1852, which is placed on the Official List in (2) above) ; (h) Cymopolia P. Roux, 1830, Crust. Méditerr. (5): pl. 21 (a junior homonym of Cymopolia Lamouroux, 1816, Hist. Polyp. corall. flex. : 292) ; (i) Dorynchus Thomson, 1873, Depths of the Sea : 174, 175 (an Invalid Original Spelling of Dorhynchus Thomson, 1873, as amended under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above) ; (j) Eriphia Meigen, 1826, Syst. Beschr. zweifl. Insekt. 5 : 206 (a junior homonym of the name Hriphia Latreille, 1817, which is placed on the Official List in (2) above) ; (k) Eriphia Herrich-Schaeffer, 1850-1856, Aussereurop. Schmett.1 : 16, 17 (a junior homonym of Lriphia Latreille, 1817, which is placed on the Official List in (2) above) ; (1) Eriphia Chambers, 1875, Canad. Entomol.7 : 55 (a junior homonym of the name Eriphia Latreille, 1817, which is placed on the Official List in (2) above) ; (m) Eriphis Latreille, 1817, Nowv. Dict. Hist. nat. (ed. 2) 10 : 405 (an Invalid Original Spelling of Hriphia Latreille, 1817, which is placed on the Official List in (2) above) ; (n) Eurynoma Latreille, 1829, Cuvier’s Régne Anim. (ed. 2) 4:57 (an erroneous spelling of Hurynome Leach, 1814, which is placed on the Official List in (2) above) ; (0) Hurynome Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse de la Nature : 99 (a nomen nudum) ; (p) Eurynome Chambers, 1875, Cincinnati Quart. Journ. Scr. 2 : 304 (a junior homonym of Lurynome Leach, 1814, which is placed on the Official List in (2) above) ; (q) Eurynone De Haan, 1839, Fauna Japon. Crust. (4): pl. G (an erroneous spelling of Hurynome Leach, 1814, which is placed on the Official List in (2) above) ; (r) Goniosoma A. Milne Edwards, 1860, Ann. Sci. nat. Zool. (4) 14 : 218, 224, 263 (a replacement name for, and thus a junior objective synonym of the name Charybdis De Haan, 1833, which is placed on the Official List in (2) above) ; (s) Herbstia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1851, Ann. Soc. Entomol. France (2) 9 : 184 (a junior homonym of Herbstia H. Milne Edwards, 1834, which is placed on the Official List in (2) above) ; (t) Ilia Hartmann, 1881, Cat. Gen. Partula : 8 (a junior homonym of Ilia Leach, 1817, which is placed on the Official List in (2) above) ; (u) Latreillia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, Mém. Acad. Roy. Sci. Inst. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 251 France 2 : 104 (a junior homonym of Latreillia P. Roux, 1830, which is placed on the Official List in (2) above) ; (v) Leucosia Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 313, 349 (a junior homonym of Leucosia Weber, 1795, which is placed on the Official List in (2) above) ; (w) Leucosia Rambur, 1866, Catal. syst. Lepidopt. Andalousie (2) : 267 (a junior homonym of Leucosia Weber, 1795, which is placed on the Official List in (2) above) ; (x) Leucosia Dybowski, 1875, Mém. Acad. Sci. St. Petersb. (7) 22(8) :36 (a junior homonym of Leucosia Weber, 1795, which is placed on the Official List in (2) above) ; (y) Leucosides Rathbun, 1897, Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 11 : 160 (type-species, by present selection : Cancer craniolaris Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 626) (an objective junior synonym of Leucosia Weber, 1795, which is placed on the Official List in (2) above) ; (2) Numida Hope, 1851, Catal. Crost. Ital. : 14 (an erroneous spelling of the name Munida Leach, 1820, which is placed on the Official List in (2) above) ; (aa) Ocypoda Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. s. Vert. : 149 (an erroneous spelling of Ocypode Weber, 1795, which is placed on the Official List in (2) above) ; (bb) Ocypode Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 312, 347 (a junior homonym and junior objective Synonym of Ocypode Weber, 1795, which is placed on the Official List in (2) above) ; (cc) Palicus Stal, 1866, Hemipt. Afric. 4: 120 (a junior homonym of Palicus Philippi, 1838, which is placed on the Official List in (2) above) ; (dd) Philyra De Haan, 1833, Fauna Japon. Crust. (1):5 (a junior homonym of Philyra Leach, 1817 » which is placed on the Official (ee) Philyra Laporte, 1836, Rev. entomol. 4(2) : 53 (a junior homonym of Philyra Leach, 1817, which is placed on the Official List in (2) above) ; (ff) Plagusia Jarocki, 1822, Zoologija 4 : 295 (a junior homonym of Plagusia Latreille, 1804, which is placed on the Official List in (2) above) ; (gg) Uca Latreille, 1819, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. (ed. 2) 35 : 96 (a junior homonym of Uca Leach, 1814, which is placed on the Official List in (2) above) ; (6) place the under-mentioned names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology : (a) diacantha Latreille, 1825, Encycl. méthod. Hist. nat. Entomol. 10 : 190, as published in the combination Portunus diacantha (a name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(c)(i) above) ; (b) globosus Fabricius, 1787, Mant. Ins. 1 : 315, as published in the 252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature combination Cancer globosus (a junior objective synonym of the name globus Fabricius, 1775, as published in the combination Cancer globus, a name placed on the Official List in (3)(a) above) ; (c) globulosa Bose, 1801-1802, Hist. nat. Crust. 1 : 238, as published in the combination Leucosia globulosa (a junior objective synonym of the name globus Fabricius, 1775, as published in the combination Cancer globus, a name placed on the Official List in (3) (a) above) ; (d) heterochelos Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. s. Vert. : 150, as published in the combination Ocypoda heterochelos (a junior objective synonym of the name major Herbst, 1782, as published in the combination Cancer vocans major, a name placed on the Official List in (3)(a) above) ; (e) sexdentatus Herbst, 1783, Vers. Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1(2-5) : 153, as published in the combination Cancer sexdentatus (a junior objective synonym of the name feriatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cancer feriatus, a name placed on the Official List in (3)(a) above) ; (f) stirynchus Leach, 1815, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 11 : 343, as published in the combination Axius stirynchus (an Invalid Original Spelling of the name stirhynchus) ; (g) tridens Herbst, 1790, Vers. Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1(8) : 267, as published in the combination Cancer tridens (a name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(c)(ii) above) ; (h) tridens Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. :340, as published in the combination Cancer tridens (a junior homonym of tridens Herbst, 1790, as published in the combination Cancer tridens) ; (i) wna Leach, 1814, Brewster’s Edinb. Encycl. 7(2) : 430, as published in the combination Uca una (a junior objective synonym of the name major Herbst, 1782, as published in the combination Cancer vocans major, a name placed on the Official List in (3)(a) above) ; (7) place the under-mentioned names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology : (a) CALAPPIDEA De Haan, 1833 (type-genus : Calappa Weber, 1795) (an Invalid Original Spelling for cALAPPIDAE) ; (b) CYMOPOLIIDAE Faxon, 1895, Mem. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard 18 : 38 (type-genus : Cymopolia P. Roux, 1830) (a family name based on an homonymous generic name, which is inserted in the Official Index under (5)(h) above) ; (c) LATREILLIDEA Stimpson, 1858 (type-genus: Latreillia P. Roux, 1830) (an Invalid Original Spelling for LATREILLIDAE) ; (d) LEUCOSIADAE Samouelle, 1819 (type-genus: Leucosia Weber, 1795) (an Invalid Original Spelling for LEUCOsmIDAE) ; (e) ocypop1a Rafinesque, 1815 (type-genus : Ocypode Weber, 1795) (an Invalid Original Spelling for ocyPODIDAE) ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 253 (f) PLAGUSINAE Dana, 1851 (type-genus: Plagusia Latreille, 1804) (an Invalid Original Spelling for pLacusmNAE). COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF BIOMPHALARIA PRESTON, 1910. Z.N.(S.) 1392 (see this volume, pages 39-41) By P.-H. Fischer (Paris) Cette proposition requiert une sérieuse attention, surtout si elle a pour implication la suppression du nom Japhius H. & A. Adams, 1855, dont Biomphalaria Preston, 1910, est simplement un synonyme d’aprés les recherches remarquables de W. Lobato Paraense et Newton Deslandes dont les conclusions n’ont pas été contestées 4 ma connaissance. Le nom Taphius est parfaitement valide, plus ancien, et constamment employé ainsi que l’attestent tous les traités classiques et une quantité de publications. Le nom Biomphalaria n’a été employé que pour un petit nombre d’espéces de Planorbes d’ Afrique, parce que l’on a cru que ces espéces constituaient un groupe a part. Or, leur étude anatomique a démontré que ces espéces devaient étre groupées dans le méme genre que les Planorbes américaines connues comme Taphius. Dans ces conditions, le nom Biomphalaria n’a plus de raison d’étre ; sa définition morpho- logique elle méme devient erronée et son usage dangereux. Les noms synonymes comme Australorbis, Tropicorbis, etc. doivent évidemment étre rejetés pour les mémes raisons que Biomphalaria. Mais supprimer le nom Taphius, que tous les malacologistes connaissent, et que est d’un usage constant depuis plus d’un siécle, serait extrémement regrettable. Si Yont veut, sans tenir compte de la priorité, choisir un nom supposé plus connu que Taphius, pourquoi n’a-t-on pas proposé Australorbis bien plut6t que Biomphalaria? Les auteurs qui s’occupent de |’Afrique ont souvent employé Biomphalaria pour un petit nombre d’espéces africaines, mais ceux qui s’occupent de l’Amerique ont souvent employé Australorbis pour un nombre assez important d’espéces américaines, et ceci est bien a considérer. Ces deux noms ont été souvent employés l’un et l’autre, mais dés lors que leur double emploi avec T'aphius est démontré, il n’y a aucune raison de faire entre Australorbis et Biomphalaria un choix difficile et arbitraire. Le choix de Biomphalaria serait d’autant plus étrange que la majorité des Planorbes de ce groupe n’a jamais été désignée sous ce nom, ce qui interdit d’invoquer en faveur de Biomphalaria le bénéfice de lusage. La solution la plus satisfaisante consiste 4 renoncer aussi bien 4 Biomphalaria qu’a Austral- orbis, au profit du nom le plus ancien, Taphius. C’est ce que je propose. Je propose : (1) Liinvalidation de Planorbina Haldeman, 1842, défini per Haldeman comme ayant de nombreux tours de spire presqu’égaux, et par conséquent synonyme de Anisus Studer, 1820, comme I|’a montré A. Zilch en 1959. Le nom Planorbina est devenu inutilisable lorsque Dall, 1905, lui a donné comme génotype P. olivaceus Spix, espéce dont les caractéres s’opposent a la définition de Planorbina par Haldeman lui-méme. ; (2) Le maintien de la validité de Taphius H. & A. Adams, 1855, correctement défini, constam- ment utilisé sans aucune contestation et considéré comme valide dans tous les Traités classiques de Malacologie, y compris, en dernier lieu, dans les Traités de J. Thiele et de A. Zilch (respective- ment 1931 et 1959). (3) L’invalidation des noms tels que Biomphalaria Preston, 1910, etc., qui d’aprés les études anatomiques de W. L. Paraense et N. Deslandes, sont devenus synonymes de Taphius H. & A. Adams, 1855. 254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature MORCH, 1852-53, CATALOGUS CONCHYLIORUM; PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO PLACE ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF WORKS, AND TO DESIGNATE A TYPE-SPECIES FOR PSEUDA- MUSSIUM MORCH, 1853 (PELECYPODA). Z.N.(S.) 1501 By T. Soot-Ryen (Oslo) The purpose of this application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to place O. A. L. Morch : Catalogus Conchyliorum quae reliquit D. Alphonso D’Aguirra & Gadea Comes de Yoldi, pts. I and II, Hafniae, 1852, 1853, on the Official List of Works approved as available for Zoological Nomenclature, and to decide that the type- species of Pseudamussium Morch, 1853 (pt. 2, p. 59) should be Pecten septem- radiatus Miiller, 1776 = Pecten pseudamusium Chemnitz, 1784, according to the view of Stewart, 1930 (p. 122). 2. The name Pseudamussium was first listed by Herrmannsen, 1847 (p. 340), with reference to Pseud-Amusium Klein, but without any species or other indication. This name is a nomen nudum. In 1853 Morch (p. 59) used Pseudamussium Klein in a generic sense and listed two species : glaber Linnaeus, with variation solaris Born, and septemradiatus Miiller with P. danicus Chemnitz, P. pseudamussium Chemnitz and P. adspersus Lamarck as synonyms. One of the two species, glaber Linnaeus or septemradiatus Miller must be the type of this nomenclatural unit. Kobelt, 1881 (p. 373) designated P. glaber Linnaeus as type-species, while Stewart, 1930 (p. 122) claims that P. septemradiatus Miiller must be the type-species by absolute tautonymy as Morch placed pseudamussium Chemnitz as a synonym. Chemnitz, 1784 (p. 298) used Klein’s (1753) name Pseud-Amusium but actually described septemradiatus Miller. 3. H. & A. Adams, 1858 (p. 553) used Pseudamussium Klein, listing no less than 21 species under this heading, amongst them glaber Linnaeus, septemradiatus Miiller, and hybridus Gmelin. Stoliczka, 1871 (p. 426) designated P. exoticus Chemnitz as type-species since it apparently is identical with Ostrea hybrida Gmelin, 1791. 4. North, 1951 (pp. 231-233) has discussed the nomenclatural problem of Pseudamussium Klein. He is of the opinion that Morch’s catalogue is not available for nomenclatural purposes, on the grounds that it is merely a sale catalogue and was probably not widely distributed. He discusses the type- designation by Kobelt and Stewart’s view of absolute tautonymy. North dates Pseudamussium from H. & A. Adams but rejects the designation made by Stoliczka of exoticus Chemnitz as type, on the grounds that the specific name exoticus cannot date from Chemnitz. The designation by Dall, 1898 (p. 751) of hybridus Gmelin, 1791, is accepted by North as valid. Grau, 1959 (pp. 57-63) discussed the problemmainly in accordance with the view of North. 5. As will be understood from the foregoing paragraph the supraspecific name Pseudamussium has been used for two quite different groups of pectinids by various authors depending on the dating of the name from Morch, 1853, Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 4. July 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 255 or H. & A. Adams, 1858. The essential question is therefore: is Mérch’s Yoldi Catalogue available for nomenclatural purposes or not ? 6. The question of the validity of Morch’s catalogue is very important as many of his supraspecific names are and have been in common use for a century. A brief examination of the two volumes shows that he named 20 gastropod groups and used 5 of Klein’s genera, further that he named 10 pelecypod groups and used 5 of Klein’s genera. This gives together 40 supraspecific names, which are familiar to malacologists and in use today, beside those names which have fallen into synonymy. In the interests of stability of nomenclature I highly recommend that Mérch’s catalogue may be made available for nomen- clatural use by the exercise of the plenary powers. 7. When Morch used the name Pseudamussium Klein, who in 1753 named a shell Pseud-amusium, a name later used by Chemnitz, 1784 (p. 298), he certainly knew that Chemnitz had used the name in another sense. The description and figures of Chemnitz represent the species described as Pecten septemradiatus by Miller, 1776, and Chemnitz’s references to Lister, 1685, and Klein, 1753, were erroneous. Chemnitz himself corrected his error in 1795, when he described the shell mentioned by Lister and Klein as Pecten exoticus. Therefore there seems to be no doubt about the fact that the real species pseudamusium of Chemnitz, 1784, is septemradiatus Miller. Stewart’s view that this species is the type by absolute tautonymy, however, is wrong because Chemnitz is not considered to be a binominal author and his specific names are therefore not available (Opinion 184). 8. Referring to what is stated above I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : (1) to use its plenary powers : (a) to validate the work of Morch, 1853-1858, Catalogus Conchyliorum quae reliquit D. Alphonso D’Aguirra & Gadea Comes de Yoldi, Pts. I and II, Hafniae, 1852, 1853, in spite of the fact that this work was not published for the purposes of zoological nomen- clature ; (b) to set aside all designations of type-species for the generic name Pseudamussium Morch, 1853, made prior to the Ruling now requested and, having done so, to designate Pecten septem- radiatus Miiller, 1776, to be the type-species of that genus ; (2) to place the generic name Pseudamussium Morch, 1853 (gender : neuter), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Pecten septemradiatus Miiller, 1776, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name septemradiatus Miiller, 1776 (p. 248), as published in the binomen Pecten septemradiatus (type-species of Pseudamussium Morch, 1853) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES Adams, Henry, & Arthur Adams, 1858. The Genera of Recent Mollusca, arranged according to their Organisation, vol. II 256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Chemnitz, J. H., 1784. Anmerkungen zum Geschlechte der Kammuscheln. In Martini-Chemnitz : Neues systematisches Conchylien-cabinet, vol. 7 Chemnitz, J. H., 1795. Einleitung zum Geschlechte Kammuscheln, bid., vol. 11 Dall, W. H., 1898. Contributions to the Tertiary Fauna of Florida. Trans. Wagner Free Inst. Sci. 3 Gmelin, J. F., 1791. Systema Naturae per Regna Tria Naturae. Ed. XIII, vol. 1 Grau, Gilbert, 1959. Pectinidae of the Eastern Pacific. Allan Hancock Pacific Exp., 23 Herrmannsen, A. N., 1847-49. Indicis Generum Malacozoorum Primordia Klein, J. T., 1753. Tentamen methodi Ostracologica sive Disposito Naturalis Kobelt, Wilhelm, 1881. Jilustriertes Conchylienbuch, vol. 2 Lister, Martin, 1685. Historiae sive Synopsis Methodicae Conchyliorum Miiller, O. F., 1776. Zoologiae Danicae Prodromus North, F. K., 1951. On the Type of Pseudamussium and other Notes on Pectinid Nomenclature. Journ. Paleont., 25 Stewart, R. B., 1930. Gabb’s California Cretaceous and Tertiary Type Lamellibranchs. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad., Spec. Publ. 3 Stoliczka, Ferdinand, 1871. Cretaceous Fauna of Southern India, vol. 3. Geol. Surv. Palaeontologica Indica JUL 1962 PURCHAS 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, F.C.C.S., A.L.A. Scientific Controller: W. E. China, C.B.E., Se.D. Scientific Assistant : Margaret Spillane, B.Sc. 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 Page Endothyra bowmani Phillips, [1846] v. Endothyra bowmani Brown, 1843 (Foraminifera) (L. G. Henbest and S. E. Rosovskaya) ... 199 Boa Linnaeus, 1758 (Reptilia) ; Proposed designation of a type- species under the plenary powers with addition of Constrictor Laurenti, 1768, to the Official List (Hobart M. Smith)... as. POE Culex aegypti Linnaeus, 1762 (Insecta, Diptera) ; Proposed valida- tion and interpretation under the plenary powers of the species so named (P. F. Mattingly, Alan Stone and Kenneth L. Knight) 208 Request for a Ruling that Jordan and Evermann did not designate type-species validly in either their work dated 1896-1900 or that of 1896 (W. E. China) ae ne ae 220 Pachyodon nucleus Brown, 1843 (Pelecypoda) ; Proposed ines under the plenary powers (G. M. Bennison) oe 230 Forty-seven genera of Decapoda (Crustacea) ; ms addition to the Official List (L. B. Holthuis) ave 232 Morch, 1852-53, Catalogus Conchyliorum ; Proposed use of the plenary powers to place on the Official List of Works and to designate a type-species for Pseudamussium Morch, 1853 (Pelecypoda) (T. Soot-Ryen) ane ae vit 254 CONTENTS (continued from inside back wrapper) Comments Discussion of the case “Aphis Linnaeus, 1758, its type-species and the family-group name derived from it ’’ (Louise M. Russell ; Clyde F. Smith ; Mortimer D. Leonard ; George F. Knowlton ; George F. Schaefer ; Frej Ossiannilsson ; ALN. 2 ce Miriam A. Palmer ; M. E. MacGillivray) .. Comment on the proposed validation of Panopea Ménard de la Groye, 1807 (Bivalvia) (Robert eee) Comment on the proposal to preserve the family-group name XENOPHORIDAE Deshayes, 1864 (Robert Robertson) ... is Comment on the proposed validation of Pionenolane Ws 1910 (P.-H. Fischer) © 1962. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by Mercatre & Cooper Limited, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2 Page 195 229 — 231 253 “tins ee ed erly Se ene Me “We Volume 19. Part 5. 10th September, 1962 pp. 257-336. THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE CoNTENTS Page Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published _in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature aa ay ar ar | Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 257 (continued inside back wrapper) 14 SEP 1962 PURCHASED 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 1962 Price Three Pounds (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Professor James Chester Brapitey (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A. (12 August, 1953) Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amarat (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12 August 1953) a = oma : Dr. W. E. Canya (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amarat (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12 August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. Chester BrapiEy (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) Dr. L. B. Hotruvis (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. Mitier (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (29 October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Pranti (Ndrodni Musewm v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30 October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kiunentr (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 TorTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “G. Doria”’, Genova, Italy) (16 December 1954) Dr. Per. Brrxcx (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 Heme (London, England) (23 July 1958) Dr. Henning Lemcue (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Mr. Norman Denbigh Rimey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Tadeusz JaczEwsx1 (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Robert Mrrrens (Natur-Musewm u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Erich Martin Herre (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitdt zu Berlin, Germany) (23 July 1958) Dr. D. V. OsrvcHev (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-71, USSR) (5 November 1958) Professor Tohru Ucutpa (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. = G. rg (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) (9 June 1 Dr. N.S. Borcusentus (Institute of Zoology, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R.) (28 September 1961) Dr. W. E. Cuuya (British Museum (Natural History), London) (21 May 1962) (Acting Secretary) Prof. E. Brxprer (Museum d’ Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962) a OF 4c niet? BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 19, Part 5 (pp. 257-336) 10th September, 1962 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 Ictonyx Kaup, 1835, and striatus (Bradypus) Perry, 1810 (Mammalia). Z.N.(S.) 758. (2) Designation of a neotype for Rana fasciata Burchell, 1824 (Amphibia). Z.N.(S.) 1253. (3) Validation of elegans (Arizona) Kennicott, 1859 (Reptilia). Z.N.(S.) 1454. (4) Designation of a type-species for Hucypris Vavra, 1891 (Crustacea, Ostracoda). Z.N.(S.) 1462. (5) Validation of rostrata (Aelia) Boheman, 1852 (Insecta, Hemiptera). Z.N.(S.) 1490. (6) Validation of Tetrastichus Haliday, 1844 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1503. (7) Designation of a type-species for Dicellomus Hall, 1871 (Brachiopoda). Z.N.(S.) 1504. (8) Validation of Ligulops Hall, 1872 (Brachiopoda). Z.N.(S.) 1505. (9) Designation of a type-species for Orbiculoidea d’Orbigny, 1847 (Brachiopoda). Z.N.(S.) 1506. (10) Suppression of piperita (Cypraea) Gray, 1825 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 1510. (11) Validation of Jovellania Bayle, 1879 (Cephalopoda). Z.N.(S.) 1511. (12) Suppression of three specific names of Spanish Palaeozoic Crinoidea. Z.N.(S.) 1513. (13) Validation of Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 1524. (14) Validation of pHasmIDAE (Insecta, Orthoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1167. c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA, Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary, London, 8.W.7, England. International Commission on June 1962 Zoological Nomenclature. 258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAME PUPA RODING, 1798. Z.N.(S.) 581 By Robert Robertson (Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia) Henning Lemche’s application (1961, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 372-373) for suppression of the generic name Pupa Réding, 1798, discusses an excellent example of the havoc created in malacological nomenclature by Opinion 96 of the Inter- national Commission, published in 1926. This Opinion, ruling that Réding’s names in the Museum Boltenianum (1798) are nomenclatorially available, has done more to disrupt stability and universality of the scientific names of molluscs than any other action of the Commission. Those malacologists who have abided by this unfortunate ruling have been obliged to adopt a large number of Réding’s generic and specific names. Over the last 35 years many of these names have come to replace other names widely used in the nineteenth century. Lemche’s application raises a matter of principle—whether, at this late date, attempts should be made to return to nineteenth century nomenclature one generic name at a time. Lemche has claimed ‘“ that the name Pupa has already been established for [a] genus of opisthobranchs in about one-third of the—fortunately restricted—literature on the group...” No distinction was made between the recent and the old literature (7.e., published before 1926). I have made a survey of the recently published literature on marine molluscs of the Indo-Pacific. The following malacologists have, disregarding or overlooking the ruling of the Commission in Opinion 96, used the name Solidula Fischer v. Waldheim, 1807, since 1926: Faustino (1928, Philippines) Grant & Gale (1931, U.S.A.) Thiele (1931, Germany) Dautzenberg & Bouge (1933, France) Hirase (1936, Japan) Adam & Leloup (1938, Belgium) Thorson (1940, Denmark) Allan (1950, 1959, Australia) The following malacologists have abided by the ruling of the Commission in Opinion 96, and since 1926 have used the name Pupa Réding, 1798 : Kuroda (1928, 1941, ete., Japan) Cotton & Godfrey (1932, Australia) Tredale (1936, Australia) Powell (1937, 1946, 1957, New Zealand) Hatai (1941, Japan) Winckworth (1945, Great Britain) Kira (1945, 1955, Japan) Edmondson (1946, Hawaii) Habe (1950, 1958, etc., Japan) Solem (1953, U.S.A.) Dodge (1955, U.S.A.) Itoigawa (1958, Japan) Tinker (1958, Hawaii) Zilch (1959, Germany) Thus, only one malacologist (Allan) appears to have used the name Solidula since 1940, while twelve have used Pupa. ll this new literature cannot fairly be claimed to be of “ restricted ”’ distribution. Since 1926, eight malacologists have used Solidula and fourteen have used Pupa. Dautzenberg & Bouge, Hirase, and Adam & Leloup, who used Solidula, may have uncritically followed Thiele (1931, Handb. syst. Weicht.1 : 379 ; ibid., 1935, 2 : 1151) who overlooked Opinion 51 of the Commission ruling that the Museum Calonnianum (1797) is nomenclatorially unavailable. The name Puwpa appears in this invalid Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 259 work, and Thiele therefore considered Puwpa Réding a junior homonym, and used Solidula instead. Zilch (1959, Handb. Paldozool., Euthyneura, p. 9) was aware of Thiele’s oversight and adopted the name Pupa Réding. Zilch’s handbook no doubt will be widely followed. Further search in the literature published since 1926 undoubtedly would reveal even more usage for Pupa, and but very little more for Solidula, especially after 1940. The name Solidula was widely used in the nineteenth century and before 1926. However, the following used the name Pupa for the opisthobranch genus before 1926: Suter (1913, New Zealand) Pilsbury (1917, 1918, U.S.A.) Mant (1923, U.S.A.) As Lemche has shown, the name Pupa has been applied to two unrelated genera of pulmonate gastropods, as well as recently to the opisthobranch genus (Pupa Réding). Lemche alludes to the land snails known under the name Pupa Draparnaud, 1801. As long ago as 1918, Pilsbry (Man. Conch. Ser. 2, 24 : 262, 267 ; ibid., 1920, 25 : 370) considered Pwpa Draparnaud a junior homonym of Pupa Réding, and a synonym of Abida “‘ Leach” [Turton], 1831. Draparnaud’s genus originally included, in addition to Abida, species of Pupilla, Clausilia, and Balea. The European land snails known under the name Pupa in the nineteenth century are now grouped in Abida (Family ‘“ cHONDRINIDAE”’ [=Subfamily GASTROCOPTINAE]) and Pupilla Fleming, 1828 (Family PuPmiima£, Subfamily PUPILLINAE). (See Zilch, 1959, Handb. Paldozool., Huthyneura, pp. 156, 165.) Pupa Lamarck, 1801, has been invalidated by the Commission in Direction 72, and a senior synonym, Cerion Réding, 1798, has been validated in Opinion 119 (as well as in Opinion 96). The latter name pertains to a genus of West Indian land snails. Lemche proposes suppression of Pupa Réding for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. Lemche also proposes suppression of the Family name PuPIDAE Winckworth, 1945. If the name Pupa Réding is suppressed, a student or non-taxonomist confronted with the names Puwpa and PUPIDAE will face even more complications than he would at present. The names would no longer be correctly applied to gastropods of any kind. Recently published literature in which the name Pupa pertains to an opisthobranch genus would be as confusing as the old literature in which Pupa pertains to one of various genera of pulmonates. There seems little likelihood of confusion resulting from use of the name Pwpa for a genus of Indo-Pacific marine opisthobranchs, even if the name has, in the past, been used for various land snails (primarily of Europe and the West Indies). Following Zilch (1959, Handb. Paldozool., Euthyneura, pp. 5-9), Pupa Réding is classified in the Family acTEONI- DAE, Subfamily acrEonrnaE. Thus the Family name PuPrIpAE Winckworth, 1945, need not be used. In my opinion, suppression of the name Pupa Réding at this late date would only add to the confusion already existing. Further, I believe that the plenary powers should be used to suppress obscure but otherwise valid names before they become widely used, not after. Réding’s names should never have been allowed to replace other names widely used in the nineteenth century but it is too late now tointerfere. (Lemche, 1961, Bull.zool. Nomencl.18 : 303, has expressed an identical opinion on a parallel case.) Accordingly, I would urge that the Commission take no action on the petition to suppress Pupa Réding. Stability and universality of nomenclature would seem better served by application of Opinion 96 and of Article 23, the Law of Priority. By C. A. Fleming (New Zealand Geological Survey, Lower Hutt) I wish to comment on Dr. H. Lemche’s proposal that the generic name Pupa Réding be suppressed under the plenary powers. The name Puwpa has been in regular use by New Zealand workers on Mollusca for 50 years and it would cause just as much confusion to suppress it as to validate it. I am therefore opposed to the proposal. 260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature By D. F. McMichael (The Australian Museum, Sydney, Australia) I wish to record my opposition to the proposal for the suppression of the generic name Pupa Réding, 1798, and of the family name PuPIDAE for the opisthobranch group which includes Pupa Réding. The names in the Museum Boltenianum have now been known to be acceptable nomenclatorially since the year 1926, when Opinion 96 was published. During the intervening 36 years these names have, for the most part, gained wide acceptance among active malacologists and have appeared in numerous reference works, taxo- nomic studies and check-lists. Pwpa Roding is clearly established as the name for an opisthobranch genus in the minds of the majority of recent workers and stability of nomenclature would not be aided by its suppression in favour of the abandoned name Solidula. A more reasonable approach towards achieving stability would be for workers generally to adopt those Roding names which are valid (as they have been clearly analysed by Winckworth) and to refrain from using the junior synonyms of Lamarck and later workers, a course of action which has been widely adopted in Australia. The case of the family name PUPIDAE is a little different, for the name has been used until recent years by a few workers for the land snail family, though not widely amongst workers on terrestrial molluscs. In fact, the name PUPIDAE is not listed by Baker* as apertaining to the PUPILLIDAE in the restricted sense, but as a synonym of CERIONIDAE. However, it cannot be denied that the vernacular term pupoid is still used by some workers for the small pupillid snails, and so some purpose might be served by not using PUPIDAE for the marine opisthobranch group. However, as an alternative name for the land snails, PUPILLIDAE, and the vernacular ‘‘ pupillid’’’ have gained general acceptance among terrestrial malaco- logists, and since PUPIDAE has appeared in a number of publications referring to the Opisthobranch family, it would seem that matters might be resolved in the simplest manner by confirming the names PUPILLIDAE for the land snails, PUPIDAE for the opisthobranchs and letting the old, invalid usages disappear with the passage of time. By Myra Keen (Stanford University, California, U.S.A.) The proposal that Pupa Réding, 1798, be suppressed seems to me not to be in the interests of stability. It is true that the name has been used in two or more widely different senses, but suppression will not erase this fact. No problem is involved other than the matter of inconvenience generated by the Commission’s acceptance of the Réding work in Opinion 96, published in 1926. Since that date, workers have more and more consistently adopted the Réding generic names. To suppress them piece-meal at this time only adds to confusion. I therefore would urge that this proposal be rejected. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF BIOMPHALARIA PRESTON, 1910. Z.N.(S.) 1392 (see this volume, pages 39-41) By R. Hubendick (Naturhistoriska Museet, Gotenborg, Sweden) Referring to Dr. C. A. Wright’s application to the Commission to place Biomphalaria on the Official List of Generic Names and to suppress certain synonyms I wish to give the following comment. I have for many years been working with Planorbidae both as a taxonomist and as an expert on problems concerning Bilharzia control. In both connections I have felt the urgent need of getting rid of the nomenclatural confusion of the * 1956, Nautilus, 69, pp. 128-139. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 261 genus under consideration. As this genus has a considerable practical importance and has to be dealt with not only by zoologists but also by public health workers, etc., the best solution would be the one suggested by Dr. Wright. By B. G. Peters (Imperial College of Science and Technology, Field Station, I wish to support the four requests, (1) to (4) listed on page 41 of Dr. Wright’s paper. I do so, not as having special knowledge of the systematics of gastropods but as a parasitologist whose tasks are made more difficult by the present confusion in the nomenclature of these vectors of Schistosoma mansoni. By E. Binder (Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) J’approuve entiérement la proposition de Dr. C. A. Wright d’adopter officielle- ment le nom Biomphalaria Preston et de supprimer les synonymes antérieurs, pour les raisons exposées par l’auteur. Qu’il me soit permis de remarquer que cette manoeuvre n’aurait pas été nécessaire si les taxonomistes ne s’étaient pas excessivement hatés d’imposer aux non-spécialistes des noms de genres dont ils ignoraient encore eux-mémes le contenu exact. Il n’y avait pas grand inconvénient & laisser employer encore, Planorbis avait sans doute Vinconvénient, du point de vue des spécialistes, d’étre un peu vague, mais il est moins grave et moins contraire & la logique d’employer un terme imprécis qu’un terme qui a des chances d’étre faux. By H. J. O’D. Burke-Gaffney (Bureau of Hygiene and Tropical Diseases, London) I am neither a malacologist nor an expert taxonomist, but I have a special interest in the clarity of nomenclature of snail hosts of schistosomes in view of my responsibility for publication of the Tropical Diseases Bulletin. I believe Mr. Wright’s proposals add considerably to that clarity and thereby reduce much existing confusion for readers of papers on this subject : and because of their retention, also, of some present well-known names, I consider that the proposals will be particularly welcome to those without specialized taxonomic knowledge who are, nevertheless, constantly concerned in referring to the molluscan hosts concerned. From the standpoint of an editor of Scientific publications I therefore support Mr. Wright’s application. By V. de V. Clark (Research Laboratory, Causeway, Salisbury, Rhodesia &: N. yasaland) We have studied Dr. Wright’s proposals to the Commission to suppress the generic considerable confusion among all but malacologists. We have had little experience with the South American forms referred to by Dr. Wright but we are prepared to accept his opinion based on his widespread knowledge, especially when it is backed by Drs. Barbosa, Hubendick and Abdel- Malek (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (13) 4 : 371-375, 1961). The adoption of his principles will lead to the standardisation of nomenclature in this group which has enough confusing taxonomic features without additional difficulties due to names, 262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 636 ENCRINUS LAMARCK, 1801 (CRINOIDEA); VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS IN ITS ACCUSTOMED SENSE RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers : (a) the following generic names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy : (i) Encrinus Andreae, 1763 ; (ii) Encrinus Andreae, 1776 ; (iii) Encrinus Blumenbach, 1779; (iv) Encrinus Blumenbach, 1788 ; (v) all other uses of the generic name Encrinus prior to that by Lamarck, 1801; (b) all designations of type-species for the genus Encrinus Lamarck, 1801, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Encrinus liliiformis Lamarck, 1801 is hereby designated to be 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) Encrinus Lamarck, 1801 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designa- tion under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Encrinus liliiformis Lamarck, 1801 (Class Crinoidea) (Name No. 1483) ; (b) Cenocrinus Thomson, 1864 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Jsis asteria Linnaeus, 1767 (Class Crinoidea) (Name No. 1484) ; (c) Umbellularia Lamarck, 1801 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Jsis encrinus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Anthozoa) (Name No. 1485) ; (d) Boltenia Savigny, 1816 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation by Huntsman, 1912, Vorticella ovifera Linnaeus, 1767 (Class Ascidiacea) (Name No. 1486). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) liliiformis Lamarck, 1801, as published in the binomen Encrinus lilii- formis (type-species of Encrinus Lamarck, 1801) (Name No. 1820) ; (b) asterta Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Isis asteria (type- species of Cenocrinus Thomson, 1864) (Name No. 1821) ; (c) encrinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Isis encrinus (type- species of Umbellularia Lamarck, 1801) (Name No. 1822) ; (d) ovifera Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Vorticella ovifera (type-species of Boltenia Savigny, 1816) (Name No. 1823). (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) Encrinus Schultze, 1760 (unavailable because published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes) (Name No. 1562) ; (b) Encrinus Andreae, 1763 (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a)(i) above) (Name No. 1563) ; Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 263 (c) Encrinus Andreae, 1776 (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a)(ii) above) (Name No. 1564) ; (d) Encrinus Blumenbach, 1779 (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a)(iii) above) (Name No. 1565) ; (e) Encrinus Blumenbach, 1788 (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a)(iv) above) (Name No. 1566) ; (f) Encrinus, all other uses of, prior to Lamarck, 1801 (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a)(v) above) (Name No. 1567). (4) 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) groenlandica Lamarck, 1801, as published in the binomen Umbellularia groenlandica (a junior objective synonym of Isis encrinus Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 701) ; (b) caputmedusae Lamarck, 1801, as published in the combination Encrinus caputmedusae (a junior objective synonym of Isis asteria Linnaeus, 1767) (Name No. 702) ; (c) fusiformis Savigny, 1816, as published in the binomen Boltenia fusiformis (a junior objective synonym of Vorticella bolteni Linnaeus, 1771) (Name No. 703). (6) The following work is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature with the Title Number 64 : Schultze (C. F.), 1760, Betrachtung der Versteinerten Seesterne und Ihrer Theile (a work in which the author did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature). (7) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) UMBELLULARUDAE (correction of UMBELLULAE) Lindahl, 1874 (type- genus Umbellularia Lamarck, 1801) (Name No. 327) ; (b) ENCRINIDAE (correction of ENCRINIENS) Dujardin & Hupé, 1862 (type- genus Encrinus Lamarck, 1801) (Name No. 328). (8) 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) UMBELLULAE Lindahl, 1874 (an incorrect original spelling for UMBELLU- LARIIDAE) (Name No. 356) ; (b) UMBELLULEAE KoOlliker, 1875 (an incorrect spelling for UMBELLULARIIDAE) (Name No. 357) ; (c) ENcRINIENS Dujardin & Hupé, 1862 (an incorrect original spelling for ENCRINIDAE) (Name No. 358). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 434) The present case was brought to the attention of the Office of the Commission by the late Dr. Th. Mortensen in 1932, when he made an application for the validation of Encrinus Schultze, 1760, with designation of Encrinus liliiformis Lamarck, 1801, as type-species. Dr. Mortensen’s proposals had the support 264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of a large number of specialists in Crinoidea. Since Dr. Mortensen was not himself a specialist in Crinoids the Secretary of the Commission undertook to find a specialist in the group who would submit the case to the Commission. In spite, however, of a published request for information (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 216-217) no such specialist was found. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was published several times without eliciting any objection. A report on the status of Encrinus was finally prepared in the Commission’s Office by Miss Margaret Spillane, and was published on 5 December 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 65-68. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56). No objection was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 2 October 1961, the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (61)26 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 67-68. At the close of the Voting Period on 2 January 1962, the state of the Voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-two (22), received in the following order: Evans, Holthuis, Hemming, Munroe, Vokes, Mayr, Hering, Obruchev, Riley, Jaczewski, Uchida, Lemche, Brinck, Bradley, Alvarado, do Amaral, Tortonese, Mertens, Miller, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Poll. Negative Votes—one (1): Key. Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Boschma, Prantl. Commissioner Stoll returned a late affirmative vote. On 1 December 1961 the following note was sent to Commissioners together with a Voting Paper (O.M.)(61)3 : “The Report on the generic name Encrinus was published in Bulletin 18 : 65-68, and on 2 October Commissioners were asked to vote on the proposals there presented on Voting Paper (61)26. In returning their votes both Dr. Holthuis and Dr. Key have suggested that it would be wise to suppress ‘all uses of the generic name Hncrinus prior to that by Lamarck, 1801’. The Secretary agrees that this would be an additional safeguard to the continued use of Hncrinus in its accustomed sense. Commissioners are now asked to express their opinion on this course on the accompanying One-Month Voting Paper.” At the close of the prescribed Voting Period on 1 January 1962 the state of the Voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—seventeen (17), received in the following order : Evans, Holthuis, Hering, Riley, Uchida, Tortonese, Mayr, Vokes, Jaczewski, Obruchev, Brinck, Alvarado, Mertens, Miller, Bonnet, Kiihnelt, Poll. Negative Votes—none (0). Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Boschma, Hemming, Prantl. Commissioners Lemche, Munroe, Stoll, Key and do Amaral returned late affirmative votes. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 265 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : asteria, Isis, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1288 Boltenia Savigny, 1816, Mém. Anim. s. Vertébr. (2) : 87 caputmedusae, Encrinus, Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. s. Vertébr. : 379 Cenocrinus Thomson, 1864, The Intellectual Observer 6 : 2 ENCRINIDAE Dujardin & Hupé, 1862, Hist. nat. Zoophytes, Echinodermes : 161 ENCRINIENS Dujardin & Hupé, 1862, an incorrect original spelling for ENORINIDAE q.v. Encrinus Andreae, 1763, Briefe aus der Schweiz (Hannoverisches Magazin) Encrinus Andreae, 1776, ibid. (separate) Encrinus Blumenbach, 1779, Handb. Naturgesch. (ed. 1) : 435 Encrinus Blumenbach, 1788, Handb. Naturgesch. (ed. 3) : 503 Encrinus Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. s. Vertébr. : 379 Encrinus Schultze, 1760, Betrachtung der Versteinerten Seesterne und Ihrer Theile : 21 encrinus, Isis, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 800 fusiformis, Boltenia, Savigny, 1816, Mém. Anim. s. Vertébr. (2) : 87 groenlandica, Umbellularia, Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. s. Vertébr. : 380 lilitformis, Encrinus, Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. s. Vertébr. : 379 ovifera, Vorticella, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1319 UMBELLULAE Lindahl, 1874, an incorrect original spelling for UMBELLULARIIDAE q.v. Umbellularia Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. s. Vertébr. : 380 UMBELLULARUDAE Lindahl, 1874, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (4)13 : 258 UMBELLULEAE KoOlliker, 1875, Fetschr. Phys.-Med. Ges. Wiirzburg : 10 The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species for a genus concerned in the present Ruling : For Boltenia Savigny, 1816 : Huntsman, 1912, Trans. canad. Inst. 9 : 133 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Papers (61)26 and (O.M.)(61)3 were cast as set out above, that the proposals set out in those Voting Papers have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 636. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 25 January 1962 266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 637 ANOLIS NANNODES COPE, 1864 (REPTILIA) ; RULING ON LECTOTYPE RULING.—The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) nannodes Cope, 1864, as published in the binomen Anolis nannodes, as defined by the lectotype designated by Smith & Follett, 1960, Brit. Mus. nat. Hist. No. 1946.8.5.66 (Name No. 1824) ; (b) intermedius Peters, 1863, as published in the binomen Anolis intermedius (Name No. 1825) ; (c) laeviventris Wiegmann, 1834, as published in the binomen Anolis laeviventris (Name No. 1826). HISTORY OF THE CASE (ZN(S.) 1189) A request for a Ruling on whether a lectotype had been validly selected for the nominal species Anolis nannodes Cope was submitted to the Office of the Commission by Professor Hobart M. Smith and Dr. W. I. Follett in December 1956. A revised manuscript was sent to the printer on 28 March 1960 and was published on 5 December 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 75-78. No objection was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 2 October 1961 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (61)28 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 78. At the close of the prescribed Voting Period on 2 January 1962 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order: Evans, Holthuis, Hemming, Munroe, Vokes, Mayr, Hering, Obruchev, Riley, Uchida, Lemche, Brinck, Bradley, Alvarado, do Amaral, Key, Tortonese, Jaczewski, Mertens, Miller, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Poll. Negative Votes—none (0). Voting Papers not returned—two (2) : Boschma, Prantl. Commissioner Stoll returned a late affirmative vote. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on the Official List by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : intermedius, Anolis, Peters, 1863, Monatsb. Akad. Wiss. Berlin : 143 laeviventris, Anolis, Wiegmann, 1834, Herpetologia Mexicana : 47 nannodes, Anolis, Cope, 1864, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 16 : 173 The following is the original reference for the designation of a lectotype for a species concerned in the present Ruling : For Anolis nannodes Cope, 1864 : Hobart M. Smith & W. I. Follett, 1960, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 78 Bull, zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 267 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (61)28 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 ia the present Opinion No. 637. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 25 January 1962 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF AMMONITES LAEVI- GATUS J. DE C. SOWERBY, 1827,IN TWO DISTINCT SENSES. Z.N.(S.) 1203 (see present volume, pages 35-38) By R. V. Melville (British Embassy, Paris) I write in support of the application by Dr. D. T. Donovan and Mr. C. W. Wright. No possible service could be done to the stability of nomenclature or to the convenience of palaeontologists by reviving the binomen Ammonites laevigata Lamarck, 1822, or by attempting to give this name an objective meaning. On the other hand, both the species designated as Ammonites laevigatus by J. de C. Sowerby are well known, and in each case the specific name laevigatus has been used far more commonly than any other name. Apart from the fact that both species have smooth shells, there is no close resemblance between them, for the Gault Beudanticeras is more compressed and attains a much larger size than the Liassic Cymbites. In spite of the work of many revisers, there probably exist numerous similar instances of primary homonymy between specific names in Ammonites, especially if Quenstedt’s trinominal names are taken into account. The present case is typical of many of these in that the strict application of the Law of Homonymy would upset stability and result in unnecessary name-changing. By R. Casey (Geological Survey and Museum, London) I write in support of the proposals of Dr. D. T. Donovan and Mr. C. W. Wright, which are in the best interests of a stable nomenclature. This case is discussed in my Monograph of the Ammonoidea of the Lower Greensand, Part III (1961), pp. 157-160, published by the Palaeontographical Society. 268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 638 LEPIDOGASTER COUCHII KENT, 1883 (PISCES); SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name couchit Kent, 1883, as published in the binomen Lepidogaster [sic] cowchii, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Apletodon Briggs, 1955 (gender: masculine), type- species, by monotypy, Lepadogaster microcephalus Brook, 1889, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1487. (3) The specific name microcephalus Brook, 1889, as published in the binomen Lepadogaster microcephalus (type-species of Apletodon Briggs, 1955) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1827. (4) The generic name Lepidogaster Kent, 1883 (an incorrect spelling for Lepadogaster Gouan, 1770) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1568. (5) The specific name couchii Kent, 1883, as published in the binomen Lepidogaster [sic] couchii (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. 704. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1330) The present case was submitted to the Office of the Commission in March 1958. It was sent to the printer on 27 June 1960 and was published on 5 December 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 79-80. Public Notice of the possible use of the 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). No objection was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 2 October 1961 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (61)29 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 80. At the close of the prescribed Voting Period on 2 January 1962 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty (20), received in the following order: Evans, Holthuis, Hemming, Munroe, Vokes, Mayr, Hering, Obruchev, Riley, Uchida, Brinck, Alvarado, do Amaral, Key, Jaczewski, Tortonese, Mertens, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Poll. Negative Votes—three (3): Lemche, Bradley, Miller. Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Boschma, Prantl. Commissioner Stoll returned a late affirmative vote. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 269 The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes : Dr. H. Lemche (6.xi.61) : The species in question does not appear to have any really well established name. The reasons given by the applicant for rejecting “ couchii”’ are merely inadequacies in the description—which have never been considered decisive in nomenclature. Prof. J. Chester Bradley (10.xi.61) : I see no warrant here for use of the plenary powers. No confusion exists. No-one questions the identity of couchit ; Kent made an honest attempt to differentiate it ; his description was no worse than many that are accepted ; Brook thought that in microcephalus he was creating a synonym. A neotype for couchii is all that is needed to give it firm foundation. 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 : Apletodon Briggs, 1955, Stanford Ichth. Bull. 6 : 22, 25 couchii, Lepidogaster, Kent, 1883, Handb. Marine Freshw. Fishes Brit. Is. : 55-56 Lepidogaster Kent, 1883, Handb. Marine Freshw. Fishes Brit. Is. : 55-56 microcephalus, Lepadogaster, Brook, 1889, Proc. roy. phys. Soc. Edinburgh 10 : 166, pl. 7, figs. 14 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (61)29 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. 638. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 26 January 1962 270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 639 WOEHRMANNIA BOEHM, 1895 (GASTROPODA); DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Woehrmannia Boehm, 1895, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Woehrmannia boehmi Kittl, 1899, is hereby designated to be the type of that genus. (2) The generic name Woehrmannia Boehm, 1895 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Woehr- mannia boehmi Kittl, 1899, ie hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1488. (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) boehmi Kittl, 1899, as published in the binomen Woehrmannia boehmi (type-species of Woehrmannia Boehm, 1895) (Name No. 1828) ; (b) cirridioides Kittl, 1894, as published in the binomen Huomphalus cirridioides (Name No. 1829). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1346) The present case was submitted to the Office of the Commission in April 1958 by Dr. L. R. Cox. This application was sent to the printer on 28 March 1960 and was published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 81-82 on 5 December 1960. Public Notice of the possible use of the 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. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 2 October 1961 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (61)30 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 81-82. At the close of the prescribed Voting Period on 2 January 1962 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-two (22), received in the following order: Evans, Holthuis, Hemming, Munroe, Vokes, Mayr, Hering, Obruchev, Riley, Uchida, Jaczewski, Lemche, Brinck, Bradley, Alvarado, do Amaral, Key, Tortonese, Mertens, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Poll. Negative Votes—one (1): Miller. Voting Papers not returned—two (2) : Boschma, Prantl. Commissioner Stoll returned a late affirmative vote. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : boehmi, Woehrmannia, Kittl, 1899, Ann. naturhist. Hofmus. Wien 14 : 19 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 271 cirridioides, Euomphalus, Kittl, 1894, Jb. geol. Reichsanst. 44 : 117, pl. 1, fig. 22 Woehrmannia Boehm, 1895, Palaeontographica 42 : 227 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (61)30 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. 639. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 29 January 1962 272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 640 EUCERAPHIS WALKER, 1870 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA) ; DESIGNA- TION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Huceraphis Walker, 1870, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Aphis punctipennis Zetterstedt, 1828, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus. (2) The generic name Euceraphis Walker, 1870 (gender : feminine), type- species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Aphis punctipennis Zetterstedt, 1828, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1489. (3) The specific name punctipennis Zetterstedt, 1828, as published in the binomen Aphis punctipennis (type-species of Huceraphis Walker, 1870) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1830. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1363) A preliminary draft of the present case was jointly presented by Dr. D. Hille Ris Lambers and Mr. H. L. G. Stroyan in May 1955. Having been slightly amended the application was sent to the printer on 28 March 1960 and was published on 5 December 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 83-84. Public Notice of the possible use of the 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. Letters of support for the proposal were received from Dr. F. Ossiannilsson and Dr. Clyde F. Smith (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 194). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 2 October 1961 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (61)31 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 84. At the close of the prescribed Voting Period on 2 January 1962 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order: Evans, Holthuis, Hemming, Munroe, Vokes, Mayr, Hering, Obruchev, Riley, Uchida, Lemche, Brinck, Bradley, Alvarado, do Amaral, Key, Jaczewski, Tortonese, Mertens, Miller, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Poll. Negative Votes—none (0). Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Boschma, Prantl. Commissioner Stoll returned a late affirmative vote. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : Euceraphis Walker, 1870, Zoologist (2) 5 : 2001 punctipennis, Aphis, Zetterstedt, 1828, Ins. Lapp. (1) : 559 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 273 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (61)31 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. 640. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 29 January 1962 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE FAMILY NAME BASED ON APHIS. Z.N.(S.) 881 (see vol. 18, pages 177-180 and vol. 19, pages 195-198) By D. Hille Ris Lambers (Bennekom, The Netherlands) It appears that competent authorities agree that the word “aphis”’ is not known in classical Greek or Latin and that there is disagreement whether the genitive “‘ aphios ”’ in late mediaeval dictionaries is an error or not. Linnaeus, the first author to use the generic name Aphis, used ‘“‘Aphides ”’ repeatedly as a plural. From the point of nomenclature any combination of letters can, with some exceptions that are not relevant, be used as a generic name. I move that the generic name Aphis L., 1758, be considered an arbitrary combination of letters, and that the stem “‘Aphid-’’, introduced by Linnaeus, the inventor of the generic name Aphis, be accepted. This automatically leads to the family name APHIDIDAE. I further recommend that, whenever there is a difference of opinion on the choice of stem for the formation of family names, the International Commission should let itself by guided primarily by such indication of a stem as the author who introduced the relevant generic name gave, even if this should be in conflict with classical Latin and Greek. Only in those cases where no indication of a stem by the author of the relevant generic name is available should other arguments be taken into consideration. By James B. Kring (The Connecticut Agricultural Experimental Station, New Haven, Connecticut) While I realize the due date for comment on this case is past, I should still like to comment in favour of the family name Aphidae for this group of insects. It is the only logical application of the rules, where Aphis is used as the base of the family name. I recommend that name APHIDAE be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names and that the name APHIDIDAE be rejected. By Esmat A. Elkady (Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt) I would like to inform you that I agree and support Dr. Russell’s views supporting the opinion of replacing the family name of Aphids, APHIDIDAE by APHIDAE. 274 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 641 ADDITION OF CERTAIN GENERIC AND SPECIFIC NAMES IN THE FAMILY PHASMATIDAE* (INSECTA, PHASMATODEA) TO THE OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES RULING.—(1) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Podacanthus Gray, 1833 (gender: masculine), type-species, by mono- typy, Podacanthus typhon Gray, 1833 (Name No. 1490) ; (b) Didymuria Kirby, 1904 (gender: feminine), type-species, by original designation, Phasma violescens Leach, 1814 (Name No. 1491) ; (c) Ctenomorpha Gray, 1833 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation by Kirby, 1904, Ctenomorpha marginipennis Gray, 1833 (Name No. 1492) ; (d) Acrophylla Gray, 1835 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation by Karny, 1923, Phasma titan Macleay, 1826 (Name No. 1493) ; (e) Ctenomorphodes Karny, 1923 (gender: masculine), type-species, by original designation, Phasma (Diura) briareus Gray, 1834 (Name No. 1494) ; (f) Phasma Lichtenstein, 1796 (gender : neuter), type-species, by designa- tion by Kirby, 1904, Phasma empusa Lichtenstein, 1796 (Name No. 1495). (2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) typhon Gray, 1833, as published in the binomen Podacanthus typhon, and as defined by the lectotype designated by Key, 1960 (type-species of Podacanthus Gray, 1833) (Name No. 1831) ; (b) wilkinsoni Macleay (W. J.), 1881, as published in the binomen Podacanthus wilkinsoni, and as defined by the lectotype designated by Key, 1960 (Name No. 1832) ; (c) violescens Leach, 1814, as published in the binomen Phasma violescens (type-species of Didymuria Kirby, 1904) (Name No. 1833) ; (d) chronus Gray, 1833, as published in the binomen Diwra chronus, and as defined by the lectotype designated by Key, 1960 (Name No. 1834) ; (e) titan Macleay (W. S.), 1826, as published in the binomen Phasma titan (type-species of Acrophylla Gray, 1835) (Name No. 1835) ; (f) briareus Gray, 1834, as published in the binomen Phasma (Diura) briareus (type-species of Ctenomorphodes Karny, 1923) (Name No. 1836) ; (g) tessulata Gray, 1835, as published in the binomen Ctenomorpha tessulata (Name No. 1837) ; (h) empusa Lichtenstein, 1796, as published in the binomen Phasma empusa (type-species of Phasma Lichtenstein, 1796) (Name No. 1838). (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 : ~~ Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. *See page 294 of this volume. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 275 (a) Podocanthus Macleay, 1881 (an incorrect spelling for Podacanthus Gray, 1833) (Name No. 1569) ; (b) Diura Gray, 1833 (a junior homonym of Diura Billberg, 1820) (Name No. 1570). (4) 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) violascens, Gray, 1833, as published in the binomen Diura violascens (and later usages in combination with Acrophylla Gray, Cyphocrania Burmeister, Didymuria Kirby, etc.) (an incorrect spelling for Phasma violescens Leach, 1814) (Name No. 705) ; (b) tessellata Westwood, 1859, as published in the binomen Acrophylla tessellata (and later uses in combination with Acrophylla Gray and Ctenomorpha Gray) (an incorrect spelling for Ctenomorpha tessulata Gray, 1835) (Name No. 706). (5) The family-group name PODACANTHINAE Ginther, 1953 (type-genus Podacanthus Gray, 1833) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 329. (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) DIURAE Redtenbacher, 1908 (type-genus Diura Gray, 1833) (invalid because the name of its type-genus is a junior homonym) (Name No. 359) ; (b) ACROPHYLLINI Redtenbacher, 1908 (type-genus Acrophylla Gray, 1835) (Ruled to be invalid because its type-genus was misidentified) (Name No. 360). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1167) The present case was first submitted by Dr. K. H. L. Key in September 1956. After some revision the manuscript was sent to the printer on 27 February 1959 and was published on 8 April 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 235-240. Dr. Key’s proposals were supported by Dr. H. F. Lower, Dr. L. P. Clark and Dr. D. R. Ragge (Bull. zool. Nomencl 18 : 78) and by Dr. P. Hadlington (Forestry Commission of N ‘S.W., Sydney, Australia). An objection to the form of the family-group name PHASMATIDAE, proposed for the Official List, was received from Prof. Ernst Mayr. A full account of the correspondence relating to this matter is given in the following Report to the Commission which was distributed with Voting Paper (61)32 :— “On 9.v.60 the Secretary of the Commission received a letter from Com- missioner Ernst Mayr, containing the following comment on one of Dr. Key’s proposals : ‘T notice that in application Z.N.(S) 1167 Dr. Key proposes to replace the grammatically incorrect generic name Phasmidae by the correct spelling Phasmatidae. I wonder whether in this case it would not be better if the Commission would sanction a grammatically incorrectly formed family name. A search through the zoological literature made by me shows that the name 276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Phasmidae is almost universally used. Dr. Key mentions that the alternate spelling is also used but I have not been able to find it in any zoological text consulted by me. I seem to recall that the Commission has sanctioned similarly incorrect family names once or twice in the past for the sake of stability. It would seem to me that it is desirable if the Latin Phasmidae would correspond to the English Phasmids. This is a word that is of interest to far more zoologists than to merely a small group of specialists.’ “On being informed of Prof. Mayr’s objection Dr. Key wrote to the Secretary on 21.vii.60 as follows : ‘ Professor Mayr states that he is unable to find the spelling ‘‘ Phasmatidae ” in any zoological text that he has consulted. ‘It is true that ‘‘ Phasmidae ” is the form used in the great majority of both general zoological and entomological reference works, and that it pre- ponderates even in the usage of specialists in the group. Among more than a dozen reference works that I have consulted since learning of this develop- ment, I have found ‘“ Phasmatidae ” used in only two, namely Tillyard’s “Insects of Australia and New Zealand ”’ (1926) and Brues, Mellander and Carpenter’s “ Classification of Insects” (1954). Both of these are, of course, very well known entomological texts. ‘In the specialist literature, “‘ Phasmidae”’ is used in the only modern reclassification of the order, namely that of Giinther (“ Uber die taxonomische Gliederung und die geographische Verbreitung der Insektenordnung der Phasmatodea ”, Beitr. Ent. 3 : 541-63 (1953)), in spite of his adoption of “ Phasmatodea ” for the order. On the other hand, “ Phasmatidae ”’ is used by Rehn (e.g. Trans. Amer. ent. Soc. 79 : 1-11 (1953) ; Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 99 : 1-19 (1947)), who, interestingly, keeps to the form “ phasmid ” for the vernacular term. More recently, it has been used by Key (Aust. J. Zool. 5 : 247-84 (1957)) in a paper dealing with some of the Australian species discussed in my application, and by other Australian authors in a few later contributions on the biology and ecology of these species. As pointed out in my application, it was used as early as 1881 by Macleay. ‘ The important thing in this case is to get a definite decision, and I do not want to press for “‘ Phasmatidae ” if it appears that the usage of “ Phasmidae ” has been not only preponderant in the general literature, but also so extensive that it would be confusing to endorse the spelling that is correct under the Code. However, I think it only fair to point out that what is now regarded as the order Phasmatodea (or Phasmida, or Phasmatoptera) is not one on which a great deal of literature exists. It contains very few species of economic importance, although it has long attracted attention because of the size and extraordinary procryptic adaptations of most of its members. A large part of the literature on the order has been devoted to the single species Carausius (or Dixippus) morosus Brunn. and Redt., which is a popular laboratory animal. The name of the family or order is mentioned in comparatively few of these papers, the insects being generally referred to as “ stick-insects ” or “ walking sticks”. Actually, the inevitable changes consequent upon the elevation of the original family Phasmatidae (or Phasmidae) to ordinal rank, with several different versions of the ordinal name and with restriction of the family to a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 277 part only of its original coverage, are potentially far more confusing than the difference in spelling of the family name. ‘ The questions that the Commission has to decide are (1) whether standard- isation on ‘‘ Phasmatidae ” will lead to misunderstanding or confusion among zoologists accustomed to the spelling ‘ Phasmidae ”” ; (2) whether this confusion will be significant in quantitative terms ; and (3) whether it calls for suspension of the provisions of the Code, which should not be undertaken too light- heartedly.’ “On 20.ix.60 the Secretary received the following further comment from Prof. Mayr : ‘The more I think about the alternative (Phasmidae vs. Phasmatidae) the stronger I feel that this is far too important a matter to be treated as an aside in an application which basically deals with a different matter. I have looked at some family names of birds and found that if we apply the changed old Article 4 retroactively, we may have to change several well-known bird names, or rather, well-known names of bird families. This is a case which, in my opinion, is clearly in conflict with the Preamble. Dr. Key wrote me in a recent letter that the general zoologists would surely protest against Phasmatidae, if they found the name objectionable. This I very much doubt because from the way Dr. Key’s application was advertised, they will never know that this is involved. I wonder how many additional family names of insects will have to be changed once this rule is consistently applied. I would like to have your advice in what manner this troublesome problem can best be placed before the Commission. Perhaps one method would be to separate the Phasmidae problem from the rest of Dr. Key’s application, and treat it as a separate application to be advertised separately. Another more far-reaching way would be to propose a Declaration to be voted on by the Commission stating that Article 29a not be applied retroactively if the stem adopted by the original author is not that “found by deleting the case ending of the appropriate genitive singular’. Frankly I do not know whether this is advisable. Pre- sumably it would be better not to touch the substance of the code, and deal with the exceptional cases by Plenary decisions. Still I feel that the Com- mission should deal with these cases because it would seem a pity to change well-established names for pedantic grammatical reasons. As it is, the code is quite inconsistent, since it ignores grammatical errors in the various rulings on emendations. Why should it be so particular with grammatical errors made a long time ago in the formation of the names of well-known families ? ’ “Since Prof. Mayr’s proposed conservation of PHASMIDAE as the correct spelling for the family-group name will need the use of the plenary powers, it is suggested that Members of the Commission should indicate on Voting Paper (61)32 whether or not they wish this particular item to be withdrawn and submitted to a fresh vote under the plenary powers or not. Ifa majority of Commissioners includes proposal (6)(b) on page 240 in an affirmative vote then PHASMATIDAE will be placed on the Official List. If, on the other hand, a majority of Commissioners excludes this particular item then the case for the family-group name will be resubmitted after the publication of plenary powers notices concerning the possible validation of PHASMIDAE ”. 278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 2 October 1961 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (61)32 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 238-240, including or excepting proposals (6)(b) and (7)(c). At the close of the prescribed Voting Period on 2 January 1962 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-two (22), received in the following order : Evans, Holthuis, Hemming, Munroe, Vokes, Mayr, Hering, Obruchev, Riley, Lemche, Brinck, Bradley, Alvarado, do Amaral, *Key, Jaczewski, Tortonese, Mertens, Miller, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Poll. Negative Votes—none (0). Voting Papers not returned—three (3) : Boschma, Prantl, Uchida. Commissioner Stoll returned a late affirmative vote. The following fifteen (15) Commissioners excluded proposals (6)(b) and (7)(c) from their affirmative votes: Evans, Munroe, Vokes, Mayr, Riley, Lemche, Brinck, Bradley, Alvarado, Tortonese, Mertens, Miller, Kiihnelt, Poll, Stoll. The following six (6) Commissioners voted in favour of proposals (6)(b) and (7)(c) : Holthuis, Hemming, Hering, Obruchev, do Amaral, Jaczewski. The following comment was made by Commissioner Francis Hemming in returning his vote (9.x.61): I vote in favour of the correction of PHASMIDAE to PHASMATIDAE not only because this is the correct form of the name but also because I do not believe that the adoption of the corrected form is likely to cause more than a passing inconvenience. Many such corrections have been made in the past and the corrected form has come into general use without causing any serious trouble. In the Lepidoptera, for example, the family- group name based on Hesperia Fabricius, 1793, was for many decades almost always written in the incorrect form HESPERIDAE in monographs, textbooks, papers, etc. Its correction to the form HESPERIIDAE by such authors as Watson (1893), Comstock (1895) and Grote (1897) was quickly followed by others and caused no trouble or confusion. It seems to me that the fact that every family-group name is derived from the name of the type-genus removes the objection which might otherwise be felt to the correction of the spelling of such names, for whichever way a family-group name is spelled, there can be no risk of confusion as to the interpretation of the family-group name concerned, it being obvious that it is the name given to the family-group taxon of which the genus, on the name of which it is based, either correctly or incorrectly, is the type-genus. OricINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : Acrophylla Gray, 1835, Syn. Phasm. : 39 ACROPHYLLINI Redtenbacher, 1908, in Brunner & Redtenbacher, Insektenfam. Phasm. : 436 briareus, Phasma (Diura), Gray, 1834, Trans. ent. Soc. London 1 : 45 * Dr. Key requested that his vote be counted with the majority. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 279 chronus, Diura, Gray, 1833, Ent. Aust. 1 : 20, 26, pl. 5, fig. 2 Ctenomorpha Gray, 1833, Ent. Aust. 1 : 16, 27 Ctenomorphodes Karny, 1923, Treubia 3 : 240 Didymuria Kirby, 1904, Syn. Cat. Orthopt. 1 : 381 Diura Gray, 1833, Ent. Aust. 1 : 26 DIURAE Redtenbacher, 1908, in Brunner & Redtenbacher, Insektfam. Phasm. : 379 empusa, Phasma, Lichtenstein, 1796, Cat. Mus. Zool. Hamb. 3 : 77 Phasma Lichtenstein, 1796, Cat. Mus. Zool. Hamb. 3 : 77 PODACANTHINAE Giinther, 1953, Beitr. Ent. 3 : 548, 553 Podacanthus Gray, 1833, Ent. Aust. 1:17 Podocanthus Macleay (W. J.), 1881, Proc. linn. Soc. N.S.W. 6 : 538 tessellata, Acrophylla, Westwood, 1859, Cat. Phasm. : 115 tessulata, Ctenomorpha, Gray, 1835, Syn. Phasm. : 44 titan, Phasma, Macleay (W. S.), 1826, in King, Surv. Coasts Aust. 2 : 454 typhon, Podacanthus, Gray, 1833, Ent. Aust. 1 : 17, pl. 2, fig. 1 violascens, Diura, Gray, 1833, Ent. Aust. 1 : 21, 27, pl. 6, fig. 1 violescens, Phasma, Leach, 1814, Zool. Miscell. 1 : 26, pl. 9 wilkinsoni, Podacanthus, Macleay (W. J.), 1881, Proc. linn. Soc. N.S.W. 6 : 538 The following are the original references for designations of type-species for genera concerned in the present Ruling : For Acrophylla Gray, 1835 : Karny, 1923, Treubia 3 : 240 For Ctenomorpha Gray, 1833 : Kirby, 1904, Syn. Cat. Orthopt. 1 : 388 For Phasma Lichtenstein, 1796 : Kirby, 1904, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7)13: 439 The following are the original references for designations of lectotype for species concerned in the present Ruling : For Diura chronus Gray, 1833 : K. H. L. Key, 1960, Bull. zool. Nomencl.17 : 236 For Podacanthus typhon Gray, 1833: K. H. L. Key, 1960, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 47. : 235 For Podacanthus wilkinsoni Macleay, 1881: K. H. L. Key, 1960, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 235 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (61)32 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted with the exception of paragraphs (6)(b) and (7)(c) which were postponed for further consideration, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 641. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 5 February 1962 280 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 642 SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF ELEVEN SPECIFIC NAMES OF REPTILIA AND AMPHIBIA WITH VALIDATION OF THIRTEEN SPECIFIC NAMES WITH THEIR ORIGINAL AUTHOR AND DATE RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed 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) besseri Andrzejowski, 1832, as published in the binomen Anguis besser: ; (d) punctato-striata Eimer, 1881, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis punctato-striata ; (e) punctato-fasciata Eimer, 1881, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis punctato-fasciata ; (f) michahellesit Fitzinger, 1864, as published in the binomen Podarcis — michahellesii ; (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) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby validated with their original authors and dates : (a) lantzi Wolterstorff, 1914, as published in the combination T'riton vulgaris subsp. typica forma lantzi ; (b) tssaltschikovi Terentjev, 1927, as published in the combination Rana arvalis altaica natio issaltschikovi ; (c) erhardii erhardi [emend. of] Bedriaga, 1882, as published in the combina- tion Lacerta muralis fusca var. erhardit ; f (d) naxensis Werner, 1889, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis fusca var. naxensis ; (e) digenea Wettstein, 1926, as published in the combination Lacerta jiumana lissana var. digenea ; (f) fiwmana Werner, 1891, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis neapolitana var. fiumana ; (g) lissana Werner, 1891, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis fusca var. lissana ; (h) milensis Bedriaga, 1882, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis fusca var. milensis ; Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 281 (i) insulanica Bedriaga, 1882, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis neapolitana var. insulanica ; (k) maculiventris Werner, 1891, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis var. fusca maculiventris ; (1) gallensis Eimer, 1881, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis coerulescens gallensis ; (m) monaconensis Eimer, 1881, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis coerulescens monaconensis ; (h) pelagosae Bedriaga, 1886, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis neapolitana var. pelagosae ; (3) 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) funebris Bory, 1828, as published in the binomen Salamandra funebris (Name No. 707) ; : (b) bosci Bory, 1828, as published in the binomen Rana bosci (Name No. 708) ; (c) besseri Andrzejowski, 1832, as published in the binomen Anguis besseri (Name No. 709) ; (d) punctato-striata Eimer, 1881, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis punctato-striata (Name No. 710) ; (e) punctato-fasciata Eimer, 1881, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis punctato-fasciata (Name No. 711) ; (f) michahellesii Fitzinger, 1864, as published in the binomen Podarcis michahellesii (Name No. 712) ; (g) melanepis Rafinesque, 1814, as published in the binomen Coluber melanepis (Name No. 713) ; (h) nigricollis Dwigubskij, 1832, as published in the binomen Coluber nigricollis (Name No. 714) ; (i) quater-radiatus Gmelin, 1799, as published in the binomen Coluber quater-radiatus (Name No. 715) ; (k) elaphis Shaw, 1802, as published in the binomen Coluber elaphis (Name No. 716) ; (l) foetidus Giildenstedt, 1801, as published in the binomen Coluber foetidus (Name No. 717). (4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) lantzi Wolterstorff, 1914, as published in the combination T'riton vulgaris subsp. typica forma lantzi (Class Amphibia) (Name No. 1839) ; (b) issaltschikovi Terentjev, 1927, as published in the combination Rana arvalis altaica natio issaltschikovi (Class Amphibia) (Name No. 1840) ; (c) erhardii Bedriaga, 1882, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis fusca var. erhardii (Class Reptilia) (Name No. 1841) ; (d) naxensis Werner, 1889, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis fusca var. naxensis (Class Reptilia) (Name No. 1842) ; (e) digenea Wettstein, 1926, as published in the combination Lacerta fiwmana lissana var. digenea (Class Reptilia) (Name No. 1843) ; 282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (f) fiwmana Werner, 1891, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis neapolitana var. fiwmana (Class Reptilia) (Name No. 1844) ; (g) lissana Werner, 1891, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis fusca var. lissana (Class Reptilia) (Name No. 1845) ; (h) milensis Bedriaga, 1882, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis fusca var. milensis (Class Reptilia) (Name No. 1846) ; (i) insulanica Bedriaga, 1882, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis neapolitana var. insulanica (Class Reptilia) (Name No. 1847) ; (k) maculiventris Werner, 1891, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis var. fusca maculiventris (Class Reptilia) (Name No. 1848) ; (1) gallensis Eimer, 1881, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis coerulescens gallensis (Class Reptilia) (Name No. 1849) ; (m) monaconensis Eimer, 1881, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis coerulescens monaconensis (Class Reptilia) (Name No. 1850) ; (n) pelagosae Bedriaga, 1886, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis neapolitana var. pelagosae (Class Reptilia) (Name No. 1851). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N\(S.) 1449) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Professor Robert Mertens and Dr. Heinz Wermuth in February 1960. It was sent to the printer on 27 June 1960 and was published on 5 December 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 3-7. Public Notice of the possible use of the 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 two herpetological serials. No objection was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 2 October 1961 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (61)25, either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 5-7. At the close of the prescribed Voting Period on 2 January 1962 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order: - Evans, Holthuis, Hemming, Munroe, Vokes, Mayr, Hering, Obruchev, Riley, Uchida, Lemche, Brinck, Bradley, Alvarado, do Amaral, Key, Tortonese, Jaczewski, Mertens, Miller, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Poll. Negative Votes—none (0). Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Boschma, Prantl. Commissioner Stoll 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 : besseri, Anguis, Andrzejowski, 1832, Nouv. Mém. Soc. Natural. Moscou (2) 2 : 338, tab. 22, fig. 7, tab. 24 bosci, Rana, Bory, 1828, Rés. Erpétol. Hist. nat. Rept. : 266 digenea, Lacerta fiumana lissana var., Wettstein, 1926, in Kammerer, Arten- wandel auf Ins. : 279, tab. 4, fig. 28-29 elaphis, Coluber, Shaw, 1802, Gen. Zool. 3 : 450 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 283 erhardii, Lacerta muralis fusca var., Bedriaga, 1882, Bull. Soc. Natural. Moscou 56(3) : 99 fiumana, Lacerta muralis neapolitana var., Werner, 1891, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 41 : 753 foetidus, Coluber, Giildenstedt, 1801, in Georgi, Geogr.-phys. naturh. Beschreib. russ. Reich. 3(7) : 1884 funebris, Salamandra, Bory, 1828, Rés. Erpétol. Hist. nat. Rept. : 236 gallensis, Lacerta muralis coerulescens, Kimer, 1881, Arch. N aturgesch. 47(1) : 395 insulanica, Lacerta muralis neapolitana var., Bedriaga, 1882, Bull. Soc. Natural. Moscou 56(3) : 101 issaltschikovi, Rana arvalis altaico natio, Terentjev, 1927, Proc. 2nd Congr. Zool. Anat. Histol. USSR, 1925 : 71 lantzi, Triton vulgaris subsp. typica forma, Wolterstorff, 1914, Abh. Ber. Mus. Magdeburg 2(4) : 375 lissana, Lacerta muralis fusca var., Werner, 1891, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 41 : 752 maculiventris, Lacerta muralis var. fusca, Werner, 1891, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 41 : 752 melanepis, Coluber, Rafinesque, 1814, Précis Découv. Trav. somiol. : 15 michahellesit, Podarcis, Fitzinger, 1864, in Erber, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 14 : 703 milensis, Lacerta muralis fusca var., Bedriaga, 1882, Bull. Soc. Natural. Moscou 56(3) : 98 monaconensis, Lacerta muralis coerulescens, Eimer, 1881, Arch. Naturgesch. 47(1) : 393, tab. 15, fig. 23 naxensis, Lacerta muralis fusca var., Werner, 1899, Wiss. Mitt. Bosn. Hercegov. 6 : 835 nigricollis, Coluber, Dwigubskij, 1832, Opyt estestv. Istorii 3 + 26 pelagosae, Lacerta muralis neapolitana var., Bedriaga, 1886, Abh. senckenb. naturf. Ges. 14(2) : 228 punctato-fasciata, Lacerta muralis, Eimer, 1881, Arch. Naturgesch. 47(1) : 368, tab. 13, fig. 10 punctato-striata, Lacerta muralis, Eimer, 1881, Arch. Naturgesch. 47(1) : 340, tab. 13, figs. 4-5 quater-radiatus, Coluber, Gmelin, 1799, Der Naturforscher, Halle 28 : 169, tab. a; fig. 1 CERTIFICATE WE certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (61)25 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. 642. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 8 February 1962 284 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ZORILLA 1. GEOFFROY, 1826 (MAMMALIA); PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS IN FAVOUR OF ICTONYX KAUP, 1835. Z.N.(S.) 758 By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) HIsTORY OF THE CASE This case stems from the inclusion of Ictonyx Kaup, 1835, in a list of genera, from species of which parasites common to Man have been reported, prepared by Dr. C. W. Stiles in the nineteen-thirties and recommended to be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology because of their possible public health importance. All the names concerned were ultimately placed on the Official List in Opinion 384 (1956) with the exception of certain names in respect of which certain difficulties had been brought to light. Ictonyx Kaup, 1835, was one of these reserved for further consideration (p. 110, par. 25) and allotted the registered number Z.N.(S.) 758. On page 166 of Opinion 384, paragraph 33, Hemming stated that Viverra zorilla Erxleben, 1777, was the type-species of both Ictonyx Kaup, 1835, and Zorilla Oken, 1816, and for that reason a decision in Opinion 384 on Ictonyx Kaup should be deferred for the present. As pointed out by Dr. Morrison- Scott, in correspondence with the Commission, Hemming was in error since Ictonyx Kaup, 1835 (Das Thierr. 1 : 352) was based on a single species Ictonyx capensis Kaup. Howell, 1906 (Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 19 : 46) stated that Kaup’s species was identical with Mephitis capensis A. Smith, 1826 (Descript. Cat. S. Afr. Mammals : 20). Hollister, 1915 (Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 28 : 184) was of the opinion that Ictonyx capensis Kaup equals Bradypus striatus Perry, 1810, the name used by Ellerman, Morrison-Scott and Hayman, 1953 (S. Afr. Mammals : 111-112). Allen, 1939 (Checklist of African Mammals :178) considered that Ictonyx capensis Kaup was the same as Viverra zorilla Erxleben, 1777, and perhaps Hemming was swayed by Allen’s synonymy. 2. Zorilla Oken, [1815-1816], (Lehrb. Naturgeschichte 3 (Zool.):p. xi, index p. 1000 (Zorille)), was made unavailable under the Code by the rejection of Oken’s Lehrbuch in Opinion 417 (1956), but Zorilla Isidor Geoffroy Saint,Hilaire, 1826 (Dict. Class. Hist. Nat. 10 : 215) established for ‘“ Le Zorille Buffon T. xii, pl. 41: Mustela zorilla et Viverra zorilla des auteurs systematiques ”’, was still available being described as a subgenus of Mustela. Investigation of the status of the generic names Ictonyx and Zorilla by Hemming revealed that a sharp difference of opinion existed between specialists as to the exact identity of these genera and it was this more than anything else which delayed the placing of Ictonyx on the Official List. 3. In 1949, Hershkovitz (Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 62 : 13) maintained that the African polecats currently known as Ictonyx Kaup should be called Zorilla I. Geoffroy, 1826, and that the Cape Stinkmuishond, currently known as Ictonyx striatus (Perry), should be called Zorilla mapurito (sic) Miller, 1776. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 285 Hershkovitz’s claim rested (a) on his belief that “le Zorille ’ of Buffon (1765) could not possibly represent any American mustelid, but clearly represented the Cape Stinkmuishond, and (b) that Zorilla I. Geoffroy and Viverra mapurita Miiller, 1776 were both based on “the Zorille ” of Buffon, 1765 (Hist. nat. 13 : 289, 302-303, pl. 41). 4. In a paper entitled “The technical name of the African Muishond (Genus Ictonyx)”’, Ellerman and Morrison-Scott, 1953 (Journ. Mammalogy 34 : 114-116) completely disagreed with Hershkovitz’s diagnosis of Buffon’s “ Zorille ”, which to them clearly represented a member of the American genus Spilogale Gray. They reproduced Buffon’s plate 41 alongside photographs of skins of the American Spilogale putorius and the African Ictonyx striatus. Both Buffon’s plate of “le Zorille ’, and his very detailed descriptions, they said, quite clearly refer to a Spilogale. “The generic name Zorilla I. Geoffroy, 1826 and the specific name Viverra mapurita Miiller, 1776 ’’, they said, “ there- fore both belong to the spotted skunks of America. Zorilla I. Geoffroy, 1826 antedates Spilogale Gray, 1865 and it is realised that this may cause incon- venience. But it is submitted that the right course for those most concerned with the latter genus is not to attempt to export the inconvenience to a place where it does not belong, but to apply to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to have Zorilla I. Geoffroy placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ”’. 5. In August 1953, Hershkovitz replied in a paper entitled, “Zorilla I. Geoffroy and Spilogale Gray, generic names for African and American pole- cats, respectively ” (Journ. Mammalogy 34 : 378-382). He wrote: “Apart from an equivocal bibliographic reference in the designation of the [type- species], nothing in the description of Zorille refers to anything else but African polecats. The name Zorilla cannot be used for American polecats, genus Spilogale. Zorilla I. Geoffroy is monotypic in the original description and its type is designated ‘Le Zorille, Buffon., T. xiii, pl. 41; Mustela Zorilla et Viverra zorilla des auteurs systématiques ’. This designation is composed of three elements :— ; The first is a bibliographic reference to the figure of Buffon’s zorille. The depicted animal was regarded by I. Geoffroy as an African polecat. This opinion has been challenged [by Ellerman and Morrison-Scott in (4) above]. In any case, whatever the true or fancied identity of Buffon’s zorille, the animals actually described by I. Geoffroy were, and remain, African polecats, then subgenus, now genus Zorilla. The second element of the [type-species] designation is Mustela zorilla, the specific name actually used by I. Geoffroy for polecats of his subgenus Zorilla, genus Mustela. Viverra zorilla, [Linnaeus], the third element, appears in the [type-species] designation as an equivalent of Mustela zorilla [E. Geoffroy]. The name Mustela zorilla is traceable to E. Geoffroy who defined it in 1803 (Cat. Mam. Mus. Nat. Hist. Nat. p. 102)”. Hershkovitz went on to emphasize the character of the white edged ears of Buffon’s figure which would identify it with the African Muishond. He stated that Cuvier, 1801 (in Azara, Essais Hist. nat. Quad. Paraguay 1 : 239, footnote a), was the first reviser to remove Buffon’s 286 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature “le Zorille ’ from the faunal list of S. America and to refer it to S. Africa. Hershkovitz admitted that Lichtenstein, 1838 (Abh. K. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1836 : 281) identified Buffon’s “le Zorille”’ as an American spotted skunk. He wrote: “ The controversy has now become sterile. It is the writer’s opinion that the only remaining solution is to regard Buffon’s Zorille as not certainly indentifiable ”’. 6. In 1954 Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (Journ. Mammalogy 35(1) : 130-131) replied to Hershkovitz’s paper and pointed out that since the only biblio- graphical reference in the description of Zorilla I. Geoffroy is to Buffon, the identity of the genus must clearly be that of Buffon’s plate. They also gave evidence to show that Mustela zorilla E. Geoffroy, 1803, which Hershkovitz 1953 (p. 380) now preferred to regard as the type-species of Zorilla I. Geoffroy, had never been published. The name of the African Stinkmuishond therefore remained Ictonyx striatus (Perry), 1810. They wrote: ‘‘ We propose to ask the Commission to safeguard the established names Ictonyx Kaup, 1835, and Ictonyx striatus (Perry), 1810, by placing them on the respective Official Lists, and also to relegate the names Zorilla, Mustela zorilla and Viverra zorilla, now hopelessly confused, to the respective Official Indices. At the same time we propose to apply for Spilogale to be placed on the Official List in the sense in which it is currently used in America”. - 7. In December 1955 Hershkovitz (Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 68 : 185-192) replied to Ellerman and Morrison-Scott in a paper entitled “‘ Status of the Generic Name Zorilla (Mammalia) : Nomenclature by Rule or by Caprice .” In this paper Hershkovitz emphasized the fact that Ellerman and Morrison- Scott had ignored I. Geoffroy’s description of Zorilla. He pointed out that Mustela zorilla I. Geoffroy, 1826, was the type of Zorilla I. Geoffroy by absolute tautonymy and that the name Mustela zorilla had already been used for the S. African polecats by Cuvier in 1798 (T'abl. Hlém. Hist. Nat. : 116). Hershkovitz also gave evidence to show that E. Geoffroy’s 1803, Catalogue des Mammiferes Mus. Nat. Hist. was actually published although disavowed by the author and his son Isidor. He also declared that Ellerman and Morrison-Scott had accepted some of E. Geoffroy’s, 1803, names in their Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian Mammals (1951 : 581). 8. In reply to Hershkovitz, Ellerman and Morrison-Scott, April 1956, sent a paper to the Editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, who, however, felt constrained to refuse publication on the grounds that the discussion of the name Zorilla had gone on long enough and that space in his journal could be used to greater advantage than in continuing this discussion. Dr. Morrison-Scott therefore asked Mr. Hemming if the rejected paper could be published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. To complete the argument it is therefore published as follows :— 9. Status of the generic name Zorilla I. Geoffroy, 1826 (Mammalia). By J. R. Ellerman and T. C. 8S. Morrison-Scott, British Museum (Natural History). We find ourselves unable to accept the grounds on which Hershkovitz (1955) attempts to rebut our (1953, 1954) contention that Zorilla I. Geoffroy, 1826, does not apply to an African species. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 287 First, Hershkovitz holds that because Geoffroy said that the animal which he described as Zorilla came from Africa, then it must necessarily have come from Africa, and that the name cannot be applied to an alien animal. But the provenance of old cabinet specimens is notoriously unreliable. What, for instance, does Hershkovitz say to such ascriptions as ‘‘ Habitat in India ” for Rhinoceros bicornis L., or to Mustela africana Desmarest, 1818, “ d’Afrique ”, which has been shown to be a South American species ? There are many such instances. Secondly, Geoffroy indicated that Plate 41 of Buffon, 1765, Histoire Naturelle, volume 13, was his Zorilla (we reproduced this plate in Journal of Mammalogy, 1953, 34:115). Hershkovitz (1949) thought that this plate represented the South African Stinkmuishond, whereas it quite plainly represents the American genus currently known as Spilogale. On the basis of this mis- identification Hershkovitz held that Zorilla referred to the African animal. We pointed out the error, but Hershkovitz (1955), while avoiding this point, at the same time changes his ground and says, in effect, that Buffon’s plate is irrelevant to the identification of Zorilla Geoffroy. We cannot agree. Thirdly, we stand by our contention that the Catalogue des Mammiferes of Geoffroy “ 1803” was never published (Hershkovitz, 1953, having made a second attempt to establish Zorilla in Africa by basing it on Mustela zorilla “ E. Geoffroy, 1803’). Hershkovitz (1955) asks what we mean by “ publication”. We mean the word as understood by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, whose amplification of Article 25 of the Régles is set out in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 1950, 4 : 215. We do not mean a “ work that has been printed, distributed and consistently cited ” (Hershkovitz), unless the distribution has been general. The distribution of the printed proof of the Catalogue was to various colleagues. Over what Geoffroy’s son had to say on the subject of his father’s Catalogue there seems to be some misunderstanding. Hershkovitz (1955) makes the son say that his father “ renounced ” the publication of the book. But the words the son used were “ renonca A ”, which is quite a different thing. The English “renounced ” Suggests that the publication had actually taken place, but the French expression means that E. Geoffroy abandoned the idea of publishing. The fact that the son later included the Catalogue in a general list of works “ publiés ” by his father cannot be held to be a critical judgement and to override what the son said when discussing the Catalogue specifically. Hershkovitz (1955: 188) seems to doubt whether we have in fact ever remarkable as to call for mention, but we can assure Dr. Hershkovitz that we have seen the work: in fact the B.M. copy has some interesting notes by Sherborn on the fly leaf. We are also rather astonished that there should apparently have been any difficulty about identifying our ‘“ undocumented reference to Sherborn ”’, We took it that the Index Animalium, the bibliography thereof, would be understood. In this work Sherborn says that the Catalogue was a mere “M.S.”. 288 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature It does appear that there may be some confusion between the term “ M.S.” as used in this country and in America, since Hershkovitz makes a point of the fact that the Catalogue was printed. But Sherborn used the term “M.S.”, as we do, to include holograph manuscript, typed manuscript, printed manu- script, in fact all stages up to publication. Anyway, Sherborn, a bibliographer with a reputation second to none, held the same view as we do, namely that E. Geoffroy’s Catalogue des Mammiféres was never published, though part of the M.S. reached the printed stage, and was subsequently distributed to colleagues. May we digress for a moment to say that in our Palaearctic and Indian Mammals (p. 581) we quoted Mus alexandrinus as of Geoffroy 1803, instead of Desmarest 1819, Nouv. Dict. Hist. Nat. 29:47. We regret this slip, which we had corrected in the case of Mus cahirinus, but omitted to do for alexandrinus. We have gone into the question of the publication of ‘‘ E. Geoffroy, 1803 ” at some length, partly because Hershkovitz has brought it into the argument about Zorilla, but also because the remarks which he makes on the subject (1955) may well mislead mammalogists about the book in general. But in so far as the question of Zorilla is concerned, the matter of Geoffroy’s Catalogue is perhaps now irrelevant since Hershkovitz (1955) has changed his mind once more about the type species of Zorilla. Hershkovitz has given us three rulings on the type-species of Zorilla. Originally (1949) it was Viverra mapurito Miller, 1776. This having been shown to be a Spilogale he then (1953) switched to Mustela zorilla “‘ E. Geoff. 1803 ”. Now (1955) he has it as Mustela zorilla G. Cuvier, 1798, Tabl. Elém. Hist. Nat. 116, which he says is the “ original description’ of “le zorille, ou putois du Cap ” and represents the polecats of the Cape of Good Hope. But the entry in Cuvier, 1798, is not the original description of zorilla. Cuvier himself quotes ‘‘ Viverra zorilla Linn.”’. Presumably Hershkovitz was unable to trace this reference. It should have been given as “‘ Gmelin, 1788, in the 13th edition of Linnaeus, Systema Naturae, p. 88”, where Viverra zorilla is the name given to the species (“‘ habitat in America australi ”) which is depicted by Schreber in his Sdugthiere, volume 3, Pl. 123, and by Buffon in his Hist. Nat., volume 13, Pl. 41. So we are back again to the species currently known as Spilogale. We are much obliged to Dr. Hershkovitz for going to all this trouble to confirm our opinion that Zorilla I. Geoffroy, 1826, refers to the genus currently known as Spilogale. We also confirm that we stand for nomenclature by rule—though we must add that we mean the rule of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, to whom we have already forwarded our proposals referred to in the Journal of Mammalogy, 1954, 35 : 131, for the preservation of nomen- clatural stability, and current usage, by rule. PRESENT POSITION In view of the fact that Spilogale Gray, 1865, has been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in Opinion 384, p. 130 (1956) the name Zorilla I. Geoffroy, 1826, can no longer be applied validly to this American Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 289 taxon even if the well documented testimony of Ellerman and Morrison-Scott is accepted. Nor should it be used for the S. African Stinkmuishond currently known as Ictonyzx striatus (Perry), 1810, as Hershkovitz contends, since, Zorilla I. Geoffroy is virtually a nomen oblitum. According to the New Code Article 23b, a name that has remained unused for more than 50 years is to be considered a forgotten name and is not to be used unless the Commission so directs. After 1960, a zoologist who discovers such a name is to refer it to the Commission. It is not clear whether this rule is retroactive or not. The wording “after 1960 ” Suggests that a zoologist such as Hershkovitz could Hershkovitz in 1949, If Zorilla cannot be regarded as a nomen oblitum then it must be suppressed under the plenary powers in order to resolve the long argument over the name. It is believed that this solution would be satisfactory to both parties since Hershkovitz himself admitted (see (5)) above that Buffon’s Zorille was not certainly identifiable. Such action would also preserve the traditional use of Ictonyx for the African polecats. 11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested to take the following action :-— (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 Zorilla I. Geoffroy, 1826 ; (b) the specific names zorilla Gmelin, 1788, as published in the binomen Viverra zorilla ; zorilla Cuvier, 1798, as published in the binomen Mustela zorilla : (2) to place the generic name Ictonyx Kaup, 1835 (gender : masculine) type-species, by monotypy, Ictonyx capensis Kaup, 1835 (a subjective Synonym of Bradypus striatus Perry, 1810) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name striatus Perry, 1810, as published in the binomen Bradypus striatus, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the generic name Zorilla I. Geoffroy, 1826 (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (5) to place the following specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) zorilla Gmelin, 1788, as published in the binomen Viverra zorilla (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) ; (b) zorilla Cuvier, 1798, as published in the binomen Mustela zorilla (suppressed under the plenary powers in ( 1) above) ; (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature : Geoffroy (E.) 1803, Catalogue des Mammiféeres des Mus. National d’ Hist. Nat. Paris (rejected for nomenclatorial purposes because it was never published under the requirements of the International Code, Chapter III). 290 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature RANA FASCIATA BURCHELL, 1824 (AMPHIBIA); PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1253 By H. W. Parker (British Musewm (Natural History) London) and W. D. L. Ride (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) The object of the present application is to avoid the transfer of a specific name from one species of frog to another which would not only cause unneces- sary confusion in the group concerned, but would also make it necessary to propose a new name for one of the two species involved. The case involves Rana fasciata Burchell, 1824, and Rana grayi Smith, 1849. Unless the plenary powers are exercised the species now known as Rana grayi will become known as Rana fasciata, while the species now referred to as Rana fasciata will require anew name. Both names have been in use for the species to which they are at present applied for more than a hundred years. 2. W. J. Burchell, 1824 (Travels Interior South Africa 2 : 32) described a new species of frog observed on 2 March 1812 at “ Grass Station’ on the Brak River (at approximately 23° 28’ E., 30° 5’ S.) as follows :—‘Rana fasciata, B. Viridis. Partm vociferans. Dorsum fascia longitudinale flavé pictum. Femora transversé fusco-fasciata. Corpus parvum breve. Pedes vix palmiti. —Ranae (nec Hylae, nec Bufonis, nec Pipae) est vere species, forma pedum non obstant.” “ .. . but observed a very pretty and new species of frog of a green colour, and marked by a longitudinal yellow stripe on its back, and by transverse stripes of brown on its hind legs. It was further distinguished by its silence, or at least by croaking very seldom”. No type-specimen can be discovered to exist, and there is no sketch or figure among Burchell’s extant sketch-books, paintings or manuscripts in the libraries of the Hope Department of Zoology, Oxford and the University of Witwatersrand, South Africa. 3. The next occurrence of the name in the literature appears to be in 1832 when H. Boie (‘ Briefe von Heinrich Boie geschrieben aus Ostindien und auf der Reise dahin.” Newes Staatsbiirgerliches Magazin, 1, 1832 : 126-218) in giving an account of an excursion he made from Cape Town to Muysenberg states (p. 186) “ Dann erhielt ich noch Testudo angulata lebendig und Bufo pantherinus, die im Leben wunderschon roth gefleckt ist, so wie Rana fasciata Burch. in mehreren Exemplaren’’. Boie also used the name in his unpublished writings and on the labels of specimens in the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden ; in the Ms. diary of his expedition with H.C. Macklot he wrote, while in South Africa in 1826, “‘ Noch gefangen u(nd) nach Leijden geschickt Rana fasciata Burch. .. .” 4. Tschudi seems to have been unaware of Burchell’s work for, in 1838 (Preprint of Mem. Soc. Sci. nat. Neuchatel 1 : 38, 78) he proposed a new generic name Strongylopus, with Rana fasciata as type-species, giving “‘ Boie, Mus. Ingd.” as the author of the specific name. Presumably he had encountered it either in a letter from Boie and or on specimens in Leiden so labelled by Boie. 5. In 1841 Dumeéril & Bibron (Hrpét. gen. 8 : 389) state that they are describing the species called Strongylopus fasciatus by Tschudi and Rana Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 291 fasciata by Boie. They describe, and designate by letters, four varieties. Con- cerning the species they say “ Nous lui conservons le nom par lequel feu Boie avait désigné dans le musée de Leyde des sujets appartenant sans doute a notre quatriéme variété [i.e. their var. D] nom sous lequel l’espéce été citée par M. Tschudi comme type d’un genre particulier, qu’il a appelé Strongylopus.” In pl. 86, fig. 2 of the Atlas to this work (1854) they figure the open mouth of “ Strongylope 4 bandes ”. 6. In 1849 Andrew Smith, believing that Duméril & Bibron had more than one species among their four varieties, proposed the name Rana grayt for one of them (Jilustr. Zool. 8. Africa 2 : pl. 78, figs. 2, 2a—2c) and also described and figured “Rana fasciata Boie ” (pl. 78, figs. 1, la-lc). His figure 2b of the open mouth of Rana grayi accords well with Duméril & Bibron’s figure of the mouth of “ Strongylope 4 bandes ” and his fig. 1. of “R. fasciata Boie ’’ accords with Duméril & Bibron’s description of the colour pattern of their var. D. The name Rana fasciata has been consistently used since 1849 for the species figured by Andrew Smith with that name. 7. Examination of material in the Muséum d’Histoire naturelle in Paris shows that Smith was right in believing that Duméril & Bibron’s four varieties represented two species and also that their “‘ Var. D” corresponds with Smith’s figure of Rana fasciata. Duméril & Bibron were quite sure that this variety included the specimens in the Leiden Museum labelled R. fasciata by Boie, and Boie, as stated in paragraph 3 above, believed these specimens to belong to the species described by Burchell. It would therefore appear to be correct to use the name Rana fasciata Burchell for the species which has been known for over a century as Rana fasciata Boie. 8. Unfortunately, however, Boie’s surviving material at Leiden comprises the same two species as are represented in Duméril & Bibron’s material. Dr. Brongersma has very kindly examined the Leiden collection and reports as follows on the specimens that might have been examined by Tschudi : Register Number 2004. Two frogs collected by Boie & Macklot. Both appear to belong to Rana grayi Smith. Register Number 2005. Nine specimens collected by von Horstock between about 1826 and 1833. Eight of these are referable to R. gray Smith, but the ninth agrees with Smith’s concept of R. fasciata. Register Number 2030. One specimen collected by Delalande, agreeing with Smith’s figure and description of R. fasciata. Thus the material actually collected by Boie, and recorded in his diary as Rana fasciata Burchell, is not the species figured by Smith as Rana fasciata, but the one which this reviser named R. grayt. 9. Thus, if it were assumed that Boie correctly applied Burchell’s name, the species currently called R. grayi Smith would have to be known as R. fasciata Burchell, and the species known for over a century as R. fasciata would require anewname. Additional support for this view can be adduced from Burchell’s original description of R. fasciata as green, seldom croaking and with a small, short body. Mr. W. Rose of Cape Town, who is familiar with the living animals, tells us that, on the contrary, Smith’s fasciata is never green (though this is the prevalent colour of R. gray?) that it has the more powerful call of the 292 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature two species and a markedly long and slender body. Further, Burchell’s fasciata has a single median longitudinal yellow stripe (a common mutation among Amphibia Salientia), whereas Smith’s fasciata has not only this median stripe, but two light stripes parallel to it on each side. Thus the strict applica- tion of the Rules in this case would require a change of names that must result in greater confusion than uniformity. 10. We therefore hold that stability in nomenclature will only be served if the usage of the names R. fasciata and R. grayi which has been almost universal for over a century is stabilised. In our view this can best be done by selecting a neotype for Rana fasciata Burchell, and we designate a specimen presented to the British Museum (Natural History) by Andrew Smith as representing his concept of “Rana fasciata Boie ’’ and agreeing with his description and figures. Since on the evidence available this specimen does not belong to the species first described as Rana fasciata by Burchell in 1824, we ask that the plenary powers be used to direct that the nominal species be interpreted by reference to this neotype. 11. The specimen designated as neotype is a female, No. 58.11.25.127 in the British Museum (Natural History), London, collected by Sir Andrew Smith, with no more precise locality than ‘“‘Africa’”’. This specimen may well have been the one used in the preparation of Smith’s figure of “Rana fasciata Boie”’ pl. 78, fig. 1. It has been separated in a bottle bearing the label: “Rana fasciata Burchell. 58.11.25.127. Pres. Sir Andrew Smith ”’. 12. We further ask the Commission to rule that the nominal species Rana grayi Smith, 1849 be interpreted by reference to the lectotype selected for it by us, viz. Specimen No. 58.11.25.138 in the British Museum (Natural History), London, a female collected and presented by Sir Andrew Smith with no other date than ‘‘Cape”’ [of Good Hope]. This specimen accords with Smith’s figure, pl. 78, fig. 2. 13. The generic name Strongylopus Tschudi, 1838, is not currently used, but is regarded as a subjective synonym of Rana Linnaeus, 1758. It may, however, one day be found useful as a subgeneric name, and we therefore make no recommendations to the Commission concerning it. 14. We therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature :— (1) to use its plenary powers to direct that the nominal species Rana fasciata Burchell, 1824, is to be interpreted by reference to the neotype designated in paragraph 11 of this application. (2) to rule that the nominal species Rana grayi Smith, 1849, is to be inter- pretated by reference to the lectotype selected by us in paragraph 12 of this application. (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) fasciata Burchell, 1824, as published in the binomen Rana fasciata, interpreted as defined under the plenary powers in (1) above ; (b) grayi Smith, 1849, as published in the binomen Rana grayi, interpreted by reference to the lectotype specified in (2) above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 293 THAUMASTOCORIS AUSTRALICUS KIRKALDY, 1908 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA); REQUEST FOR THIS NAME, AS DEFINED BY A NEOTYPE, TO BE PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.) 1262 By James A. Slater (University of Connecticut, U.S.A.) In 1908, Kirkaldy (Proc. linn. Soc. N.S.W. 1907 : 777-778, pl. 43, figs. 1-3) established a new subfamily THAUMASTOTHERIINAE for a new genus and species from Queensland, Thawmastotheriuwm australicum. In a corrigenda slip and on pl. 43 he emended the names to THAUMASTOCORIDAE and T'hawmastocoris australicus. The names Thaumastocoris and THAUMASTOCORINAE were next mentioned by Bergroth (Deutsche ent. Z. 1909 : 331-333) who thus acted as first reviser. In a revision of the family THAUMASTOCORIDAE Drake & Slater (1957, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 50 : 366), stated that the type-specimen of Kirkaldy’s species which was a unique male collected by Koebele at Bundaberg, Queens- land, had been lost during the illustrating and has not been seen since that time. It is not now in the Kirkaldy collection at the Snow Entomological Museum, Kansas, nor in the collection of the Hawaiian Sugar Planters Association, Honolulu, and thus was almost certainly destroyed. It seemed highly desirable in this case to establish a neotype for the species in accordance with the pro- visions of the Code (Art.75). Therefore, Drake & Slater in their paper designated, as neotype of Thaumastocoris australicus Kirkaldy, 1908, a male specimen from Queensland. The neotype was redescribed, properly labelled, and deposited in the United States National Museum. 2. According to the New Code it is no longer necessary for specialists designating neotypes to notify the Commission so that the designation may be published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and be subject to challenge. Consequently, in the interests of nomenclatural stability, it is merely requested that the specific name in question, defined by the designated neotype, be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, and the name of its genus and family on the appropriate Official Lists. 3. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked : (1) to place the specific name australicus Kirkaldy, 1908, as published in the binomen Thaumastocoris australicus, and as defined by the neotype designated by Drake & Slater, 1957 (Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 50 : 366) (type-species of Thawmastocoris Kirkaldy, 1908) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (2) to place the generic name Thaumastocoris Kirkaldy, 1908 (gender : masculine) type-species, by monotypy, Thaumastocoris australicus Kirkaldy, 1908 (given precedence over Thaumastotherium Kirkaldy, 1908, by the action of Bergroth, 1909, as first reviser) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the family-group name THAUMASTOCORIDAE Kirkaldy, 1908 Bull. zool. Nomencel., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. 294 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (type-genus T'hawmastocoris Kirkaldy, 1908) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the generic name Thaumastotherium Kirkaldy, 1908 (rejected in favour of Thaumastocoris by the action of Bergroth, 1909, as first reviser) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (5) to place the family-group name THAUMASTOTHERIINAE Kirkaldy, 1908 (type-genus Thaumastotherium Kirkaldy, 1908) (rejected in favour of THAUMASTOCORIDAE Kirkaldy by the action of Bergroth, 1909, as first reviser) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family- Group Names in Zoology. PHASMIDAE vs. PHASMATIDAE : SECRETARY’S NOTE. Z.N.(S.) 1167 In an application published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17: 235-240, Dr. K. H. L. Key asked that PHASMATIDAE, the correct form of the family name based on Phasma Lichtenstein, 1796, be placed on the Official List. This proposal was objected to by Professor Ernst Mayr on the grounds that the form PHASMIDAE had been commonly used. A full discussion of the case will be found in Opinion 641 published on pages 274-279 of the present part of the Bulletin. The object of the present note is to give notice of the possible use of the plenary powers to.place PHASMIDAE on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology and to invite the comments of zoologists. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 295 LYCHNOCULUS MIRABILIS MURRAY, 1877 (PISCES) : PROPOSED REJECTION OF BOTH GENERIC AND SPECIFIC NAMES AS NOMINA OBLITA. Z.N.(S.) 1393 By Giles W. Mead (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) The applicant here requests the International Commission to reject both the generic and the specific names, each a nomen oblitum, which form the binomen Lychnoculus mirabilis, proposed by Sir John Murray (‘‘ Manchester Lectures ’—Science Lectures Delivered in (the Hulme Town Hall) Manchester, series 9, 1877 : 132) for the same series of benthonic fishes collected by the ‘ Challenger’ which was subsequently given the generic and specific names Ipnops murrayt by Dr. Albert Carl Ludwig Gotthilf Giinther (Annals and Magazine of Natural History, ser. 5, no. 8, 1878 : 187). 2. Of the deep-sea fishes taken by the ’Challenger’, few attracted such immediate and general interest as a series of small fishes which bore unique structures on the head, structures presumed by some to be eyes, but by others, luminous organs. Consequently, these fishes, or more particularly the cephalic organs, received considerable attention prior to Giinther’s preliminary diagnoses of certain ‘Challenger’ species in 1878. Most of the workers who discussed this species before Giinther’s description of Ipnops murrayi prudently avoided the use of a binomial Latin name, and Giinther’s name, Ipnops murrayi, has been used exclusively for this species since its proposal eighty years ago. 3. In 1877, Sir John Murray, during the course of a popular science lecture given in the Hulme Town Hall, Manchester, discussed this “‘ wonderful lamp eye” fish, providing it, possibly inadvertently, with the new generic and specific names Lychnoculus mirabilis. This lecture, and the new name pro- posed there, were published but soon forgotten. It was not known to Giinther in 1878, although he must have known of Sir John’s interest in this fish, for he named it in Murray’s honour. According to the Catalogue of the Library of the British Museum (Natural History) (8, 1910 : 1383 ; 4, 1913 : 1881), the first edition of these ‘‘ Manchester Science Lectures ”’ is wanting in that library, although the 1883 edition (not seen) is on deposit there. Hence, it seems likely that the publication of Lychnoculus mirabilis was unknown to Giinther, and save for a footnote reference to the Manchester paper in Murray and Hjort’s “ Depths of the Ocean ”’ (1912, footnote, p. 687), neither Murray’s name nor the paper in which it was published appears to have been referred to since. 4. Lychnoculus mirabilis is thus an objective senior synonym of Ipnops murrayt, the latter a binomen widely used in both popular and technical pub- lications, a name which represents one of the world’s most remarkable vertebrate animals and part of which forms the stem of the universally used family name Ipnopidae. The applicant therefore requests the Commission :— Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (1) to reject, as a nomen oblitum, each of the following names, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy : (a) the generic name Lychnoculus Murray (Sir John), 1877 ; (b) the associated specific name mirabilis Murray, 1877 ; the two pub- lished in the combination Lychnoculus mirabilis : (2) to place the following name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: Lychnoculus Murray, 1877, rejected under (1)(a), above ; (3) to place the following specific name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology : mirabilis Murray, 1877, as published in the combination Lychnoculus mirabilis ; rejected under (1)(b), above ; (4) to place the following generic name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: Ipnops Giinther (A.C. L.G.), 1878 (gender : masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Ipnops murrayi Giinther, 1878 ; (5) to place the following specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : murrayi Giinther, 1878, as published in the com- bination Ipnops murrayi (type-species of Ipnops Giinther, 1878); (6) to place the family-group name IPpNOPIDAE Jordan (1923, Stanford Univ. Publ. Biol. Sct. 3 : 155) (type-genus Ipnops Giinther, 1878) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. PP | en ro | Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 297 PHYSAPIDA LEACH, 1815 (INSECTA, NEUROPTERA); PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL INDEX AS A NOMEN OBLITUM. Z.N.(S.) 1453 By D. E. Kimmins (British Museum (Natural History), London) The family-group name PHYSAPIDA Leach, 1815, in Brewster’s Edinburgh Encyclopedia 9(1) : 137, type-genus Physapus Leach, 1815 (a junior objective synonym of Nemoptera Latreille, 1802) is nomenclatorially valid and if the Law of Priority be strictly enforced, an amended family-group name based upon Physapus Leach should replace the family-group name NEMOPTERIDAE Burmeister, 1839 (published as NEMATOPTERIDAE). 2. Leach’s family-group name, however, has not been adopted and to introduce it now merely on the grounds of priority would cause unnecessary confusion. It is therefore desirable that the family-group name PHYSAPIDA Leach, 1815, type-genus Physapus Leach, should be placed upon the Official Index of Invalid and Rejected Family-Group Names in Zoology. 3. The Commission is therefore asked : (1) to declare that the family-group name pHysapipa Leach, 1815, type- genus Physapus Leach, 1815, is a nomen oblitum ; and (2) to place the family-group name PHysaPiIpA Leach, 1815, as defined in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family- Group Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. 298 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ARIZONA ELEGANS KENNICOTT, 1859 (REPTILIA); PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1454 By Kenneth L. Williams and Hobart M. Smith (Dept. of Zoology and Museum of Natural History, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois) The object of the present application is to request the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers for the purpose of validating the specific name elegans Kennicott, 1859 (in Baird, Report on the United States and Mexican boundary survey 2, Rept. : 18-19, pl. 13), as published in the combination Arizona elegans, a name which was rejected in 1894 as an invalid junior secondary homonym, in the genus Coluber Linnaeus, 1758, of the specific name elegans Shaw, 1802 (Gen. Zool. 3 : 536). The relevant history of this case follows : 1. In 1802 Shaw (loc. cit.) described an African species of snake, Coluber elegans, based upon three syntypes in the British Museum. The generic name is of Linnaeus 1758. 2. The nominal genus Arizona and the nominal species elegans were described in 1859 by Kennicott (loc. cit.) ; elegans was the type-species of Arizona by monotypy. The syntypes of elegans are two specimens, U.8. Nat. Mus. 1722 and 4266. 3. In 1896 Boulenger (Cat. Snakes Brit. Mus. 3 : 167) placed Coluber elegans Shaw in the genus Psammophis, following the precedent of Boie, 1827 (Isis : 533) and all subsequent authors. The name is still recognized in this genus, as Psammophis elegans (Shaw). 4. In the same work but an earlier volume, Boulenger, 1894 (Cat. Snakes Brit. Mus. 2 : 66), regarded Arizona as congeneric with Coluber, and utilized a new name Coluber arizonae for Kennicott’s species, listing in its synonymy Arizona elegans Kennicott, Pityophis elegans Cope, and Rhinechis elegans Cope. He cited two specimens, from Duval County, Texas, and Warner’s Ranch, San Diego County, California. He did not designate them as types, nor did he in any manner make clear whether this was a substitute name or a new species. However, in other accounts in the same work which are known to be descriptions of new species he gave no indication of status either by use of the expressions mihi, sp. nov. or nom. nov., or by explicit designation of types. 5. Subsequent to Boulenger (1894) the name Coluber arizonae has never been used as a substitute for elegans Kennicott. It has, however, been cited in synonymy under Arizona elegans and Rhinechis elegans. Since 1907 (the last use of Rhinechis) the only name used has been Arizona elegans. 6. In a monographic revision of the genus Arizona, Klauber (1946, Trans. San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 10(17) : 321-322), acknowledged awareness of the problem. Apparently being misinformed on the forthcoming emendations to the rules he states, ‘“‘ we now know the transfer to Coluber was incorrect, and in accordance with a decision of the International Commission on Zoological Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. — ee ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 299 Nomenclature which is expected to be in print shortly, secondary homonyms so created are not to be regarded as permanent homonyms ’”’. Klauber then designated Boulenger’s Duval County specimen as the lectotype of Coluber arizonae and placed the name in the synonymy of Arizona elegans elegans. 7. Dixon, 1959 (Southwestern Naturalist 4 : 20-29, figs. la-lb, map) followed Klauber’s (loc. cit.) ideas on retention of elegans, but on the basis of larger series of specimens from the area of the type-locality of arizonae (as of Klauber) he was able to show the existence of distinctive differences justifying recognition of two sub-species among the populations referred by Klauber to A.e. elegans. Dixon thus utilized the name arizonae as the earliest available for the eastern subspecies, and the name elegans for the western subspecies. 8. Dixon in 1960 (Southwestern Naturalist 5 : 226) proposed the new name arenicola for the eastern subspecies he had identified in 1959 as Arizona elegans arizonae. The type is, by inference, the specimen in the British Museum (Natural History) from Duval County that Klauber designated as lectotype of Coluber arizonae Boulenger. Unfortunately his phraseology is such that arenicola might effectively be construed as a substitute for the name arizonae, instead of a substitute name for the taxon to which the name arizonae was erroneously fixed by Klauber. 9. The case requires consideration of three questions : (a) was the suppression by Boulenger of Arizona elegans Kennicott as a secondary homonym of Coluber elegans Shaw a permanent suppression; (b) is Boulenger’s name Coluber arizonae to be considered a substitute name (in which case its type is that of Arizona elegans Kennicott) or as a new species (in which case its cited specimens are among the types) ; and (c) is arenicola to be associated with the taxon to which Dixon intended to refer it, or to Boulenger’s arizonae (=e. elegans) ? 10. The answer to the first question is clearly implicit, although unfor- tunately not explicit, in the 1961 International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Art. 59c, wherein it is stated that secondary homonyms rejected after 1960 may be revived when the state of homonymy is removed ; by implication, secondary homonyms rejected before 1961 are permanently suppressed. Therefore, sanctioned use at the present time of Arizona elegans Kennicott would require exercise of the plenary powers of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The nomen oblitum rule cannot be invoked to eliminate Coluber arizonae since that specific name was used by Dixon in 1959. 11. The question of status of Coluber arizonae Boulenger as a substitute name is open to varied analysis. Inclusion in Boulenger’s synonymy solely of Arizona elegans Kennicott and subsequent nominal variants of that name makes it seem evident that the new name Coluber arizonae Boulenger is to be considered simply as a substitute for the name Arizona elegans Kennicott, thereby retaining exactly the same identity through retention of exactly the same types. That Boulenger so considered it is indicated in the Amphibia- Reptilia Section of the Zoological Record for 1894, wherein the recorder (Boulenger) cites the name ‘“ Coluber arizonae n. n. for Arizona elegans” whereas other new entries were cited with the abbreviation “n. sp.’’. As circumstances developed, contrary to Klauber’s anticipation (op. cit. : 322), the interpretation by both Klauber 1946 and Dixon 1959 of Coluber arizonae 300 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as a new species, which thus could have the same type as, or a different one from, the synonymized name Arizona elegans Kennicott, is not tenable. Klauber’s selection of a different type, and Dixon’s acceptance of his precedent, are not valid. 12. It is quite clear from context that Dixon’s intent in 1960 was to substitute arenicola for A. e. arizonae : Dixon 1959, not for Coluber arizonae Boulenger, 1894, although the phraseology is not explicit. To remove all question we request the Commission to place the name on the Official List with the type clearly intended by Dixon. 13. Since there are nine recognized subspecies of the single species of Arizona, since the name elegans has regularly been used in hundreds of references to this species, and since monographic reviews of relatively recent years are included among these references, we regard it significantly contrary to the interests of stability of nomenclature to substitute another name for elegans through application of the automatic provisions of the code, which would render elegans unavailable through permanence of suppression of secondary homonyms, and arizonae the valid name of the species as the earliest available synonym. 14. We therefore request the International Commission to take the following actions which, we are convinced, would be the least disturbing and the most effective in maintenance of nomenclatural stability : (a) to use its plenary powers to validate the specific name elegans Kennicott, 1859, as published in the binomen Arizona elegans, lectotype U.S. Nat. Mus. No. 1722, designated by Blanchard, 1924 (Occ. Papers Mus. Zool. U. Mich. 150 : 4), and to place it on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (b) to place the generic name Arizona Kennicott, 1859 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Arizona elegans Kennicott, 1859, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (c) to invalidate the recognition by Klauber (1946 : 322) et al. of Coluber arizonae Boulenger as a new species name ; (d) to invalidate the designation by Klauber (1946 : 322) of the lectotype of Coluber arizonae Boulenger ; (e) to place the specific name elegans Shaw, 1802, as published in the binomen Coluber elegans, lectotype by present designation Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) No. 1946.1.8.8 on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (f) to place the subspecific name arenicola Dixon, 1960, as published in the combination Arizona elegans arenicola, lectotype Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) No. 90.7.30.40 by present designation to preserve the intent of Dixon 1960, through Dixon 1959, via Klauber 1946, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 301 TRICHOSTOMIDES RAMBUR, 1842 (INSECTA, TRICHOPTERA) ; PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL INDEX AS A NOMEN OBLITUM. Z.N.(S.) 1456 By D. E. Kimmins (British Museum (Natural History), London) The earliest family-group name for the taxon currently known as either GOERIDAE or GOERINAE Ulmer, 1903 (Abh. Naturw. Ver. Hamburg 18 : 81) is TRICHOSTOMIDAE Rambur, 1842 (Hist. nat. Ins. Névr.: 489) published as subfamily TRICHOSTOMIDES, and based upon the generic name T'richostoma Pictet, 1834 (Recherches Phrygan.:172), type-species T'richostoma picicorne Pictet, 1834 (by present designation) = Silo pallipes (Fabricius, 1781). Rambur’s family name was used by Newman, 1853 (Zoologist 11(App.) : cciv) as TRICHO- STOMIDAE and Acloque, 1897 (Faune de France 2 : 42) used the name as the subfamily TRIcHOsTomu. Since then the name appears to have been dropped and the names GOERINAE or GOERIDAE Ulmer have been used for this taxon. A change to a family-group name based upon the generic name T'richostoma Pictet, 1834, would cause unnecessary confusion and instability in nomen- clature and the logical course would be to treat the family-group name TRICHOSTOMIDAE Rambur, 1842, as a nomen oblitum. 2. The Commission is therefore asked : (1) to declare that the family-group name TRICHOSTOMIDES Rambur, 1842 type-genus T'richostoma Pictet, 1834, is a nomen oblitum ; and (2) to place the family-group name TRICHOSTOMIDES Rambur, 1842 (as defined in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. Se ee EERE Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. 302 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature EUCY PRIS VAVRA, 1891 (CRUSTACEA, OSTRACODA) ; DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1462 By P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (University of Leicester, England) The present proposal is for the use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species for the nominal genus Hucypris which will allow that name to continue in the sense that has been universally adopted during the last sixty years to denote one of the most abundant and widespread genera of fresh- water ostracods known. The proposal has been prepared at the suggestion of Dr. Erich Triebel of the Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany. 2. In 1891 Vavra (S.B. bohm. Ges. Wiss.: 159-168) divided the genus Cypris O. F. Miller, 1776, into two subgenera. The first of these, with three species, was referred to Hrpetocypris, a name which had been introduced by Brady and Norman in 1889 as that of a distinct genus. The second subgenus was referred to by the new name Lucypris, and this included eight species, the first of which was Cypris pubera O. F. Miiller, 1776, and the seventh of which was Monoculus virens Jurine, 1820 (Histoire des Monocles, Genéve). No sub- genus with the name Cypris was recognised. 3. The genus Cypris had been set up by O. F. Miller in 1776 (Zoologiae Danicae Prodromus, Havniae) for ten species, the first of which was Cypris pubera. This species was designated type-species of the genus by Baird in 1846 (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (1) 17 : 414). 4, As Vavra included Cypris pubera within his subgenus Hucypris, it seems clear that he regarded it as the typical subgenus of Cypris, and only introduced the new name to avoid tautonymy. In this case the type of the subgenus must be Cypris pubera, and the name Eucypris Vavra, 1891, must fall as junior objective synonym of Cypris Miller, 1776. 5. However, Daday (1900, A Magyarorszagi Kagylésrékok Magdénrajza ; Ostracoda Hungariae ; Budapest) and many subsequent authors, used the name Eucypris Vavra for a genus distinct from Cypris Miller. 6. In 1924 Sars (Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 20 : 107) designated Monoculus virens Jurine as type-species of the genus Hucypris Vavra. 7. In 1925 Sars (An Account of the Crustacea of Norway, Vol. 9, Ostracoda, Pts. 7 and 8, p. 110) based a new supra-generic “ group” of the subfamily “Cyprinae ”’ [recte Cypridinae] on the genus Hucypris, which he called the Eucyprides. This group included eight genera, among which were both Cypris and Eucypris. Bronstein (1947; Inst. Zool. Acad. Sci. U.R.SS., N.S. No. 31) used the name Eucyprini for a tribe within the subfamily ‘“Cyprinae ”’ in the same sense as Sars’ group (i.e. containing both Cypris andEucypris), and Schneider (1960, Ocuopr: Maneoutonormn, p. 356) used the name “‘ Eucyprinae ” as a subfamily of the family‘‘ Cypridae ” yet again in the same sense. It is clear that none of these suprageneric names has validity, as the name of any division of the family Cyprididae that contains Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. —— Bes as ae Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 303 the genus Cypris must be based on the name Cypris. This has already been noted by Pokorny , (1958 : Grundziige zool. Mikropaliont., Bd. 2 : 234). 8. So far as I know, almost all authors subsequent to Vavra have used the name Hucypris as that of a genus distinct from Cypris, and since 1924 this genus has universally been regarded as typified by the species Monoculus virens Jurine. The genus in this sense is abundant, and many species of freshwater ostracod have been referred to it. 9. As noted above (para. 3) by strict application of the Rules the name Eucypris should be suppressed as an objective synonym of Cypris, and a new name would have to be found for the genus typified by Monoculus virens Jurine, and for any suprageneric taxon based on it. 10. I believe that such a course would cause great confusion, and in the interests of stability would propose that the plenary powers be invoked to validate the designation of Monoculus virens Jurine as type-species of the genus. 11. 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 Hucypris Vavra, 1891, prior to the Ruling now requested and, having done so, to designate the nominal species Monoculus virens Jurine, 1820, to be the type-species of that genus ; (2) to place the generic name Hucypris Vavra, 1891 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Monoculus virens Jurine, 1820, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name virens Jurine, 1820 as published in the binomen Monoculus virens (type-species of Eucypris Vavra, 1891), on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 304 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature AELIA ROSTRATA BOHEMAN, 1852 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA): PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1490 By E. 8. Brown (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) In 1912 Kirkaldy (Catalogue of Hemiptera, I, Cimicidae : 78) showed that the currently used Aelia rostrata Boheman, (1852, Ofv. K. svensk. Vetensk.- Akad. Forhandl. 9 : 50) was a junior secondary homonym of Aelia rostrata (De Geer) originally described in the genus Cimex (1773, Mém. Hist. Ins. 3: 271). De Geer’s species Cimex rostratus is a synonym of Cimex acuminatus Linnaeus, (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 446) which also belongs to the genus Aelia Fabricius, (1803, Syst. Rhyng.: 188). Kirkaldy overlooked the fact that Aelia rostrata Boheman, 1852, is also a primary homonym of Aelia rostrata Fabricius, (1803, Syst. Rhyng. : 188), an Oriental species now placed in the genus Megarrhamphus Bergroth, (1891, Rev. d’ Ent. 10 : 214) a replacement name erroneously given by Bergroth to Megarhynchus Laporte, 1833, in the belief that it was a junior homonym of Megarynchus Thunberg, (1924, De. gen. Megarynchus—Aves). The one letter difference, however, is sufficient to validate Laporte’s generic name so that Megarrhamphus Bergroth, 1890, becomes a synonym of Megarhynchus Laporte, (1833, Hssat Hémipt. Mag. Zool. 2 : 65). Kirkaldy also used hastatus Fabricius (Lygaeus), 1803, loc. cit. : 239 in place of rostratus Fabricius for this species since Aelia rostrata Fabricius, 1803, was a homonym of Aelia rostrata (De Geer, 1773). 2. Since Aelia rostrata Boheman, 1852, was a homonym of Aelia rostrata (De Geer, 1773) Kirkaldy, in his Catalogue, used the next available name which was Aelia rostrata Boheman var. glebana Ferrari, (1874, Ann. Mus. civ. di Storia Nat. Genova 6 : 126). He raised var. glebana Ferrari to specific rank with two varieties, glebana Ferrari and confusa Kirkaldy a new name for the variety including Aelia rostrata Boheman. The correct name for typical Aelia rostrata Boheman therefore became Aelia glebana Ferrari, var. confusa Kirkaldy, but this name was never used. The species continued to be called Aelia rostrata Boheman not only in taxonomic works but also, being of some considerable economic importance as a pest of cereals, the name has in recent years become well established in economic literature and agricultural reports. 3. China and Lodos, (1959, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (13) 2 : 588) have recently followed Kirkaldy in the use of Aelia glebana Ferrari instead of Aelia rostrata Boheman for this well-known pest. In view of the confusion which would result from this change of name, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested to take the following action :— (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy the specific names : (a) rostratus De Geer, 1773, as published in the binomen Cimex rostratus ; (b) rostrata Fabricius, 1803, as published in the binomen Aelia rostrata ; Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 305 (2) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) rostrata Boheman, 1852, as published in the binomen Aelia rostrata ; (b) hastatus Fabricius, 1803, as published in the binomen Lygaeus hastatus ; (4) 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. 306 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature TETRASTICHUS WALKER, 1842 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA, CHALCIDOIDEA) ; PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1503 By B. D. Burks (Entomology Research Division, Agricultural Research Station, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) The generic name T'etrastichus Haliday, [January] 1844 (Trans. ent. Soc. London 3:297) with type-species Cirrospilus attalus Walker, 1839 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 2 : 353), has been very widely used in taxonomic, economic, and biological literature for over a century. However, when O. Peck and the late A. B. Gahan were preparing the Chalcidoidea section of a catalogue of the Hymenoptera of America north of Mexico (U.S. dept. Agr. Monogr. 2, 1951), they discovered that Walker had employed the name Tetrastichus in describing some new species in 1842 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 10:116). Since this usage antedated Haliday’s publication of the name, and satisfied the requirements of the Code for validation, Peck and Gahan concluded that the proper designation of the genus was T'etrastichus Walker, 1842. As Tetrastichus Walker had no type, they designated the species lycidas Walker from among those included. They chose lycidas without seeing specimens of it. 2. It should be noted that the compilers of this catalogue, although using the name T'etrastichus Walker, actually employed it in the sense of Tetrastichus Haliday, on the assumption that the species they selected as type of T'etrastichus Walker was congeneric with the type of Tetrastichus Haliday. Unfortunately, Lindroth and Graham (Opusc. Ent. 25 : 94, 1960) subsequently showed that lycidas Walker is not a Tetrastichus in the sense of Haliday, but is a member of the closely related genus Aprostocetus Westwood, 1833. Since Aprostocetus has priority, Tetrastichus of Walker must logically fall as a synonym of Aprostocetus, and the species formerly placed in Tetrastichus would logically take the next available name, T'richoceras Ratzeburg, [c. March] 1844. Thus, through the inadvertence of cataloguers, the well-known name Tetrastichus is to be discarded. 3. Such discarding of a much-used name is logical, but certainly is not reasonable. The name T'etrastichus has been more widely used than any other single generic name in the entire superfamily Chalcidoidea. The U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture maintains a card-file of all known taxonomic and biological references to genera and species of Chalcidoidea that have been published since Dalla Torre’s Catalogus Hymenopterorum, vol. 5, 1898. The file at present contains approximately 2,900 cards for the genus 7J'etrastichus, more cards than there are for any other chalcidoid genus. There are fewer cards for such ubiquitous genera as LHurytoma, Coccophagus, Chalcis (Brachymeria), or Trichogramma. The named collection of Tetrastichus in the U.S. National Museum occupies 28 museum drawers, again greater than the number of specimen drawers for any other single chalcidoid genus. 4, The genus Tetrastichus, in the sense of Haliday, has been revised or synopses of species have been drawn up for many of the faunal regions of the Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. —— a —- Se ee a ee re i Pil Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 307 world. These include studies of the species of the Ethiopian Region, Australia, the Palearctic Region, the Seychelles Islands, the Soviet Union, and North America north of Mexico. It is the type-genus of the subfamily TETRASTICHINAE of the family EULOPHIDAE. The first known reference to a family-group name is to the family TETRASTICHOIDAE by Foerster, 1856 (Hymenopterologische Studien (2) : 19). 5. Therefore in the interest of stability of nomenclature, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested to :— (1) use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name T'etrastichus Walker, 1842, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the generic name T'etrastichus Haliday, 1844 (gender: masculine) type-species, by monotypy, Cirrospilus attalus Walker, 1839, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name attalus Walker, 1839, as published in the binomen Cirrospilus attalus (type-species of T'etrastichus Haliday, 1844) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the generic name Tetrastichus Walker, 1842, suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (5) to place the family-group name TETRASTICHINAE Foerster, 1856 (type- genus T'etrastichus Haliday, 1844) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ; (6) to place the family-group name TETRASTICHOIDAE Foerster, 1856 (an incorrect original spelling for TETRASTICHINAE) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. 308 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DICELLOMUS HALL, 1871 (BRACHIOPODA, INARTICULATA) ; PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1504 By A. J. Rowell (Department of Geology, University of Nottingham) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature to exercise its plenary powers and remove a threat to the stability of the name of a Cambrian inarticulate brachiopod, Dicellomus Hall, 1871. This phosphatic shelled genus is an important element of the upper Cambrian brachiopod fauna of North America and has some stratigraphic importance (Bell, 1944, p. 158). Under the Rules the name would be lost as a junior subjective synonym of Obolella Billings, a lower Cambrian, calcareous shelled genus that belongs to an entirely different superfamily. 2. The genus Dicellomus was erected by Hall (1871) in the following terms : “The species placed by me, with doubt, under the genus Obolella of Billings in the Sixteenth Report on the State Cabinet was thus referred rather in deference to Mr. Billings’s expressed opinion, than with its correspondence to the generic description and figure of the author. The grooving or emargina- tion of the apex of both valves and the thickening of the edges of the shell on each side below the apex ; the form and character of the muscular impressions would likewise separate this species from Obolella as described and figured by Mr. Billings. I shall therefore indicate this form as a distinct genus under the name of Dicellomus. The species described by me as Orbicula (?) crossa in vol. I, Pal. N.Y., has a similar form of muscular impression and will fall under the same genus.” 3. This description was slightly reworded a year later (Hall, 1872, p. 246) and the lapsus which occurred in the original account corrected to read Orbicula (?) crassa. 4. In the Sixteenth Report on the State Cabinet of Natural History the only species doubtfully placed in Obolella by Hall, (1863, p. 133) was Obolella (?) polita (=Lingula (?) polita Hall, 1861). From the original account of the genus Dicellomus it could be argued that Hall intended to make Lingula polita the type-species. All subsequent workers who have mentioned the type-species have taken this point of view and cited it as the type (e.g. Walcott, 1912; Schuchert and LeVene, 1929 ; Bell, 1941 ; Cooper, 1944). 5. However, in the original account of Dicellomus the only species mentioned by name (New Code Art. 69(a)(i)) was Orbicula (2) crassa and under the Rules this must be the type-species by monotypy, contrary to Hall’s intention and all subsequent usage. 6. Orbicula (?) crassa Hall, is correctly referred to the genus Obolella Billings, 1861. This was realised by Hall and Clarke (1892, p. 72) and has been confirmed by all subsequent workers who have dealt with the species (e.g. Walcott, 1912, p. 592; Cooper, 1944, p. 287; Rowell in press). Thus Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 309 under the Rules Dicellomus Hall, 1871 is a junior subjective synonym of Obolella Billings. 7. In view of the facts set out in the preceeding paragraphs, I now request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : (1) to use its plenary powers : (a) to set aside all type-selections for the genus Dicellomus Hall, 1871, made prior to the Ruling now asked for and (b) having done so, to designate Lingula polita Hall, 1861, as type- species of the foregoing genus ; (2) to place the following name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : Dicellomus Hall, 1871 (gender: masculine) (type-species by designation under the plenary powers under 1(b) above : Lingula polita Hall, 1861) ; (3) to place the following name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : polita Hall, 1861, as published in the combination Lingula polita (type-species of Dicellomus Hall, 1871). REFERENCES _ Bell, W. C., 1941. ‘‘ Cambrian Brachiopoda from Montana ”’, Journ. Paleont. 15 pp. 193-255, pls. 28-37 ——, 1944. ‘‘ Karly Upper Cambrian Brachiopods’”’, in Lochman (C) and Duncan (D.). “ Early Upper Cambrian Faunas of Central Montana ”’, Geol. Soc. America, Sp. Paper 54, pp. 144-171, pls. 18, 19 Cooper, G. A., 1944. ‘‘ Phylum Brachiopoda’’. in Shimer (H. W.) and Schrock (R. R.). Index Fossils of North America, pp. 277-365, pls. 105-143 Hall, J., 1861. ‘ Descriptions of new species of fossils’, Rept. of the Super- intendent of the Geol. Survey of Wisconsin, pp. 11-52 ——., 1863. “ Preliminary Notice on the fauna of the Potsdam Sandstone ”’, Sixteenth Ann. Report of the Regents of the University of the State of N.Y. on the condition of the Cabinet of Natural History, pp. 119-184 —, 1871. “‘ Notes on some new or imperfectly known forms among the Brachiopoda ”, Preliminary Notice : Twenty-third Ann. Report on the State Cabinet of Natural History (Abstract), pp. 1-5 ——, 1872. “Notes on some new or imperfectly known forms among the Brachiopoda ”, Twenty-third Ann. Report of the Regents of the University of the State of N.Y. on the condition of the State Cabinet of Natural History, pp. 244-247, pl. XIII Hall, J., and Clarke, J. M., 1892. ‘‘An introduction to the study of the Genera of Palaeozoic Brachiopoda”’, Palaeontology of New York, vol. 8, pt. 1, pp. i-xvi, 1-367, pls. 1-20 Rowell, A. J., 1962. ‘‘ The Genera of the Brachiopod Superfamilies Obolellacea and Siphonotretacea ’’, Journ. Paleont. 36 (in press) Schuchert, C., and LeVene, C. M., 1929. Brachiopoda (Generum et Geno- typorum Index et Bibliographia). Fossilium Catalogus, 1, Animalia, 42, pp. 1-140 Walcott, C. D., 1912. “ Cambrian Brachiopoda’”’, U.S. Geol. Survey, Mono- graph 51, pp. 1-872, atlas, pp. 363, 104 pls. . . 310 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature LIGULOPS HALL, 1871 (BRACHIOPODA, INARTICULATA); PRO- POSED REJECTION AS A NOMEN OBLITUM. Z.N.(S.) 1505 By A. J. Rowell (Department of Geology, University of Nottingham) The purpose of the present application is to remove a threat to the well established name of an Ordovician inarticulate brachiopod, Lingulops Hall, 1872. Under the Rules this is a junior objective synonym of Ligulops Hall, 1871. The latter name does not appear to have been used since 1871 and its author in 1872 indicated that he considered it a lapsus for Lingulops. 2. In the Abstracts: Preliminary Notice ; Twenty-third Report on the State Cabinet of Natural History, preparatory for the Palaeontology of New York, 1871, p. 2, Hall described a genus which he proposed to call Ligulops. There were no included species. 3. In the Twenty-third Report on the State Cabinet of Natural History, published a year later, Hall (1872, p. 245) repeats the generic description given in the Preliminary Notice, but the generic name is written Lingulops. There are no included species in the text, but Lingulops whitfieldi Hall is figured on Plate 13, figs. 1 and 2. In the explanation of this plate there is a footnote which reads ‘‘ Printed Ligulops by mistake in some copies of the paper ”. 4. Under the Rules, Lingulops Hall, 1872, is an invalid emendation of Ivgulops Hall, 1871, since there is no indication of an inadvertent error in the original account of the genus. The etymology was not given and it could equally well be derived from lingua, a tongue, the diminutives lingula, ligua, or named after the brachiopod Lingula. 5. The name Lingulops has always been used for the genus since 1872 and Ligulops appears to have been either overlooked or considered as a lapsus for Lingulops. 6. In view of foregoing paragraphs and with the intention of preserving the well established name Lingulops, I now request the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature : (1) to reject the generic name Ligulops Hall, 1871, as a nomen oblitum ; (2) to place the following name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, Lingulops Hall, 1872 (gender: feminine) (type-species Lingulops whitfieldi Hall, 1872 by monotypy) ; (3) to place the following name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : whitfieldi Hall, 1872, as published in the combination Lingulops whitfieldi (specific name of the type-species of Lingulops Hall, 1872) ; (4) to place the following name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : Ligulops Hall, 1871 as rejected in (1) above. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. ~ ee ee ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 311 ORBICULOIDEA D’ORBIGNY, 1847 (BRACHIOPODA, INARTICU- LATA); PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1506 By A. J. Rowell (Department of Geology, University of Nottingham) Although there has been considerable dispute over the type-species of Orbiculoidea D’Orbigny, 1847, the generic name has always been used for a large group of phosphatic shelled discinaceid species, mainly of Palaeozoic age, which are included in the subfamily ORBICULOIDEINAE Schuchert and LeVene, 1929 (p. 13). Recent revisionary work on the genus has shown that the nominal type-species under the Rules has the characters of a craniaceid. The purpose of the present application is to avoid the confusion which would be caused by strict application of the Rules in transferring the generic name from one group of species to another. 2. Orbiculoidea was erected by D’Orbigny in 1847 (p. 269), but there were no originally included species. The first species to be included in the genus were Orbicula forbesii Davidson, 1848 ; Orbicula morissii Davidson, 1848 and Orbicula davidsonii D’Orbigny, 1850, in the above order (D’Orbigny, 1850, p- 44). No type-species was designated. O. morissit Davidson is an erroneous subsequent spelling of O. morrisii Davidson, 1848. Orbicula davidsonii D’Orbigny was proposed as what would now be called a substitute name for “ Orbicula Koninckii, Davidson, 1848. Bull. de la soc. géol. de France (non Geinitz 1848) Angl. Dudley ” (D’Orbigny, 1850, p. 44). Davidson, however, did not use the name O. Koninckii in his 1848 paper, his three species in that work were O. morrisii, O. forbesii and O. verneuilit. 3. Three species have at various times been designated as the type of Orbiculoidea. (i) Davidson (1853, p. 129) considered Schizotreta Kutorga, 1848, a junior synonym of Orbiculoidea and cited Orbicula elliptica Kutorga, the type-species of Schizotreta, as the type of Orbiculoidea. This species was accepted as the type- species of the genus by Dall (1871, p. 74) and Miller (1889, p. 356). Since O. elliptica was not amongst the first included species this designation is invalid. (ii) Dall (1877) erroneously considered that O. morrisii was the first species listed by D’Orbigny in the genus and noted “‘ It would appear as if O. Morrisii must be considered the type ” (1877, p. 51). It is usually considered that by this statement Dall selected the type-species. However, if the doubt in his statement precludes the subsequent designation of the type-species being attributed to him, then it was fixed by either Fischer and Oehlert (1887) or Hall and Clarke (1892). Fischer and Oehlert (1887, p. 1268) cited O. morrisii as the type-species, but incorrectly attributed the species to D’Orbigny. Hall and Clarke also cited this species as the type, but correctly refer the authorship to Davidson. There is no doubt that under the Rules (New Code Art. 69(a)(ii)(3)) O. morrisit is the type-species of the genus. Bull. zool, Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. 312 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (iii) Girty (1909) regarded Orbicula forbesii as the type-species of Orbiculoidea for he considered that when the author of a genus did not designate a type- species then the first included species was the type-species. In 1928 he again cited O. forbesit as the type and gave additional reasons for so regarding it. He believed that Dall (1877) when designating a type-species for a genus which lacked one, customarily selected the first species referred to the genus. In the case of Orbiculoidea, Girty believed that Dall intended to write forbesii, but inadvertently in error wrote morrisii. Whatever the merits of Girty’s argument his action in regarding O. forbesit as the type-species is not legally valid, although he has been followed by several workers. (iv) There has been no uniformity in the acceptance of the type-species of Orbiculoidea during this century. O. morrisit has been regarded as the type- species by Prosser (1912), Schuchert and LeVene (1929), Wilson (1946) and Goryansky (1960). O. forbesii has been cited as the type-species by Girty (1909), (1928), Dunbar and Condra (1932) and Cooper (1944). 4. During the course of work on the British Lower Palaeozoic discinaceids, Davidson’s material of O. morrisii has been studied. The species has always been rather poorly understood and only the dorsal valve known from the type-locality. The original specimen figured by Davidson (1848, pl. ITT, fig. 46) cannot be definitely located ; it is probably amongst the three specimens figured by him in 1866 (pl. VII, figs. 10-12). Only one of these specimens can be definitely located, the original of fig. 12. Two other specimens in the Davidson Collection at the British Museum (Nat. Hist.) are probably the specimens on which figs. 10-11 were based. This material reveals that O. morrisit, as under- stood by Davidson in 1866, is a craniaceid, having the typical calcareous, punctate shell of the superfamily. It is intended in the future to stabilise the concept of O. morrisii by designating one of the above three specimens as neotype. 5. By a strict application of the Rules, the genus Orbiculoidea, type-species O. morrisii, would be a rather poorly understood craniaceid, possibly a senior synonym of Petrocrania Raymond. 6. The generic name Orbiculoidea could be conserved with its accustomed meaning if O. forbesii was the legal type-species. As was observed by Girty (1928), this species is not congeneric with Orbicula elliptica, the type-species of Schizotreta. 7. In view of facts set out in the proceeding paragraphs, I request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its plenary powers (a) to set aside all type-selections for the genus Orbiculoidea D’Orbigny, 1847, made prior to the Ruling now asked for and (b) having done so, to designate Orbicula forbesit Davidson, 1848, as type-species of the foregoing genus ; (2) to place the following name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : Orbiculoidea D’Orbigny, 1847 (gender: masculine) (type- species by designation under the plenary powers under (b) above : Orbicula forbesii Davidson, 1848) ; (3) to place the following name on the Official List of Specific Names in Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 313 Zoology : forbesi [emend. of forbesii] Davidson, 1848, as published in the combination Orbicula forbesii (type-species of Orbiculoidea D’Orbigny, 1847) ; (4) to place the following name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology : ORBICULOIDEINAE Schuchert & LeVene, 1929 (type-genus Orbiculoidea d’Orbigny, 1847). REFERENCES Cooper, G. A., 1944. “ Phylum Brachiopoda’’, in Shimer (H. W.) and Schrock (R. R.). Index Fossils of North America, pp. 277-365, pls. 105-143 Dall, W. H., 1871. “Supplement to the ‘ Revision of the Terebratulidae ’ with additions, corrections and a revision of the Craniidae and Discinidae oe Amer. Journ. Conch. 7 : 39-84, pls. 10, 11 —— 1877. “Index to the Names which have been applied to the sub- divisions of the Class Brachiopoda ”, U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 8 : 7-88 Davidson, T., 1848. ‘‘ Mémoire sur les Brachiopodes du systéme silurien supérieur d’Angleterre ”’, Bull. Soc. géol. France (2) 8 : 309-338, pl. Til ——, 1853. British Fossil Brachiopoda, vol. 1. Introduction, pp. 41-136, pls. 6-9. Palaeont. Soc. ——, 1866. British Fossil Brachiopoda, vol. 3, pp. 1-88, pls. i-xii. Palaeont. Soc. Dunbar, C. O., and Condra, G. E., 1932.“ Brachiopoda of the Pennsylvanian System in Nebraska ”’, Nebraska Geol. Surv. Bull. (2) 5 : 1-377, pls. 1-44 Fischer, P., and Oehlert, D. P., 1887. Manuel de Conchyliologie, pp. v—xxiv, 1-1369, pls. 1-16, figs. 1-1138 Girty, G. H., 1909. “The fauna of the Caney Shale of Oklahoma”, U.S. Geol. Survey. Bull. 377, pp. 5-106, pls. i-xiii ——, 1928. “ The Generic name Orbiculoidea d’Orbigny and its application ”’, Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci., 18 : 128-142 Goryansky, V., 1960. “ Class Inarticulata ” in Sarycheva (T. G.) (ed.). Osnovy Paleontologii, Mshanki, brakhiopody, pp. 172-182, pls. I-IV + figs. 76-84 Hall, J. and Clarke, J. M., 1892. ‘An Introduction to the Study of the Genera of Palaeozoic Brachiopoda ”’, Palaeontology of New York, vol. 8, pt. 1, pp. i-xvi, 1-367, pls. 1-20 Miller, S. A.,1889. ‘‘ North American Geology and Palaeontology ”’, pp. 3-793, figs. 5-1458 D’Orbigny, A., 1847. “Sur les Brachiopodes ou Palliobranchs”’, Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci., Paris 25 : 266-269 ——, 1850. Prodrome de Paléontologie Stratigraphique, vol. 1, pp. ix-lx, 1-394 Prosser, C. §., 1912. ‘‘ The Devonian and Mississippian formations of north- eastern Ohio ”’, Ohio Geol. Surv. Bull. (4) 15 : 544 Schuchert, C. and LeVene, C. M., 1929. Brachiopoda (Generum et Geno- typorum Index et Bibliographia) Fossilium Catalogus, 1, Animalia, 42, pp. 1-140 314 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Wilson, A. E., 1946. ‘‘ Brachiopoda of the Ottawa Formation of the Ottawa- St. Lawrence Lowland ”’, Geol. Surv. Canada Bull. 8, pp. iv-v, 1-149, pls. i-xi COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF PARTHENOPE FABRICIUS, 1798. Z.N.(S.) 1487 (see this volume, pages 58-60) By Fenner A. Chace, Jr. (Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C.) As Dr. Holthuis has so impartially indicated in his application, there is no question about the legally correct position in this matter. There is little need, therefore, for comment by carcinological specialists, except to emphasize that the more than a dozen American species of the two genera involved have rarely, if ever, been referred to by any other than the valid names Parthenope Weber and Daldorfia Rathbun during more than half a century. The fact is of far less importance, however, than is the basic principle involved in this application. It is possible that Dr. Holthuis, whose judgment I respect greatly, chose to support the side of the argument that had the best chance of success from a practicable standpoint. He may have been influenced by the probably justifiable belief that those who have disregarded the decisions of the Commission in the past will continue to do so whenever those decisions differ from their own opinions. On the other hand, those who have followed the Code previously will be inclined to abide by the Commission rulings, even when they are objectionable. Frequent use of the plenary powers, based on such opportunistic reasoning, can lead only to eventual loss of confidence in the Commission by all taxonomists, especially by those who have been most loyal in the past. Temporary and restricted nomenclatural stability may thereby be gained without due regard to more dangerous and widespread instability in the future. Article 79 of the current Code implies that the plenary powers of the Commission are available when needed to suspend application of the provisions of the Code that would disturb stability or universality or cause confusion. In my opinion, they should not be employed to change valid names, such as Parthenope and Daldorfia, that have been used in monographic studies of a significant number of species for more than 35 years. By D. 8. Johnson (Department of Zoology, University of Malaya, Singapore) I wish to protest most strongly against the proposals made in Z.N.(S.) 1487. It will be noted that Holthuis only cites one authority (Balss, 1957) later than 1950 as using the incorrect nomenclature he wishes to retain. This, one can maintain, is offset by the fact that Garth (1958) uses the correct nomenclature. Holthuis himself admits that all American writers on the Indo-West Pacific use the correct names and he quotes three papers by non-American authors following the same usage. I have not had time to conduct a thorough check of the literature. A quick survey has revealed three recent works by non-American workers on the Indo-Australian region in which the correct names are used (Tweedie, 1960, Bull. Raffles Mus. 22; Buitendijk, 1950, Bull. Raffles Mus. 21; S. H. Chuang, 1961, On Malayan Shores), and none in which the nomenclature Holthuis recommends is followed. It is of importance that On Malayan Shores is a non-specialist work so that the correct nomenclature will inevitably gain considerable currency amongst non- specialist zoologists. Consideration should also be given to the fact that reference collections in museums and universities in Malaya follow the correct nomenclature. Parthenope Weber is a genus much used in teaching in Malaya and for the past ten years at least the correct nomenclature has been used. In my opinion the adoption of Holthuis’s proposal will provoke widespread nomenclatural confusion and instability in the Indo-Australian area, the very area where the genus concerned is of most importance. This is clearly a case where suspension of the Law of Priority will benefit no one with the exception of a few European workers. The Commission should certainly not endorse the proposal, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 315 SPONDYLIASPINAE SCHWARZ, 1898 (HEMIPTERA, PSYLLIDAE) : PROPOSED VALIDATION OF THE SUBFAMILY NAME. Z.N.(S). 1507 By K. L. Taylor (Division of Entomology, C.S.I.R.O., Canberra, Australia) The subfamily sPONDYLIASPINAE was established by Schwarz (1898) with type-genus Spondyliaspis Signoret, 1879, for which at that time no type-species had been designated. Schwarz proposed a redefinition of this genus on the basis of material before him which he referred to it, and in establishing the sub- family it was clear that he was interpreting its type-genus in this sense. Exami- nation of Signoret’s type-material by Taylor (1960) has shown that his three species of Spondyliaspis must be referred to two different genera, neither of which corresponds to Schwarz’s interpretation. Taylor selected S. bancrofti Signoret, 1879, as type-species of Spondyliaspis and erected the new genus Glycaspis Taylor, 1960, to accommodate the species that Schwarz had referred to Spondyliaspis and others since described. Thus the nominal subfamily SPONDYLIASPINAE was based on a misidentified type-genus, and under the Code the case must be referred to the International Commission for decision. 2. It should be noted that the genus Spondyliaspis, as now defined by the type-designation of Taylor, is currently regarded as belonging to the same taxonomic subfamily as Glycaspis Taylor. Moreover, Spondyliaspis occupies a more central position in the subfamily than Glycaspis, which is one of its most highly divergent genera. The name SPONDYLIASPINAE is well established in the literature, so that there would seem to be no grounds for replacing it by a new name based on the name of an atypical genus. The principal purpose of this application is to seek from the Commission, under its plenary powers, a ruling that Schwarz (1898) is to be deemed to have correctly identified the genus Spondyliaspis in establishing the subfamily sPONDYLIASPINAE, and the placing of both names on the appropriate Official Lists. Details of the case are as follows :— 3. In 1879 Signoret (Ann. Soc. ent. Fr. (5) 9, Bull.: Ixxxvi) erected the genus Spondyliaspis for three species of PSYLLIDAE, which he described from the nymphal covering (or “ lerp ’’) and, in one, from the nymph itself. He wrongly placed the genus in the ALEURODIDAE. 4. In 1896 Maskell (J'rans. N.Z. Inst. 38 : 411) having some of Signoret’s specimens, stated that Spondyliaspis was congeneric with some of the psyllids described by Dobson (1851, Pap. Roy. Soc. Tasm. 1 : 235-241). 5. Schwarz (1898, Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 4 : 66-73) described a species which he misidentified as Psylla eucalypti Dobson, 1851 (loc. cit.) (see Taylor, 1960, p. 385) and placed in Spondyliaspis Signoret. This species formed the basis of his redefinition of Spondyliaspis and essentially, therefore, of his subfamily SPONDYLIASPINAE. Until 1960 all authors followed Schwarz’s interpretation of the genus. Taylor (1960, p.385) places both ewcalypti Dobson and Schwarz’s (still unnamed) species in his new genus Glycaspis, of which the type-species is Aphalara flavilabris Froggatt, 1903, (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 28 : 318. 6. Heslop-Harrison (1949, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (12) 2: 647) stated that the subfamily sPoNDYLIASPINAE had not been formally defined by Schwarz, and Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. 316 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature concluded, quite incorrectly, that therefore it “cannot be considered as existing”’. In 1954 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (12) 7 : 522) he himself defined the subfamily, retaining the name SPONDYLIASPINAE, but there is no question of this name dating as from Heslop-Harrison. 7. Taylor’s action (1960, Aust. J. Zool. 8 : 384) in selecting S. bancrofti Signoret as the type-species of Spondyliaspis was taken in the light of the fact that selection of either of the other two originally included species would have invalidated the well known genus Cardiaspina Crawford, 1911 (Pomona Coll. J. Ent. 3 : 632), for these species are congeneric with its type-species Cardiaspis artifex Schwarz, 1898 (Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 4:72). However, the selection of bancrofti involved the invalidation of the more recent genus Scenitopsylla Tuthill and Taylor, 1955 (Aust. J. Zool. 3: 241), for this species is congeneric with its type-species Cardiaspis plicatuloides Froggatt, 1900 (Proc. linn. Soc. N.S.W. 25 : 284). 8. The action that the International Commission is requested to take is therefore :— (1) To rule that Schwarz (1898) is to be deemed to have correctly identified the genus Spondyliaspis Signoret, 1879, in establishing his subfamily SPONDYLIASPINAE ; (2) to place the name SPONDYLIASPINAE Schwarz, 1898 (type-genus Spondyliaspis Signoret, 1879) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Spondyliaspis Signoret, 1879 (gender : feminine), type-species, by selection by Taylor (1960): Spondyliaspis bancrofti Signoret, 1879; (b) Glycaspis Taylor, 1960 (gender: feminine), type-species, by original designation: Aphalara flavilabris Froggatt, 1903 ; (c) Cardisaspina Crawford, 1911 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation, Cardiaspis artifex Schwarz, 1898 ; (4) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) bancrofti Signoret, 1879, as published in the binomen Spondyliaspis bancrofti (type-species, by selection by Taylor (1960), of Spondyliaspis Signoret, 1879) ; (b) flavilabris Froggatt, 1903, as published in the binomen Aphalara flavilabris (type-species, by original designation, of Glycaspis Taylor, 1960) ; (c) artifex Schwarz, 1898, as published in the binomen Cardiaspis artifex (type-species, by original designation, of Cardiaspina Crawford, 1911) ; (d) plicatuloides Froggatt, 1900, as published in the binomen Cardiaspis plicatuloides (type-species, by original designation, of Scenitopsylla Tuthill and Taylor, 1955) ; (e) eucalypti Dobson, 1851, as published in the binomen Psylla eucalypti. ; a ae Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 317 CYPRAEA PIPERITA GRAY, 1825 (GASTROPODA); PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1510 By Lt.-Col. R. J. Griffiths (Sea Acres Sanctuary, Port Macquarie, N.S.W., Australia) The two most recent reviews of the subgenus Notocypraea of the Molluscan family Cypraeidae are those by Schilder and Schilder (1938) and Griffiths (1961). Both include three species referred to under the specific names Cypraea piperita Gray, 1825, Cypraea comptonii Gray, 1847, and Cypraea angustata Gmelin, 1791. The nomenclature of these species is now in question. This submission gives the history of the names, and concludes with recommendations which have the object of stabilising the nomenclature and avoiding further confusion. Cypraea piperita and Cypraea comptonir 2. Research by F. A. Schilder has shown that the species called C. comptonit in the two reviews mentioned above should, according to strict interpretation of the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, be known as C. piperita, and that called C. piperita should be known as Cypraea bicolor Gaskoin, 1849. The reasons are given below. In an endeavour to simplify the explanation, names used in the sense intended by the authors will be followed by “‘(original sense)”, and those used as in the reviews will be followed by “(modern usage)’. 3. C. piperita was named by Gray in 1825 (: 498). No illustration was given. The name did not originate with Gray, but was apparently adopted from Solander’s manuscripts. No holotype was designated, but five specimens from Gray’s collection, named in his handwriting “ Cypraea piperita Solander ”’ are in the British Museum (Natural History). All five specimens are considered by both F. A. Schilder and Griffiths to belong to the species C. comptonii (modern usage). In 1847, Gray named Cypraea comptonii (: 356); both the figure and specimens from Gray’s collection in the British Museum show this to be a slightly different form of the species C. piperita (original sense), but not specifically different from it. According to the rules, C. comptonii should be considered a synonym of C. piperita (original sense), and should no longer be used. 4. The error in the use of the name piperita appears to be due to Sowerby. In 1832 he repeated Gray’s description, but illustrated the species by a dorsal view of a specimen of CO. piperita (modern usage), as well as a base view of what may be a specimen of C. pulicaria Reeve, 1846. The first figure has led later writers to accept the incorrect identification. Appendix A gives the names used by various writers. 5. The first reviewer of the species C. piperita (modern usage) was Gaskoin in 1849. He described a different form of the somewhat variable species as Cypraea bicolor (: 92). In accordance with the rules C. bicolor should be the correct name for the species. So the position is : Modern usage Correct Name C. piperita Gray, 1825 C. bicolor Gaskoin, 1849 C. comptonii Gray, 1847 C. piperita Gray, 1825 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. 318 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The second change in particular would cause great confusion. The “ modern usage ’’ has been current for over a century, and the majority of collections, both public and private, are arranged accordingly. For the sake of stability, some ruling such as that contained in the recommendations below is desirable. 6. At first sight it may be difficult to see why the confusion between these two species has arisen, and why the fairly full description given by Gray in 1825 was not sufficient to identify the species piperita for later writers. The subgenus Notocypraea is, however, exceptional in the Cypraeidae in that the difference between the species is very small, and is often masked by unusually large variation within species. Identification of specimens with the aid only of a written description is therefore extremely difficult, and sometimes impossible. 7. The confusion between piperita and comptonii is by no means unique in Notocypraea. Even now the specific division of the genus is far from completely known. Misunderstandings in the early days are therefore no surprise; it would be rather surprising if they had not occurred. 8. A further complication is that the type-locality given by Gray for C. comptonii (Port Essington, northern Australia) is one in which the species isnot found. It is evidently an error on the part either of the original collector or of Gray. But the specimens from Gray’s collection in the British Museum clearly belong to C. comptonii (modern usage), and the name is not therefore invalid on this account. 9. Trenberth (1961) renamed the species Notocypraea trenberthae on the grounds that comptonii referred to a northern Australian species. The speci- mens in the British Museum, which Trenberth has not seen, disprove this. 10. The Commission is therefore requested to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name piperita Gray, in order to avoid a confusing transfer of this name to another species. A shell from Adelaide presented to the British Museum (Natural History) by J. S. Gaskoin is here selected as lectotype of Cypraea bicolor Gaskoin, 1849 (B.M.N.H. Reg. No. 54.1.28.11). A shell from the J. E. Gray collection, now in the British Museum (Natural History) is here selected as lectotype of Cypraea comptonii Gray, 1847 (B.M.N.H. Reg. No. 1951.3.29.1). It is requested that the two last-mentioned specific names be placed on the Official List. Cypraea angustata 11. The case against the name C. angustata Gmelin, 1791, rests on different grounds. Gmelin’s description was brief, no type-locality was designated, and the figure referred to (Gualterium, 1742, t. 13, fig. QQ) is an engraving giving only a poor illustration of the shell. Many names proposed in the same period, and with similarly small description, are now, however, accepted without question. 12. Gray in 1825 redescribed C. angustata, adding the locality ‘“‘ New Holland ’’. Wood (1828) under the same specific name gave a clearly recog- nisable figure of C. angustata. In 1832 Sowerby published a further description and figure. He added the locality “‘ South Africa ”, but this does not seem to have been based on any definite evidence. ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 319 13. Until 1924, there was no dispute on the species, but then Iredale rejected the name for any Australian species on the grounds that no South Australian shell could have reached Europe by 1742, the date of publication of Gualterius’s figure. He also quoted Sowerby’s doubtful locality of South Africa. Cotton and Godfrey (1932) accepted this argument, and renamed the Australian species Notocypraea verconis (: 41). Allen (1956) in a popular work on cowries used the name verconis, and, following Steadman and Cotton (1946), gave the name angustata to a South African species generally known as C. fuscodentata Gray, 1885. 14. Against Iredale’s argument can be set the voyages of the Dutch, who visited the area inhabited by the Australian species on a number of occasions in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It is therefore evident that shells of the species could have found their way to Gualterius by 1742. Further- more, Gmelin’s description uses the words “ maculis ad latus rufescentibus ’”’. This makes it clear that the sides of the shell are spotted. Since those of C. fuscodentata are always without spots, the assumption that this species is the basis for the name angustata cannot be correct. 15. Appendix B lists the writers who have used the names angustata or verconis for the Australian species. For the sake of brevity only the more important and relevant papers are included. The majority of authors have accepted the older name. Most public and private collections also use it. 16. Contrary to the opinion of some authors, the name Cypraea subcarnea Beddome, 1896, is not acceptable as an alternative to C. angustata. Examina- tion of what is probably the holotype in the British Museum shows it to be more likely a member of the species known as C. molleri (Iredale) 1931, but this cannot be finally established until specimens similar to the holotype are found, and the radula is examined. 17. In order to preserve the name Cypraea angustata Gmelin, 1791, and to place its interpretation on a secure basis, the holotype of C. verconis (Cotton and Godfrey) is here selected as neotype of C. angustata Gmelin. The shell is in the South Australian Museum, Adelaide, South Australia. 18. In order to preserve the stability of nomenclature, and to have one name only in current use for each species, it is necessary to obtain a definite ruling on which names are to be used. Until this is given, investigation of the especially interesting subgenus Notocypraea will be greatly hampered, and progress will be delayed. It is therefore recommended that the International Commission : (1) use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name piperita Gray, 1825, as published in the binomen Cypraea piperita, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (a) comptonii Gray, 1847, as published in the binomen Cypraea comptonii, and as interpreted by the lectotype selected in para. 10 above ; (b) bicolor Gaskoin, 1849, as published in the binomen Cypraea bicolor, and as interpreted by the lectotype selected in para. 10 above ; 320 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (c) angustata Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Cypraea angustata, and as interpreted by the neotype designated in para. 17 above ; (3) place the following specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology : (a) piperita Gray, 1825, as published in the binomen Cypraea piperita (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) ; (b) verconis Cotton & Godfrey, 1932, as published in the binomen Notocypraea verconis (a junior objective synonym of Cypraea angustata Gmelin, 1791). An alternative to the suppression of C. piperita would be to retain the name in its modern usage, and to rule bicolor Gaskoin a synonym. This would mean even less change in modern usage, but would entail using piperita for a species for which it was clearly not intended. This is perhaps undesirable. APPENDIX A Usage by various authors of the names piperita and comptonit Author Accepts modern Modern usage species illustrated as uage of prperita comptonii piperita comptonit Sowerby, 1832! yes —_ one piperita one pulicaria (?) Reeve, 1846 yes — one piperita Angas, 1867 yes _— Sowerby, 1870? yes yes four piperita four comptonit one comptonii(?) Brazier, 1882° yes yes Roberts/Tryon, 1885 yes yes one piperita two comptonti one comptonii(?) Beddome, 1898 yes yes all piperita all comptonii Pritchard & Gatliff, 1900¢ yes yes Hidalgo, 1907° yes yes Hedley, 1916°® yes _— Verco, 19187 yes yes Tredale, 1924 yes yes Cotton & Godfrey, 19328 yes yes Iredale, 1935° no clear opinion Schilder & Schilder, 1938 yes yes — & , 1952 yes yes Allen, 19561° yes no all piperita Trenberth, 196114 — no Griffiths, 1961 yes yes all piperita all comptonit Norrs.— Repeats Gray’s 1825 description. *Described as “ var. angustata”. *Considers comptonii runs into angustata. Accepts bicolor as a species. ‘As “ var. angustata’’. Repeats both of Gray’s descriptions, and refers to Sowerby’s figures. ‘Repeats Gray’s descriptions. 7As “var. angustata”. *Also gives bicolor as a species. *Does not think comptonii distinct. 10Also accepts bicolor. Rejects comptonii on grounds of incorrect locality. Rejects comptonii on grounds of incorrect locality, and proposes trenberthae in its place. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 321 APPENDIX B Usage by various authors of the name angustata and verconis Author Name used Remarks Gray, 1825 angustata Wood, 1828 angustata Figures angustata ’ Kiener, 1843 angustata Figures 3 angustata, one comptonii Sowerby, 1870 angustata All figures angustata Brazier, 1882 angustata Roberts/Tryon, 1885 angustata Figures angustata Beddome, 1898 angustata Figures angustata Pritchard & Gatliff, 1900 angustata Hidalgo, 1907 angustata Hedley & May, 1908 angustata Verco, 1918 angustata Iredale, 1924 — Rejects angustata Cotton & Godfrey, 1932 verconis Tredale, 1935 verconis Schilder & Schilder, 1938 angustata Steadman & Cotton, 1946 verconis Uses angustata for C. fuscodentata Schilder & Schilder, 1952 angustata Allen, 1956 verconis Griffiths, 1961 angustata Figures angustata REFERENCES Allen, J., 1956. Cowry Shells of World Seas (Melbourne) Angas, G. F., 1867. Marine Mollusca of Port Jackson. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 186 Beddome, C. E., 1898. Notes on Cypraea of Tasmania. Proc. linn. Soc. N.S.W. 22 Brazier, J., 1882. Cypraeidae on the Victorian Coast. Proc. linn. Soc. N.S.W.7 Cotton, B. C., & Godfrey, F. K., 1932. South Australian Shells, Part ITI. S. Austr. Nat. 13 Gaskoin, J. S., 1849. Two new species of Cypraea. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 16 (186) Gmelin, J. F., 1791, in Linnaeus. Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 Gray, J. E., 1825. Monograph on Cypraea. Zool. Journ. 1 » 1847. Juke’s Voyage of H.M.S. Fly II, Appendix Griffiths, R. J., 1961. Notocypraea ; the Shells. Cowry 1 (2) Gualterius, N., 1742. Index testarium conchyliorum (Florence) Hedley, C., 1916. Mollusca of W. Australia. J. roy. Soc. W. Austr. 1 —, & May, W. L., 1908. Mollusca from Cape Pillar, Tasmania. Rec. Austr. Mus. 7 (2) Hidalgo, J. G., 1907. Monogr. del Cypraea. Mem. real. Acad. Cien. Madrid 25 Iredale, T., 1924. Roy Bell’s Molluscan Coll. Proc. linn. Soc. N S.W. 49 , 1935. Australian Cowries, Part 1. Aust. Zool. 9 (3) Kiener, L.-C., 1843. Spec. des Coquilles (Paris) Pritchard, G. B., and Gatliff, J. H., 1900. Marine Shells of Victoria. Proc, roy. Soc. Victoria 12 Reeve, L., 1846, Conchologia Iconica (London) IIT nigarodey R., in Tryon, G. W., 1885. Manual of Conchology (Philadelphia) 322 Bulletin of Zoological N omenclature Schilder, F. A., & M., 1938. Prodrome of a Monograph on Cypraeidae. Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 238 ___ &——,, 1952. Dautzenberg’s Collection of Cypraeidae. Inst. sci nat. Belg. (2) 45 Sowerby, G. B., 1832. Conchological Illustrations (London) ——, 1870. Thesaurus Conchyliorum (London) IV Steadman, W. R., & Cotton, B. C., 1946. Classification of Cowries. Rec. Austr. Mus. 8(3) Trenberth, W. R., 1961. A New Species of S. Austr. Cowry. Roy. Soc. S. Austr. Malac. Sect. 15 Verco, J. C., 1918. S. Australian marine Mollusca. Trans. roy. Soc. 8S. Austr. 42 Wood, W., 1828. Index Testaceologicus (London) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 323 JOVELLANIA BAYLE, 1879 (CEPHALOPODA) ; PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1511 By Walter C. Sweet (The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission to use its plenary powers to suppress the never-used, but otherwise valid generic name Z'rigonodema Laporte, 1843, so as to remove this name as a probable senior objective synonym of the well-known and widely-used generic name Jovellania Bayle, 1879. 2. Laporte, 1843 (Essai sur le systeme silurien de lAmerique septen- trionale : 27) introduced the name Trigonodema in the following statement : “On en a séparé (Cyrthoceras Goldf.) des espéces [of Orthoceras], a forme arquée, et on pourrait en faire autant de quelques autres que sont triangulares (trigonodema, mihi)”. No type-species was designated by Laporte, no specimen bearing this name or of triangular cross-section was illustrated, nor was the derivation of the name indicated. Trigonodema was not mentioned elsewhere in Laporte’s monograph, nor, insofar as we are aware, has the name ever been used subsequently in the literature, either by itself or in connection with a valid nominate species. 3. Because T'rigonodema Laporte, 1843, was proposed without a type- species, and no type-species has ever been designated for it, it became available in 1848 for all straight nautiloids with a triangular cross-section and, presumably, the first such species named becomes, ipso facto, its type-species. Insofar as we can determine, the first straight nautiloid cephalopod of triangular cross- section described is Orthoceratites Buchi deVerneuil, 1850 (Bull. Soc. géol. France (2) 7: 778), and this species, then, had it been placed in Trigonodema would have become automatically the type-species of that genus. However, it has never been so designated and the purpose of this application is not to do so. 4. Orthoceratites buchi deVerneuil, 1850, is the type-species, by original designation, of Jovellania Bayle, 1879 (Exzplic. Carte géol. France 4 Atlas (1) : pl. 35) which, then, may become a junior objective synonym of T'rigonodema. Jovellania Bayle, 1879, was made type of the cephalopod family JOoVELLANIDAE by Foord, in 1888 (Cat. foss. Cephal. B.M. (1) : 328), and this familial name has gained currency in the paleontological literature. 5. In view of these facts, and particularly because revival of T'rigonodema Laporte, 1843, and suppression of Jovellania Bayle, 1879, would result in the required use of an unfamiliar name for a familiar genus and retention of a common familial name (JOVELLANIIDAE Foord, 1888) for which no nominate type-genus would exist, the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is asked :— (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name T'rigonodema Laporte, 1843, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. 324 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2) to place the generic name Jovellania Bayle, 1879 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation Orthoceratites buchi deVerneuil, 1850, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name buchi deVerneuil, 1850, as published in the binomen Orthoceratites buchi (type-species of Jovellania Bayle, 1879) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the family name JOVELLANIIDAE Foord, 1888 (type-genus Jovellania Bayle, 1879) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ; (5) to place the generic name T'rigonodema Laporte, 1843, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 325 APPLICATION FOR SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THREE SPECIFIC NAMES OF SPANISH PALAEOZOIC CRINOIDEA. Z.N.(S.) 1513 By Albert Breimer (Afdeling Historische Geologie en Palaeontologie, Geologisch en Mineralogisch Instituut der Rijksuniversiteit, Leiden, The Netherlands.) The rich Palaeozoic faunas of northwestern Spain (provinces of Palencia, Leén, and Asturias) have recently been the object of a comprehensive study by the applicant. This study was the consequence of extensive collecting work in this region during the last five years and investigation of important older museum-collections of Spanish crinoids never before described. The aim of the work has been to prepare a monograph on all the Crinoidea now known from Spain, including necessary revisions and complementary descriptions. In the course of this study several specific names were discovered that do not permit of the identification of the taxonomic species represented by them, because the descriptions of the species are wholly inadequate, while the type-specimens -on which they are based are either lost or in bad condition. These names are consequently regarded by the applicant as nomina dubia. The discussions concerning these species are given in Leidse Geologische Mededelingen, vol. 27, pt. 1, 1962. 2. In 1932, W. E. Schmidt (Palaeontographica 76 : 29) published the specific name planus in the binomen Orthocrinus planus for animperfect and crushed part of a crinoid dorsal cup from the Devonian of Asturias, this being the first record of Orthocrinus from Spain. This type-specimen was lost during the second World War. The characters mentioned in Schmidt’s description and those shown by his illustrations of the fragment are far too few to provide reliable evidence for the identification of the taxonomic species represented by this specific name. Nevertheless, in 1949, Rodriguez Mellado (Bol. Real Soc. Esp. Hist. Nat. 47: 657) assigned a well-preserved specimen from Ledén to the nominal species Orthocrinus planus, mainly because planus was the only species of Orthocrinus known at that time from Spain. Her specimen, however, has characters contradictory to those mentioned in Schmidt’s description of the species and shown in his illustrations. It is very unlikely, therefore, that Rodriguez’s specimen should be conspecific with the type of Schmidt’s species. The type- locality of Orthocrinus planus was examined by the applicant and proved to be very poor in fossils, it did not produce any reliable specimen to serve as a neotype, and the chance that it ever will produce such a specimen is infinitesimally small. The specific name planus must, therefore, be considered a nomen dubium, and, unless either suppressed or fixed by a neotype, will continue to form a threat to the stability of the nomenclature of Palaeozoic Crinoidea. As the name has hardly ever been used, and as the identity of the species cannot even be guessed from the original account, there seems to be little sense in selecting a neotype for it. To facilitate the definite classification of newly discovered Orthocrinus material from Spain, the Commission is requested now to Bull, zool, Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5, September, 1962, 326 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature suppress the specific name planus W. E. Schmidt, 1932. 3. In 1896, Oehlert (Bull. Soc. Géol. Fr. (3) 24:821) described the new species Storthingocrinus haugi. His type material consisted of three isolated dorsal cups from Leon, composed of basals and radials only. By attributing his specimens to Storthingocrinus he clearly classified them in the inadunate family Synbathocrinidae. Although Oehlert believed that the very wide radial facets of his specimens showed their generic position, in fact, his frag- ments do not show enough characters to make even sure that they are inadunate synbathocrinids: they could as well belong to the camerate super-family Platycriniticae. Moreover, representatives of this latter super-family are known to occur in Spanish Devonian strata, whereas true synbathocrinids are still unknown from Spain. In 1932, W. E. Schmidt (Palaeontographica 76 : 25, 26) described two isolated crinoid dorsal cups from Asturias. These cups are composed of basals and radials only. Schmidt attributed his specimens to Storthingocrinus, which genus was ranked by him under the Platycrinitidae, contrary to common usage. He compared one of his specimens (: 25) to Storthingocrinus haugi. This specimen differs from Oehlert’s specimens by having narrow radial facets, leaving space for interradial plates, as are usually to be found among the platycrinitids. Hence, it can be understood why Schmidt made the mistake of classifying his specimens as Storthingocrinus in the Platycrinitidae. For his second specimen, which got lost during the second World War, Schmidt intro- duced the new specific name labiatus. All the above specimens described by Oehlert and W. E. Schmidt, some of which are lost, are so imperfect that the available evidence is insufficient to warrant their classification in either of the families mentioned above. It is absolutely impossible to identify the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species Storthingocrinus haugi and S. labiatus. This is once more expressed by the study of recently discovered Spanish Devonian platycrinitids and hapalocrinids, complete specimens of which were not known from Spain in the days of Oehlert and Schmidt. The classification of these crinoids with essentially stabilized dorsal cups composed of radials and basals only, rests necessarily on the composition of the tegmen, the structure and position of ambulacral ducts, combined with the mode of arm branching in the arm bases. Specimens, as those discussed above, without these thecal elements are certainly not classifiable. Nominal species described on such imperfect specimens do not permit of recognition of any taxonomic species and are a handicap for further classification. Hence, the nominal species haugi Oehlert, 1896, and labiatus W. E. Schmidt, 1932, which are undoubtedly-to be regarded as nomina dubia, are proposed for suppression under the plenary powers of the Commission. 4. In view of the facts set out above and in the interest of stability and continuity of nomenclature I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy : (a) the specific name planus W. E. Schmidt, 1932, as published in the binomen Orthocrinus planus (a nomen dubium) ; ee ae | Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 327 (b) the specific name haugi Oehlert, 1896, as published in the binomen Storthingocrinus haugi (a nomen dubium) ; (c) the specific name labiatus W. E. Schmidt, 1932, as published in the binomen Storthingocrinus labiatus (a nomen dubium). (2) to place the 3 specific names proposed to be suppressed in (1)(a)—(1)(c) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 328 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature NAIADITES OVALIS DAWSON, 1860 (CLASS LAMELLIBRANCHIA) ; REQUEST FOR A RULING ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SPECIES. Z.N.(S.) 1514 By M. J. Rogers (21, Canynge Square, Clifton, Bristol, 8) The purpose of the present application is to stabilise the interpretation of the nominal species Naiadites ovalis Dawson, 1860 (now referred to the genus Curvirimula (?) Weir). The case is one in which the original type-material is indeterminate, and it is proposed that a specimen figured subsequently by the original author as belonging to this species should be designated as the type. This species, which is morphologically distinct, occurs in the Riversdale and, perhaps, Cumberland Groups of the Upper Carboniferous on the mainland of Nova Scotia. The rocks of both these groups are non-marine and, in the restricted faunas of these deposits, species of bivalves may prove to be of strati- graphic importance. It is therefore desirable to stabilise the interpretation of Naiadites ovalis Dawson. The facts of the case are stated below. 2. J. W. Dawson (1860, Supplement to Acadian Geology : 45) first described N. ovalis as follows : ‘‘ Similar in general form to No. 4 [N. arenaceus], but much broader in proportion. See paper above cited [Dawson, 1854, Quart. J. Geol. Soc. London, 10 : 39], fig. 24 [a left valve]. It occurs in bituminous limestone, with cyprids, in the lower part of the Joggins coal-measures.” The only record of N. ovalis made by Dawson in his interpretation of Logan’s Joggins section refers to an occurrence in Logan’s Division 6, in the lower bituminous limestone associated with Coal 7. This horizon is in the Riversdale Group according to Bell. (See Dawson, 1868, Acadian Geology : 177 and Bell, 1944, Geol. Surv. Canada, Mem. 238 : 15.) 3. Most of Dawson’s lamellibranch collection is now in the Redpath Museum, Montreal, but some specimens from it were sent to Wheelton Hind, who figured them (1894, Quart. J. Geol. Soc. London 50: Pl. XX); some of these are still in the British Museum (Natural History). There is no official record of these transactions, although Hind, in the “ Explanation of Plate XX ”’, indicated that the only fossil he figured as Anthracomya ovalis (Dawson) (fig. 13) belonged to the Geological Survey of Canada. It can now be recognised as specimen No. 10,004 in the Redpath Museum. 4. The following are the only specimens of Naiadites ovalis Dawson known in museum collections :— i. Redpath Museum. Number Horizon Locality Note on reverse Collection Valve of mounting 10,004 “Carboniferous” Riversdale Heautype (sic). Type Dawson Left specimen. J.G.1 Pl. XX, fig. 13. 2, 1170 Rr Parrsboro, Heautype (sic). PA = Nova Scotia C.R.S.2, p. 129, fig. 11 10,006 — Mabou Coal — — “F Mines, 1881 2,1164b “Middle Carboni- Mabou, Cape Q.J.1 1894, Pl. XX, G.S.C.3 erous ” Breton fig. 11. PP 3129 — Joggins — — Right * Quart. J. Geol. Soc. London 50. — * Canadian Record of Science, 1894, 3 Geological Survey of Canada. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 329 All the above specimens are labelled Anthracomya ovalis. It should be recognised that the notes on the reverse of the mountings are not in the hand- writing of Dawson or of his assistant, Ardley. It is assumed that they have been added since Dawson’s time, and the absence of such a note is not evidence that the fossil has not been figured. ii. British Museum (Natural History). Number Name Horizon Locality Collection Additional information Valve L.38779 Naiadites Upper Carbon- Joggins G. Hinde. Handwritten label on Right iferous Coal Nova Presented sample: Naiadites Measures. Scotia 1918. (Anthracoptera) ovalis Dawson. Coal Measures. Joggins, N.S. Dark blue arrow points to fossil. 1.44457 Anthracomya 7 South Wheelton Redpath Museum-type ovalis Joggins, Hind labels on sample read : Right (Dawson) Nova Colln., A. ovalis Dn. 13 [?] Scotia. 1921. S. Joggins. 269. 5. It is seen in (4) that there are three specimens of Naiadites ovalis Dawson from Joggins, none of which is a left valve. Two of the right valves from Joggins may have been seen by Dawson, since Redpath Museum No. 3129 is in Dawson’s collection and British Museum (Nat. Hist.) No. L.44457 bears labels like those found on Redpath Museum specimens in addition to the British Museum label. The matrix of the former is an ostracod-rich bituminous limestone ; of the latter a coarse, micaceous siltstone. Thus (see 2) it is possible that Redpath Museum No. 3129 came from the type horizon. It is an imperfectly exposed, generically indeterminate specimen of similar size to Dawson’s figure. Dawson’s 1854 figures are notoriously inaccurate, but the lateral aspect of both Dawson’s fig. 24 of this date and Redpath Museum No. 3129 has a Height/Length ratio of about 60 per cent. It is therefore suggested that this fossil may have been reconstructed and reversed to give the figure (which is of a left valve) referred to in Dawson’s original description of Naiadites ovalis. The third right valve from Joggins, British Museum (Nat. Hist.) No. 38779, was in the collection of G. Hinde, presented in 1918 and it is improbable that Dawson ever saw it. It is unlikely to be the holotype or a syntype of Naiadites ovalis Dawson. 6. Of the remaining fossils listed in (4), Redpath Museum No. 10,006, a generically indeterminate specimen, and Redpath Museum No. 2,1164b are both of the wrong size and shape to be represented by Dawson’s 1854 figure. Redpath Museum Nos. 10,004 and 2,1170 are approximately of the same length as Dawson’s figure, but both have a higher obliquity and shallower anterior lobe. It is thus unlikely that Dawson figured any of these fossils in 1854, giving an inaccurate locality. 7. From (2) to (6) it follows that the type material of Naiadites ovalis Dawson is either the indeterminate specimen Redpath Museum No. 3129, which cannot now be used as a type, or is lost or destroyed, 330 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 8. In 1894 (Canadian Record of Science: 129) Dawson redescribed the species under the generic name Anthracomya : “‘ This species has the general form of the smaller specimens of A. elongata, but is broader behind and more tumid in front, so as to be at once distinguishable by the eye. It occurs sparingly in beds from the millstone grit and lower Carboniferous to the middle Coal-formation . . . Our specimens are from the South Joggins, Riversdale and Parrsboro.” The accompanying figure 11 is of a left valve from ‘‘ Lower Carboniferous, Parrsboro.” Rocks of Canso and Riversdale age are exposed in the Parrsboro area. 9. Redpath Museum specimen No. 2,1170 from Parrsboro can be recognised as the specimen figured with Dawson’s 1894 description, although the figure is inaccurate ; this identification was also made by an earlier work (see (4)). The fossil is whitened, like others figured by Dawson. Although the identity of this specimen as the original of Dawson’s 1894 figure is certain, it cannot be asserted that it represents the original material. 10. Redpath Museum specimen No. 10,004 from Riversdale is also whitened, but Dawson did not publish a figure of it, although Riversdale was added to the list of localities in 1894. Hind, presumably following Dawson’s identifica- tion, figured it as Anthracomya ovalis (Dawson) in 1894 (see (3)). There is no evidence that it is a syntype. Thus, there seems to be no reason why this specimen, which was not figured by Dawson, should be placed in a higher type category than the specimen figured by Dawson (see (9)), as is suggested by the note “ Type specimen ”’ (see (4)). 11. The lamellibranch fauna of the Canso Group at Parrsboro is represented by variants of Carbonicola (?) angulata (Dawson), whereas the fauna of the Riversdale Group consists of species of Curvirimula and Naiadites. Dawson considered that all the Carboniferous rocks at Parrsboro were in his Lower Carboniferous. 12. From 4, 8, 9, and 11 it is clear that Dawson was satisfied that specimen No. 2,1170 in the Redpath Museum belonged to his species Naiadites ovalis, and that it came from the Riversdale Goup at Parrsboro on the mainland of Nova Scotia. The horizon therefore lies within the stratigraphic group from which it is inferred that the type-material came. 13. I am at present engaged in a systematic revision of the North American Upper Carboniferous non-marine Lamellibranchia in order that they may be used in future taxonomic and stratigraphic studies and for comparison and contrast with the homotaxial British forms which have been intensively studied. I wish therefore to stabilise the interpretation of the species Naiadites ovalis Dawson, and ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature : (1) to give a ruling that the nominal species Naiadites ovalis Dawson, 1860 is to be interpreted by reference to the specimen figured by Dawson in 1894 as Anthracomya ovalis (No. 2,1170 in the Redpath Museum, Montreal, Canada) ; (2) to place the specific name ovalis Dawson (as published in the binomen Naiadites ovalis) (now referred to the genus Curvirimula (?) Weir, 1960) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. ‘ EEE a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 331 SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSALS CONCERNING NAIADITES OVALIS DAWSON By J. Weir (The University, Glasgow) Systematic work on non-marine Lamellibranchia of the Carboniferous has been much complicated and impeded by the poor documentation and figuring of J. W. Dawson’s Acadian species of various genera. In order to study the variation and distribution of these fossils and to revise their taxonomy, Mrs. M. J. Rogers has made extensive collections from the type localities in Nova Scotia and from localities in the United States during two summer field seasons. She has also studied relevant material in museums in the United States and Canada, and especially the Dawson Collection in the Redpath Museum, Montreal. The case is simply as follows: that the type material of Naiadites ovalis Dawson, 1860, illustrated with reference to Dawson’s figure of earlier date (1854), cannot be recognised, and Mrs. Rogers now proposes to base the interpretation of this nominal species on the specimen 2,1170 in the Redpath Museum, Montreal, which was later figured by Dawson himself (1894) as representing his species NV. ovalis. I am satisfied that Mrs. Rogers has correctly identified the original of Dawson’s 1894 figure and I strongly support her request, as the only possible basis for the interpretation and stabilisation of Naiadites ovalis Dawson, 1860. 332 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature VANIKORO QUOY & GAIMARD, 1832 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA) ; PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1524 By Robert Robertson (Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) For more than a century, the name Vanikoro has been widely used for a genus of tropical and subtropical marine gastropods. It still is in almost universal use, although the name is not valid under two provisions of the new Code. A case for preserving the name is presented below. The status of the name requires clarification in connection with the forthcoming T'reatise on Invertebrate Paleontology (Part J). 2. The name “ Vanikoro ” first was published by Quoy & Gaimard in 1832 (Voy. Astrolabe, Zool. 2 : 239). Discussing Sigaretus cancellatus Lamarck, 1822, which Quoy & Gaimard obtained at Vanikoro (one of the Santa Cruz Islands, Melanesia) and which they referred to the genus Velutina [Fleming, 1820], they stated “ Quoiqu’il y ait quelques différences entre ce Mollusque et celui dont M. de Blainville a fait son genre Vélutine, ses rapporte généraux sont suffisants pur ne pas l’en séparer et former un genre nouveau, comme nous lavions fait sous le nom de Vanikoro”. The name “ Vanikoro”’ was not applied to a gastropod elsewhere in Quoy & Gaimard’s work. 3. For two reasons this is not a valid introduction of a generic name : (1) It was proposed in synonymy [Article 11d]. (2) It was not italicized and may be construed as a vernacular name (note comparison with “ Vélutine ’’) [Article 16b(i)]. 4. Subsequent to 1832 and before 1840, Vanikoro appears to have been mentioned only once in the literature. In 1838, Deshayes & Milne Edwards (Lamarck, Hist. Nat. Anim. s. Vert. (ed. 2) 8 : 559) referred to “le genre nommé Vanikoro par M. Quoy ”. Again, the name appears to have been used as a vernacular. The name was adopted by Gray in 1840, 1841, and 1842 as a validly proposed generic name, but was mis-spelled by him Vanicoro (see paragraph 6 below). H. & A. Adams (March 1854, Gen. rec. Moll. 8, pl. 41), A. Adams (15 December 1854, Proc. zool. Soc. London 21 : 174-175, pl. 20), and later others, adopted Gray’s mis-spelling. H. & A. Adams (April 1854, Gen. rec. Moll. 1 : 374-375) were the first to adopt the name as originally spelled (Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard). H. & A. Adams (1854) and A. Adams (1854) were the first to assign a gender to the name: feminine (see footnote, p. 335). 5. The claim has been made that the gastropod identified by Quoy & Gaimard as Sigaretus cancellatus Lamarck [Velutina cancellata (Lamarck)] is not Lamarck’s species. Récluz (1843, Proc. zool. Soc. London 11 : 137) renamed, without explanation, Quoy & Gaimard’s species Narica quoyi. Later, Récluz (1846 [“‘ 1845 ”’], Mag. Zool. (2) 7(9) : 24) claimed that Quoy & Gaimard had Narica petitiana Récluz, 1843 (ibid., pp. 138-139), which in 1843 he had considered distinct from N. quoyi. Bull. zool. Nomenel., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 333 EK. A. Smith (1908, Proc. Malacological Soc. London 8 : 106) has synonymized N. petitiana and N. quoyi Récluz with Vanikoro cancellata (Lamarck). Such action appears to have been correct, because Quoy & Gaimard’s figures (pl. 66 bis, figs. 20-22) even more closely resemble the shell identified by authors as Sigaretus cancellatus than do Chemnitz’s illustrations (1788, Syst. Conch.-Cab. 10 : pl. 165, figs. 1596-1597), the figures on which Lamarck’s species is based. The particularly large aperture characteristic of the species is not well shown in Chemnitz’s fig. 1597, but it is evident from Lamarck’s placement of the species (in the genus “ Sigaretus’’ [=Sinum]) and from his description and discussion, that his name does pertain to the only known large Vanikoro with a particularly large aperture. 6. The name Vanikoro has been mis-spelled and emended (latinized) in various ways. Mis-spellings : Vanicoro Gray, 1840, Syn. Brit. Mus. (ed. 42), [issue 2], p. 152 ; 1841, ibid. (ed. 43), p. 126 ; 1842, ibid. (ed. 44), p. 90. Name not attributed to Quoy & Gaimard. Mis-spelling Vanicoro first attributed to Quoy by Agassiz (1845, Nom. Zool., Moll. : 95). Vanicora Paetel, 1887, Cat. Conch., (ed. 4), 1 : 511. Vanikora Whitfield, 1891, Bull. American Mus. nat. Hist. 3 : 387-388. Emendations : Vanikoroia Martin, 1914, Samml. Geol. Reichs-Mus. Leiden, n.f. 2(4) : 170. Vanikoroa Cossmann, 1924, Essais Paléoconch. Comp. 13 : 163. 7. Four objective synonyms of ‘“‘ Vanikoro” Quoy & Gaimard, 1832, apparently were proposed in the following order : Merria Gray, 1839(?), in Beechey, Zool. Blossom :137. Type-species (monotypy) : Sigaretus cancellatus Lamarck. Leucotis Swainson, 1840, Treat. Malacol. : 346. Type-species (monotypy) : Sigaretus cancellatus Lamarck. Narica Orbigny (ex Récluz MS.), 1842(?), in Sagra, Cuba, Moll. (French ed.) 2:39. Type-species (original designation) : Sigaretus cancellatus Lamarck. Nioma Gray, 1842, Syn. Brit. Mus. (ed. 44) p. 60 [Niomia p. 90, name only] (no included species ; nomen dubium) ; Nioma Gray, 1847, Proc. zool. Soc. London 15 : 156 (name in synonymy). Type-species (designated) : “‘ Nerita cancellata, Chem.” [non-binomial] =Sigaretus cancellatus Lamarck. [Niomia Gray, 1840, Syn. Brit Mus. (ed. 42) [issue 1], p. 147 (nomen nudum, fide Neave) ; ibid., [issue 2] p. 151 (nomen nudum). According to Récluz (1843, Proc. zool. Soc. London 11 : 137) Orbigny’s text was issued before Gray’s name Merria was published. If this is so, Narica or Leucotis may have priority over Merria. The dates above are those given by Neave. The publication dates of Orbigny’s work on the molluscs of Cuba have yet to be rigorously determined, and the date 1839 on the title page of Beechey’s Zoology of the Blossom requires confirmation. 8. Three of the four objective synonyms of “ Vanikoro ” listed in paragraph 7 have been mis-spelled : Leucotus Sowerby, 1842, Conch. Man. (ed. 2): 172 (error for Leucotis Swainson). Niomia (see paragraph 7). 334 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Merrya Récluz, 1846 [‘‘ 1845 ’’], Mag. Zool. (2) 7(9) : 7-8 (error for Merria Gray). Niona Paetel, 1887, Cat. Conch. (ed. 4), 1 : 511 (error for Nioma Gray). 9. The oldest family-group name based on any of the above generic names is VANICOROIDAE Gray (1840, Syn. Brit. Mus. (ed. 42) [issue 2] pp. 121, 152). H. & A. Adams (1854, Gen. Rec. Moll. 1 : 374) corrected the spelling to vANt- KORIDAE. Subsequently, the name has also been spelled VANIKOROIDAE. Article 29(b) of the new Code, relating to the formation of family-group names based on generic names not of classical origin, does not explain whether, in the present case, Gray or H. & A. Adams is to be considered the zoologist who first published a family-group name based on Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard. This determines whether the name should be spelled VANIKORIDAE or VANIKOROIDAE. () Two other family-group names, both based on generic names listed in paragraph 7, have been proposed : NARICIDAE Récluz, 1846 [‘‘ 1845 ”’], Mag. Zool. (2) 7(9) : 6, 16. MERRUDAE Hedley, 1917, Journ. Proc. Roy. Soc. New South Wales 51 : Suppl., p. M62. 10. The name Vanikoro has been very widely used as a valid generic name, both in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The name even appears among the examples in the New International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1961, p. 33). E. A. Smith used the name in the most recently published taxonomic study of the genus (1908, On the known Recent species of the genus Vanikoro, Quoy & Gaimard. Proc. Malacological Soc. London 8 : 104-117). Vanikoro has been used by malacologists since 1900 in the following countries : Great Britain (G. B. Sowerby, 1901 ; E. A. Smith, 1908 ; W. H. Turton, 1932) France (Couturier, 1907 ; Dautzenberg & Bouge, 1932 ; Delpey, 1942) Netherlands (Schepman, 1909 ; Oostingh, 1931) Germany (Thiele, 1929 ; Wenz, 1940) Sweden (Hagg, 1929) U.S.A. (Bartsch, 1915; Hertlein & Strong, 1951; Solem, 1953 ; Abbott, 1954, 1958 ; Kaicher, 1956 ; Keen, 1958) Cuba (Aguayo & Jaume, 1950) South Africa (Barnard ; Macnae & Kalk, 1958) Japan (Iwakawa, 1909, 1919 ; Hirase, 1910) Philippines (Faustino, 1928) Australia (Iredale, 1912 ; Hedley, 1912) Only one malacologist, Nagao (1934, Japan), has adopted either of the emenda- tions of Vanikoro (Vanikoroa Cossmann). Merria Gray, 1839(?), the generic name seemingly valid under strict application of the Law of Priority and the new Code (see paragraphs 3 and 7), was first adopted by Hedley (1917, Journ. Proc. Roy. Soc. New South Wales, @) IT favour the spelling VANIKORIDAE, even though VANIKOROIDAE may be preferable etymologically. H. & A. Adams were the first to spell the family-group name correctly (VANIKORIDAE). aay Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 335 51 : Suppl., p. M62). Iredale (1918, Proc. Malacological Soc. London 18 : 31) agreed with Hedley that the name Vanikoro was invalid, but did not at that time adopt Merria. Subsequently, other Australian malacologists have used Merria (Macpherson & Chapple, 1951 ; Cotton, 1959; J. Allan, 1959). The genus is rarely mentioned in Australian malacological literature. Merria has been used more often in the Japanese literature, first by Kuroda (1928, Cat. Shell-bearing Mollusca Amami-Oshima, p. 42 ; also 1941, etc.), subsequently by Hirase (1938), Hatai (1941), Oyama (1943), Kira (1945), and by Habe (1961). : Despite careful search, I have found no use of Merria in malacological litera- ture published in countries other than Australia and Japan, where it has been used primarily in the last two decades. Leucotis Swainson, 1840, has never been adopted. Narica Orbigny, 1842(?), was used fairly often in the nineteenth century, notably by French workers such as Fischer (1885, Man. Conchyl., p. 761). During the twentieth century, Narica appears to have been used only by Pelseneer (1906, Belgium), Risbec (1931, 1932, France), and by P.-H. Fischer (1950, France). 11. In view of the very wide use, both old and new, of the invalid name Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, and in view of the uncertainty of the publication dates and priority of the available names Merria Gray, Leucotis Swainson, and Narica Orbigny, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked to take the following action :— (1) to use its plenary powers to validate as a generic name Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, and (2) to place the name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 (gender : feminine*), type-species, by monotypy, Sigaretus cancellatus Lamarck, 1822 ; (3) to place the specific name cancellatus Lamarck, 1822, as published in the binomen Sigaretus cancellatus (type-species of Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the name VANIKORIDAE (nom. correct. H. & A. Adams, 1854, pro VANICOROIDAE Gray, 1840) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology) ; (5) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Merria Gray, 1839 (a junior objective synonym of Vanikoro) ; (b) Leucotis Swainson, 1840 (a junior objective synonym of Vanikoro) ; (c) Narica Orbigny, 1842 (a junior objective synonym of Vanikoro) ; (d) Nioma, Niomia Gray, 1842, 1847 ; (e) Vanicoro Gray, 1840-42 (mis-spelling of Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832) ; * Not masculine, as stated in International Code of Zoological Nomenclature [1961, p. 33, among examples to Article 30 b (ii)]. Although Quoy & Gaimard did not express or imply that the name Vanikoro was to be considered feminine in gender, every malacologist but Poirier (1954, Up-to-date syst. list 3200 seashells Greenland to Texas, p. 50 [mimeographed]) appears subsequently to have considered it feminine (see paragraph 4 above). 336 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (f) Vanikoroia Martin, 1914 (emendation of Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832) ; (g) Vanikoroa Cossmann, 1924 (emendation of Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832) ; (6) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology : (a) VANICOROIDAE Gray, 1840 (type-genus Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832) (an invalid original spelling for VANIKORIDAE) ; (b) NaRIcIDAE Reécluz, 1846 (type-genus Narica Orbigny, 1842) (a junior objective synonym of VANIKORIDAE) ; (c) MERRIIDAE Hedley, 1917 (type-genus Merria Gray, 1839) (a junior objective synonym of VANIKORIDAE). +4 SEP 1962 PURCHASED i te 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, F.C.C.S., A.L.A. Scientific Controller: W. FE. China, C.B.E., Sc.D. Scientific Assistant : Margaret Spillane, B.Sc. B. The Members of the Trust Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. Prof. Dr. R. Sparck Dr. N. RB. Stoll Mr. C. W. Wright Dr. G. F. de Witte CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) Opinions Opinion 636 (Encrinus Lamarck, 1801) Opinion 637 (Anolis nannodes Cope, 1864) Opinion 638 (Lepidogaster couchii Kent, 1883) Opinion 639 (Woehrmannia Boehm, 1895) Opinion 640 (Huceraphis Walker, 1870) nt Opinion 641 (Generic and specific names in Phasmatidae) .. Opinion 642 (Reptilia and Amphibia specific names) New Applications Zorilla Geoffroy, 1826 (Mammalia) ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers in favour of Jctonyx Kaup, 1835 (W. E. China) Rana fasciata Burchell, 1824 (Reptilia) ; A ei designation of a neotype under the Peony. Bees (H. W. Parker and W. D. L. Ride) ee Thaumastocoris SSopistioids Kirkaldy, ‘1908 Gacccka, Tominiiee\.: . Request for this name, as defined by a pee to be nee on the Official List (James A. Slater) Lychnoculus mirabilis Murray, 1877 (Pisces) ; Pionbecd ib aG of both generic and gsi names as nomina oblita late W. Mead) es . PHYSAPIDA Leach, 1815 ants, eaeiecay ee addition to the Official Index as a nomen oblitum (D. E. Kimmins) Arizona elegans Kennicott, 1859 (Reptilia) ; Proposed Validntiern under the plenary pone eae L. Williams and Hobart M. Smith) ... ose ws eS Page 262 266 268 270 272 274 280 284 290 293 295 297 298 CONTENTS (continued from inside back wrapper) New Applications TRICHOSTOMIDES Rambur, 1842 (Insecta, Trichoptera) ; Proposed addition to the Official Index as a nomen oblitum (D. E. Kimmins) ... Eucypris Vavra, 1891 (Crustacea, Ostracoda) ; ; Designation of a type-species under the plenary powers (P. C. Sylvester-Bradley) Aelia rostrata Boheman, 1852 (Insecta, Hemiptera); Proposed validation under the plenary powers (E.S. Brown) ... Tetrastichus Walker, 1842 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (B. D. Burks) .. Dicellomus Hall, 1871 (Brachiopoda) ; Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers (A. J. Rowell) .. Tigulops Hall, 1871 (Brachiopoda) ; Fp oes rejection as a "nomen oblitum its Orbiculoidea d’Orbigny, 1847 (Brachiopoda) ; “Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers (A. J. Rowell) SPONDYLIASPINAE Schwarz, 1898 (Hemiptera, Psyllidae) ; Poe validation of the subfamily name (K. L. Taylor) Cypraea piperita Gray, 1825 (Gastropoda) ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (R. J. Griffiths) 3 Jovellania Bayle, 1879 (Cephalopoda) ; Proposed validation under the plenary powers (Walter C. Sweet) Application for suppression under the plenary powers ‘of three specific names of Spanish Palaeozoic Crinoidea (Albert Breimer) Naiadites ovalis Dawson, 1860 (Lamellibranchia) ; ; Request for a Ruling on the interpretation of the species (M. J. Rogers) . Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 (Gastropoda) ; ah ease validation under the plenary powers (Robert Robertson) .. die Comments Comments on the proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the generic name Pupa Réding, 1798 (Robert Robertson ; C. A. Fleming ; D. F. McMichael ; Myra Keen)... Comments on the ‘proposed validation of Biomphalaria "Preston, 1910 (R. Hubendick ; B. G. Peters; E. Binder; H. J. O’D. Burke-Gaffney ; V. de V. Clark) .. Comments on the proposed validation of Ammonites Tacvigatus J. de C. Sowerby, 1827, in two distinct senses a . Melville ; 3 R. Casey) ... at Comments on the proposal concerning ‘the family - name based on Aphis (D. Hille Ris Lambers, James B. aii Esmat A. Elkady) PHASMIDAE US. PHASMATIDAE : Secretary’ 8 Note th Comments on the proposed validation of Parthenope Fabricius, 1798 (Fenner A. Chace, Jr.; D.S. Johnson) ... Support for the pes SSN De Naiadites ovalis ‘Dawson (J. Weir) Ads © 1962. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by METCALFE & Cooper LimireD ,10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 Page 301 302 304 306 308 310 311 315 317 323 325 328 332 | 258 260 267 273 294 314 331 Volume 19. Part 6. 28th December, 1962 pp. 337-402 T.P.—XI, 1 pl. THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Re ee a 11 JAN 1963 on gt PURCHASED CoNTENTS Page Secretary’s Note 337 (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 1962 Price Three Pounds (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Professor James Chester BrapiEy (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 August, 1953) Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do AmMarat (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12 August 1953) ae ghia : Dr. W. E. Cuma (British Musewm (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amarat (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. Voxss (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) te B. Hotruutis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The 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. MinuEr (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 Kiunett (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 TorTonEsE (Museo di Storia Naturale “G. Doria’, Genova, Italy) (16 December 1954) Dr. Per. Brrncx (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 (Rijksmuseum van Natwurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (23 July 1958) Mr. Francis Hemmiye (London, England) (23 July 1958) Dr. Henning Lemons (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Mr. Norman Denbigh Rutey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Tadeusz JaczEwski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Robert Merrens (Natur-Musewm wu. 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. Osrucnev (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, MU adrid, Spain) (31 May 1960) Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Musewm (Natural History), London) (31 May 1960) Ss G. tae (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) (9 June 1961) Dr. N. 8S. Borcusentus (Institute of Zoology, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S8.R.) (28 September 1961) Dr. W. E. Curn (British Museum (Natural History), London) (21 May 1962) (Acting Secretary) Prof. E. Bryprer (Museum d’ Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962) ih, ah a. “ee BAL ‘ ee —_ BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 19, Part 6 (pp. 337-402, T.P.-X1I) 28th December, 1962 Secretary’s Note The following articles constitute some of the recommendations for the amendment of the Code received from zoologists for discussion at the XVI International Congress of Zoology, Washington, 1963. As in volume 15 of the Bulletin, concerned with proposals for the XV Congress, 1958, articles have been arranged by Case and Document Numbers so that all comments relative to the same problem may be easily identifiable. They are printed here with a view to bringing them to the notice of all zoologists who are invited to put forward their views. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature CASE No. 1 REQUEST FOR A CLARIFICATION OF ARTICLE 40 (Z.N.(S.) 1508) (By J. Chester Bradley (President, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Article 40 deals with the conservation of a family-group name based on a type-genus which, after 1960, is discovered to be a junior synonym. It gives however no directive in the case of a family-group name based on a type-genus which was discovered to be a junior synonym before 1960. In this case it has been general practice to change the family-group name to one based on the valid name of the type-genus, so that there are sometimes two or more family- group names competing in present use for the same taxon. It is suggested that the present Article 40 should become Article 40a and that a new paragraph (b) be added as follows : If two family-group names based on type-genera that are objective synonyms or are regarded as subjective synonyms are competing in use for the same taxon, the family-group name based on the senior synonym shall prevail, regardless of whether it itself has priority. Bull. zool. Nomencel., Vol. 19, Part 6. December 1962. 338 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CASE No. 2 THE INTERNATIONAL CODE PROVISIONS ON FAMILY-GROUP NAMES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON TRILOBITE TAXONOMY (Z.N.(S.) 1538) By J. T. Temple (Birkbeck College, London) The Régles internationales de la Nomenclature zoologique (1905) as drawn up by the Berlin Congress of 1901 and emended by several later Congresses (notably Budapest 1927) did not legislate for family-group names beyond prescribing the endings of family and subfamily names and the dependence of these names on that of the type-genus (Arts. 4 & 5). In particular, the Law of Priority (Art. 25) which determined the availability as well as the priority of names applied only to generic and specific names. The Paris Congress of 1948 approved a recommendation that the wording of Arts. 4 & 5 should be expanded to clarify the ideas of selection and designation of a type-genus for a family, but did not legislate further, and referred the whole problem of family-group names to the Secretary of the Commission for him to make a thorough study (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 4 : 138). The results of this study were presented to the XIV Congress in Copenhagen, 1953, which recommended the insertion of several provisions relating to family- group names into the Régles. The most important of these for the present purpose is para. 52 (Copenhagen Decisions 1953 : 35) :— “ The Colloquium recommends that a provision should be inserted in the Régles prescribing that a name given to a taxon of the Family-Group is to be treated as having been published with an indication through the incorporation into it of a basic portion of the name of its type genus. The Colloquium proposes, however, that a Recommandation should be inserted urging authors when publishing a name for a new taxon belonging to a category in the Family-Group to give a diagnosis of the characters relied upon for distinguishing that taxon from allied taxa previously named.” There are two points of interest in this paragraph. Firstly, the provision concerning publication of a family-group name with an indication referred presumably to Art. 25(a) of the Régles where an indication was (together with the application of binomial nomenclature) a sufficient criterion for the avail- ability of names published before 1 January 1931; but Art. 25 refers only to generic and specific names, and although the Copenhagen Congress discussed this Article (Copenhagen Decisions 1953 : 60-66) it did not expand its province to cover family-group names. The provision in the first part of para. 52 could not, therefore, be put into effect. Secondly, the latter part of the paragraph urging authors to publish a diagnosis of a new family-group taxon was not a mandatory provision, but a Recommandation, and even with this limited force it could only operate from the date of publication of the Copenhagen Decisions (31 December 1953). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 6. December 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 339 In practice, therefore, after the publication of the Copenhagen Decisions there was still no legislation on the criteria of availability of family-group names except for the prescribed endings and the necessity of incorporating the stem of the name of the type-genus ; and this state of affairs continued until the recent (6 November 1961) publication of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature adopted by the XV Congress in London, 1958. The most important change in the new Code as it affects families is the widening of the old Law of Priority to cover all names, including family-group names. The provisions are now embodied in Arts. 12, 13 & 16 as follows :— “Article 12. Names published before 1931.—In addition to satisfying the provisions of Article 11, a name published before 1931 must have been accompanied by a description, definition, or indication.” “Article 16(a).—The word “ indication ” as used in this Chapter applies only to the following : (iv) the formation of a new family-group name from the stem of the name of a genus, which thus becomes the type-genus ; “Article 13. Names published after 1930.— (a) Names in general.—In addition to satisfying the provisions of Article 11, a name published after 1930 must be either (i) accompanied by a statement that purports to give characters differentiating the taxon; or (ii) accompanied by a definite bibliographic reference to such a statement ; or (ili) proposed expressly as a replacement for a pre-existing available name.” In brief, therefore, a diagnosis has been made mandatory for any family- group name published after 1930, and the effect is to invalidate any name proposed since then without a diagnosis. The difference from the Copenhagen Decisions is extreme : Copenhagen suggested a Recommandation for future guidance of authors ; the new Code imposes mandatory provisions which are made retrospective by thirty years. Such retrospective legislation may be contrasted with the action of the Budapest Congress in 1927 which first made diagnoses mandatory at specific and generic level but post-dated this provision by three years until the end of 1930. Retrospective legislation is as unfortunate in zoological nomenclature as in any other context, and it seems likely that the new provisions will upset a number of generally accepted family-group names. Among the trilobites the families that will be affected are listed below together with those where there is uncertainty over the interpretation of the new provisions. The 7'reatise on Invertebrate Paleontology Part O Arthropoda 1 (1959) has been taken as a convenient (if not in all cases entirely representative) guide to current usage, and family names accepted therein are printed in BOLD CAPITALS, the names of their authors or of authors who have subse- quently (though usually inadvertently) made available previously unavailable families being in Bold lower case. Family names printed in ROMAN CAPITALS are those available but not in current use ; family names printed 340 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature in Roman lower case are those which are neither available nor in current use. The letters d or nd following a page reference indicate that an author has or has not given a diagnosis of the family in question. The original spelling of family names is given, the corrected form following in square brackets. ACANTHOPYGINAE Piibyl & Erben, 1952: 141 nd. Listed as nov. subfam. Pribyl 1953:19 nd (as replacement for Euarginae Giirich, 1901). In Treatise (: 503) Acanthopyge is referred to Ceratarginae Tripp, 1957 : 117 d. Note—Acanthopyginae is accepted here to have been proposed as a replacement name, although it was not explicitly stated to be such by Pribyl 1953 : 19, 25. ALOKISTOCARIDAE Resser, 1939:51 nd. Available from Hupé 1953: 190d. AMECEPHALINAE Kobayashi, 1936 : 170 nd (apparently used inadvertently in place of Pterocephalinae K., 1935). Available from Hupé 1953 : 192 d (introduced as new). Amecephalus is considered in Treatise (: 238) a junior subjective synonym of Alokistocare, which is referred to Alokistocaridae Resser, 1939 (q.v.) Bathycheilinae Pribyl, 1953:19 nd (monotypic). Treatise (: 453) refers Bathycheilus to Calymeninae Burmeister, 1843. BATHYURISCIDAE Richter, 1932 : 855 nd. Introduced again by Poletaeva 1936: 31 nd (Bathyuriscinae, as new). Available from Hupé 1953: 183 d (Bathyuriscinae, as new). A synonym of Dolichometopidae Walcott, 1916, in Treatise (: 220). BAVARILLINAE Sdzuy, 1957: 276 d ? (monotypic). Diagnosis in Sdzuy 1959 (Treatise : 455 d). Bigotinopsidae Hupé, 1960 : 77 nd. BREVIDISCINAE Kobayashi, 1944b: 58 nd (monotypic). Available from Hupé 1953 : 169 d. A synonym of Eodiscidae Raymond, 1913, in Treatise (: 187). Note—Brevidiscinae was first used in Kobayashi 1943:39 nd but its type-genus was not validly established until 1944b : 59. BURNETIDAE [BURNETIELLIDAE, corr. herein] Resser, 1942:79 nd. Available from Hupé 1953: 197 d. Burnetia Walcott, 1924, is a junior homonym and was replaced by Burnetiella Lochman, 1958 : 247, which is referred to Dokimocephalidae Kobayashi, 1935, in Treatise (: 281). CYBELIDAE Holliday, 1942 : 475 nd (mistakenly proposed as a replacement for Encrinuridae Angelin, 1854). Available from Hupé 1955 : 251 d. Currently considered a subfamily of Encrinuridae (Treatise : 448). DAWSONIDAE [DAWSONIIDAE, corr. Kobayashi, 1943] Resser, 1937 : 9 nd (apparently mistakenly proposed as a replacement for Eodiscidae Raymond, 1913). Available from Lermontova 1940 : 122d. A synonym of Eodiscidae Raymond, 1913, in Treatise (: 187). DINDYMENINAE Pribyl, 1953: 20 nd. Available from Henningsmoen 1959 (Treatise : 448 d, introduced as new.) DINESIDAE Lermontova, 1940: 144 nd. Available from Lermontova 1951 : 108 d, but if the generic grouping of Treatise (: 230) is followed, a junior subjective synonym of Tollaspidae [Tollaspididae, corr. Henningsmoen, 1951] Kobayashi, 1944a : 315 d. a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 341 DOLEROLENIDAE Kobayashi, 1951 : 103 nd (monotypic) (as replacement for Olenopsidae K., 1935, itself still not available in 1951). Available from Hupé 1953 : 179 d. Enetagnostidae Harrington, 1938 : 149, 157 nd (monotypic). Hnetagnostus is considered a junior subjective synonym of Diplagnostus (Treatise : 175). HARPIDINAE Raw, 1949:514 nd. Introduced again by Whittington 1950a : 303 nd (Harpididae, as new). Available from Hupé 1953: 240 d. A full family in Treatise (: 418). KINGSTONINAE [KINGSTONIINAE, corr. Shaw, 1952] Kobayashi, 1933: 142 nd? Available from Kobayashi 1935: 201 d. A full family in Treatise (: 285). Kootenidae [Kooteniidae, corr. Henningsmoen, 1951] Resser, 1939: 46nd. In Treatise (: 217) considered a subjective synonym of Dorypygidae Kobayashi, 1935. LANCASTRIDAE [LANCASTRIIDAE, corr. Henningsmoen, 1951] Kobayashi, 1935 : 129 d ? (monotypic). Diagnosis in Hupé 1953:176d. In Treatise (: 220) Lancastria is referred to Oryctocephalidae Beecher, 1897. LEJOPYGINAE Harrington, 1938:149 nd. Available from Kobayashi 1939 : 128 d (introduced as new). In Treatise (: 178) Lejopyge is referred to Hastagnostidae Howell, 1937. MARJUMIDAE [MARJUMIIDAE, corr. Henningsmoen, 1951] Kobayashi, 1935 : 284 nd. Available from Hupé 1953: 204 d, but if the generic grouping of Treatise (: 305) is followed, a junior subjective synonym of Punctulariidae Raymond, 1937: 1123 d. Lochman (Treatise : 305) recog- nises a superfamily Marjumiacea. Olenopsidae Kobayashi, 1935 : 129 nd (monotypic) see Dolerolenidae. PERONOPSIDAE Westergird, 1936: 28 nd (? monotypic). Available from Harrington 1938 : 149, 150d (introduced as new). Asynonym of Spinagno- stidae Howell, 1935, in Treatise (: 184). PHILLIPSINELLIDAE Whittington, 1950b : 559, 561 d ? (monotypic). Diagno- sis in Hupé 1953 : 224 d. Ptarmiganidae [Ptarmiganiidae, corr. Henningsmoen, 1951] Resser, 1939 : 31 nd. A synonym of Dolichometopidae Walcott, 1916, in Treatise (: 220). PTEROCEPHALINAE [PTEROCEPHALIIDAE, corr. lLochman, 1956] Kobayashi, 1935: 230 nd. Available from Lochman 1959 (Treatise : 256 d, a full family), but if the generic grouping therein is followed, a junior subjective synonym of Camaraspididae Lochman, 1953 : 889 d. STAUROCEPHALINAE Prantl & Piibyl, 1948 : 12nd ? (monotypic). Available from Hupé 1953 : 238 d (introduced as new). Note—The date of publication of Prantl & Pyibyl’s article is usually given incorrectly as 1947. TAIHUNGSHANIDAE [TAIHUNGSHANIIDAE, corr. Henningsmoen, 1951] Sun, 1931: 7 nd (monotypic). Available from Hupé 1953 : 221 d. TONKINELLIDAE Reed, 1934:9 nd (monotypic). Available from Hupé 1953: 186d. Tonkinella is referred to Oryctocephalidae Beecher, 1897, in Treatise (: 220). Trilobagnostinae Harrington, 1938:148 nd. Trilobagnostus is referred to Hastagnostidae Howell, 1937, in Treatise (: 179). 342 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Trinucleoidinae Pyibyl, 1953: 15 nd (monotypic). Trinucleoides is referred to Dionididae Giirich, 1908, in Treatise (: 425). XYSTRIDURINAE Whitehouse, 1939: 196 d? (monotypic). Diagnosis in Hupé 1953 : 181 d. YINITIDAE Hupé, 1953: 177 (footnote) nd. Available from Harrington 1959 (Treatise : 205 d). YOKUSENINAE [YOKUSENIIDAE, corr. Hupé, 1953] Kobayashi, 1935 : 236, 247 nd. Available from Hupé 1953: 189d. Yokusenia is considered in Treatise (: 288) a junior subjective synonym of Lioparia, which is referred to Anomocaridae Poulsen, 1927 ; Kobayashi has replaced Yokuseninae by Liopariinae (1960 : 391 nd). In several of the above families there is difficulty in interpreting the provisions of the new Code, and this is particularly so in the case of monotypic families. It is clear that repetition of the characters of the type-genus as the diagnosis of a monotypic family would be a valid procedure, and there is no doubt that the use of some such formula as “ the characters of this family are those of its only known genus ”’ is also valid when the generic characters are themselves given (e.g. Platagnostidae Howell, 1935 : 228—not listed above). There are, however, two cases (Brevidiscinae and Taihungshaniinae) in which a generic diagnosis was given without such a linking formula, while for another family (Staurocephalinae) a formula was used but the generic diagnosis was not quoted. These three families cannot be considered to satisfy the require- ments of Art. 13a(i) or (ii) and must fail, as must those where neither a generic diagnosis nor a linking formula was given (Bathycheilinae, Peronopsidae, Tonkinellidae, Trinucleoidinae), even though, as with Staurocephalinae, suitable generic diagnoses were extant in the literature at the time. There remain four families (Bavarillinae, Lancastriidae, Phillipsinellidae, Xystri- durinae) in which an analysis was given of the generic characters which pre- cluded reference to existing families, although it was not presented as a formal diagnosis of the new family ; this procedure seems to satisfy at least the spirit (if not the letter) of Art. 13a(i) and the families are therefore accepted as available from the date of publication (on the other hand, the analyses accompanying Enetagnostidae, Olenopsidae and Staurocephalinae are here considered not to be adequate diagnoses). It is clear, though, that there is a considerable subjective element in the above interpretation of the Code as it affects monotypic families, and an alter- native procedure (suggested by Mr. R. P. Tripp on reading the draft of this article) would be to accept as available all clearly monotypic families for which an adequate generic diagnosis was extant at the time of erection. This practice would be objective and convenient and would probably correspond to the intentions of the original authors of the families, but it would in most cases infringe the requirements of Art. 13 (on a strict legalistic interpretation of which all the monotypic families listed above would be unavailable). It also suffers from the difficulty of determining whether certain families are monotypic or not: for instance, the only genus listed under Peronopsidae Westergard, 1936 : 28 was Peronopsis itself and so the family was de facto monotypic, although it was apparently intended to replace Tullberg’s Section Fallaces and Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 343 probably therefore to include other genera ; Canotagnostidae! Rusconi, 1951 : 13 nd is here considered monotypic even though the genera Homagnostus and Tomagnostus follow Canotagnostus with no intervening family heading. While it cannot be claimed on the basis of the above discussion that the new provisions will involve very widespread changes in the nomenclature of trilobite families, nevertheless an appreciable number of family names will be affected and the application of the provisions to monotypic families causes considerable uncertainty. If changes on a comparable scale to those in tri- lobites are caused in other groups the cumulative effect would justify raising at Washington the question of the retrospective nature of the new family provisions. REFERENCES Harrineton, H.J. 1938. Rev. Mus. la Plata Buenos Aires (ns) 1 [Palaeont.] : 109-289 HENNINGSMOEN, G. 1951. Norsk geol. Tidsskr. 29 : 174-217 Hotimay, 8S. 1942. J. Paleont. 16 : 471-478 Howet., B. F. 1935. J. Paleont.9 : 222-238 Hupsé, P. 1953. Traité de Paléontologie [ed. J. Piveteau] 3 : 44-246 — 1955. Ann. Paléont. 44 : 91-325 —— 1960. Rep. XXI int. geol. Congr. 8 : 75-85 Kopayasut, T. 1933. Japan. J. Geol. Geogr. 11 : 55-155 —— 1985. J. Fac. Sci. Tokyo Univ. [2] 4 : 49-344 —— 1936. Japan. J. Geol. Geogr. 13 : 163-184 —— 1989. J. Fac. Sci. Tokyo Univ. [2] 5 : 62-194 —— 1943. Proc. Imp. Acad. Tokyo 19 : 37-42 —— 1944a. J. Fac. Sci. Tokyo Univ. [2] 6 : 271-334 —— 1944b. J. Fac. Sci. Tokyo Univ. [2] 7 : 1-74 —— (with Kato, F.) 1951. J. Fac. Sci. Tokyo Univ. [2] 8 : 99-143 — 1960. J. Fac. Sci. Tokyo Univ. [2] 12 : 329-420 Lermontova, E. V. 1940. Atlas of the leading forms of the Fossil Faunas of the U.S.S.R.1 : 112-157 —— 1951. Lower Cambrian trilobites and brachiopods from Eastern Siberia Locuman,C. 1953. J. Paleont. 27 : 889-896 — 1956. J. Paleont. 30 : 445-462 — 1958. J. Paleont. 32 : 247 Potetarva, O. K. 1936. Rec. Geol. W.-Siberian Region 35 : 25-53 Prantt, F., & Pktpyn, A. 1948. Sborn. Nérod. Mus. Praze [B] 8 : 1-44 PkrByt, A. 1953. Knihouvna Ust. ist. geol. 25 : 1-80 —— & Erpen, H. K. 1952. Paldont. Z. 26 : 141-174 Raw, F. 1949. J. Paleont. 23 : 510-514 Raymonp, P.E. 1937. Bull. geol. Soc. Amer. 48 : 1079-1146 Reep, F.R.C. 1934. Palaeontologia Indica (ns) 21(2) : 1-38 Resser, C. E. 1937. Smithson. misc. Coll. 95(22) : 1-29 —— 1939. Smithson. misc. Coll. 98(24) : 1-72 — 1942. Smithson. misc. Coll. 103(5) : 1-136 ’This family and Huaquinchaidae Rusconi, 1955 : 39 nd (also monotypic) have been omitted from the list since they are both based on genera which do not themselves appear to be available. 344 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature RicuTer, R. 1932. Handwérterbuch der Naturwissenschaften 2 : 840-863 Rusconi, C. 1951. Rev. Mus. Hist. nat. Mendoza 5 : 3-30 — 1955. Rev. Mus. Hist. nat. Mendoza 8 : 3-64 Spzuy, K. 1957. Senckenbergiana leth. 38 : 275-290 Suaw, A. B. 1952. J. Paleont. 26 : 458-483 Sun, Y.C. 1931. Palaeontologia Sinica [B] 7(1) : 1-47 Tripp, R. P. 1957. Geol. Mag. 94 : 104-122 WestTerGARD, A.H. 1936. Sverig. geol. Unders. [(C] 394 : 1-66 Wauitenouse, F. W. 1939. Mem. Qd. Mus. Brisbane 11 : 179-282 Wauirtineton, H. B. 1950a. Geol. Féren. Stockh. Forh. 72 : 301-306 — 1950b. J. Paleont. 24 : 531-565 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES FOR LEPIDOPA STIMPSON, 1858 (see volume 19, pages 125—128) By Fenner A. Chace, Jr. (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) This is one of the few applications requesting the use of the plenary powers of the International Commission that I can support wholeheartedly. There is little doubt that Stimpson misidentified the animal selected as the type-species of Lepidopa, and strict application of the Code would not only complicate the nomenclature of an important crustacean genus but it would alter the intent of the author of that genus. I also concur fully with the decision to accept the principle of priority as far as the name Thia scutellata is concerned. Such respect for this basic principle is to be highly commended, especially when it is displayed by one of those who have sometimes sought to suppress its effect on the validity of familiar names. By Janet Haig (Allan Hancock Foundation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Calif., U.S.A.) I wish to register my support of this proposal. I feel that it would be better in this particular case for the Commission to use their plenary powers, rather than to apply the Code strictly and thereby go against the obvious intent of Stimpson to attach the name Lepidopa to the anomuran genus for which it is universally used. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF DENDRASPIS FITZINGER, 1843. Z.N.(S.) 1500 (see volume 19, pages 189-190) By Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology and Museum of Natural History, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) There is no question that great confusion in nomenclature would result if Dendraspis Fitzinger, 1843, were to be accepted on the grounds of priority, with the type-species originally designated, thus making it the valid name for the genus containing the king cobra. Dendroaspis is well fixed at present as the name for the mambas, and Ophiophagus for the king cobras ; only perpetuation of these universally- understood names can result from approval of the proposal. Failure to suppress Dendraspis Fitzinger, 1843, would in no way contribute to stability of nomen- clature ; on the contrary it would result in nomenclatural chaos. Approval of the proposal is strongly recommended. EE ee ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 345 CASE No. 3 CONCERNING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION (Z.N.(S.) 1543) Document 3/1 The Fifty-year Limitation By J. Chester Bradley (President, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Perhaps Article 23(b) has aroused more controversy than any other single item of the new code. May I direct attention to some points in its wording that may cause confusion ? (1) ‘“‘A name that has remained unused as a senior synonym.’ Thousands of names in constant use have never been used as senior synonyms, because they have no junior synonyms. I assume for example, that the genus Homo has no junior synonyms, hence has never been used as a senior synonym, is a nomen oblitum and may not be used unless the Commission so directs. Of course, that is a reductio ad absurdum—but why not have this section worded to mean what it says ? (2) “ Primary zoological literature’ is nowhere defined. Does it mean all literature except such recording publications as the Zoological Record ? (3) What does ‘‘ remained unused”” mean? Does it mean used but not accepted as the presumptively correct or at least generally adopted name for the taxon? But if an author, in 1960, adopting B-us x as the correct name of a taxon, mentions and rejects B-us y as a synonym, or if he merely mentions that Lamarck, in 1803 had applied the name y to what is probably this species, has he “ used’ the name y ? (4) Does “ fifty years” count back from 6 November 1961, when the new Code was published, or does it count back from whatever future date a decision is to be made ? (5) “‘ Has remained unused . . for more than fifty years ” does not, literally, mean counting from any particular time, it could mean that there must be no period of fifty years after it was established in which it had remained unused for fifty years. This would involve an impracticable search of literature and senseless rejection of names in use, or innumerable cases coming up before the Commission to conserve names. (6) No differentiation has been made between objective and subjective synonymy, but there can arise a difference in result. If there are two nominal genera A-us and B-us, each of which has been in use for fifty years, not as synonyms, but now an author on taxonomic grounds unites them, he must not be forbidden to use the older name A-us because it had not been used as a synonym of B-us for fifty years or indeed ever ! 9? Bull, zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 6, December 1962, 346 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (7) The principle, if obligatory, can be applied without too great difficulty to groups in which there has been constant literature, at least if that literature has been continually indexed, so that it does not become a formidable problem to make sure that a given name has not been used for fifty years. But it isa very different matter if there has been no revisionary literature of the family group taxon involved, and at most only casual references to some species. I happen to be revising the Ethiopian and Neotropical members of a family of wasps which have never been revised since a world monograph in 1864. The majority of species have not been even mentioned in print within the last half century. Must I discard all the senior synonyms among them and adopt the junior synonyms or invent new names ? There is a compromise that could be made, without such absurd situations arising. The prime intent of the provision would be saved, if I correctly interpret that intent. I think that it was, in case an author discovers a long overlooked and unused senior synonym of a name that is in common use, to provide a procedure that would relieve him of shifting to the old forgotten name. That can be done by making the action concerning nomina oblita permissive instead of obligatory, requiring, however, that an author choose the course that will the least disturb current practice. There is another course, and that is to repeal Article 23(b) on the grounds that the objective sought, if the case is considered of sufficient importance, can be attained by use of the plenary powers of the Commission. I append a proposed substitute for Article 23(b). Proposed substitute for Article 23(b) If a name has not been adopted as the presumably correct or currently used name of a taxon (or of some other taxon) for a period of fifty years inimediately prior to the date at which a taxonomist wishes to decide whether to adopt it as the correct name for that taxon ; and if it is a senior objective synonym or regarded as a subjective synonym of some other available name for that taxon, then the taxonomist shall : (a) adopt the senior synonym if no contrary usage has been established, (b) adopt whichever synonym, regardless of priority, will least disturb current usage, if any usage can be regarded as having been established. (c) notify the Commission, who shall place the name on the appropriate official list, if, after six months’ public notice, no challenge has been received. Document 3/2 Request for Reconsideration of Article 23 on nomina oblita By Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology and Museum of Natural History, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) Article 23b relative to nomina oblita, even if accepted, leaves two glaringly unanswered questions: (1) what is “ primary zoological literature”’, and eo Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 347 (2) to what level is a nomen oblitum “ forgotten”? It is true that a definition of “‘ primary zoological literature’ is proposed in volume 15 (1958) of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (p. 1061), but there is no published evidence that this definition was officially accepted ; even if it were, it should clearly be included in the glossary. Even as names are officially rejected for different purposes—for the Law of Priority alone, or the Law of Homonymy alone, or for both Laws—so also may nomina oblita, presumably, be “ forgotten’ to these different degrees. A clear statement whether “forgotten” means for the purposes of the Law of Priority, or the Law of Homonymy, or for both laws, is of vital importance in nomenclatural procedure. Aside from these two deficiencies in the Article, even if its basic tenets were accepted, I am strongly of the opinion that the basic tenets are far more disturbing to nomenclature than they are helpful, although I am in accord with the Principle of Conservation. It is likely that most taxonomists desire a stable nomenclature, and that they would regard the present “ nomen oblitum”’ article a clear-cut danger to stability. It represents a danger at least because its wording suggests (1) that any nominal species which has not appeared in the literature for fifty years—even though it may be the incontest- ably valid name for a species—will require Commission sanction before it can be used again, or may be replaced by a new name at the nomenclator’s discretion ; (2) that no junior synonyms of greater age than fifty years may be utilized for taxa that require names through revisionary work upon species previously unstudied in detail, even though they would otherwise be appropriate, acceptable and would create no possible confusion ; (3) that the patently impossible task be regularly undertaken to determine whether homonymy or occupancy exists or not when either of two names under consideration is of greater age than fifty years (generic indices, for example, would not reveal whether a name had become “ forgotten ’’ and thus perhaps “ unoccupied’ since its original and valid proposal) ; and (4) that every nomen oblitum discovered be acted upon by the Commission. An alternative means of safe arrival at the desired end without risking the overwhelmingly undesirable side effects of the present rule is the relatively minor rewording as follows : ““A junior synonym used in the primary zoological literature (defined as in Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 1958, 15 : 1061) for at least fifty years at the expense of the senior name takes precedence over the latter, which automatically is to be considered a nomen oblitum and thus suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for the Law of Homonymy’”’. There is no need—in fact there is a considerable risk—in suppressing such overlooked senior synonyms for purposes of both the Law of Homonymy and Law of Priority. Such a wording as here suggested would preserve the desirable features of the Principle of Conservation for the immediate given case at hand with a minimum effect upon associated names ; it would demand much less of the Commission’s time and effort than the present wording which could well result in straining the already crowded docket beyond endurance by causing innumerable requests for consideration of trivial matters to come before the Commission. 348 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature In lieu of such a compromise, the proposal submitted by Melville (1958, Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 15 : 1247-1250) for individual consideration of each case violating the Principle of Conservation to a degree that merits consideration by the Commission is to be preferred strongly to the present article. Document 3/3 By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) As one of the proposers of the Statute of Limitation I feel particularly unhappy about its text as that stands at present and I consider this paragraph to be the major flaw in the new Code. In fact, I believe it such a threat to stability that it cannot possibly remain in the Code in this wording ; a strict application of this Statute would result in endless name changing and would attain exactly the opposite of the purpose for which it was proposed. The wording of the Statute which was adopted in London was the result of a last- minute compromise, and as such shows several defects, which perhaps would have been straightened out if there had been more time for discussion of this highly controversial subject. My objections against the Statute as it reads now are the following : 1. The expression ““A name that has remained unused as a senior synonym . . . for more than fifty years’ is obscure. It was intended to mean that both the senior and the junior synonym have to be proposed at least fifty years ago. Many of my colleagues, whose mother tongue is English, read in the wording that only the senior synonym has to be fifty years old and that this is not necessarily so for the junior synonym. One can make the remark that they should read more carefully, but on the other hand if this wording causes difficulties to British and American zoologists, how great will these difficulties be for zoologists whose language is not English? An editorial change is certainly necessary here. 2. A radical change in the definition of “ nomen oblitum”’ is needed in order to avoid nomenclatural chaos. As it stands now any currently employed name of long standing which somewhere in its existence has been overlooked for fifty years, while a junior synonym was used in that period, is a nomen oblitum and cannot be used until the Commission has taken action on it. This may be illustrated by an example : In 1814, Leach described in an obscure publication a new genus Upogebia. The next year, in a fundamental work, he used the new name Gebia for the genus, entirely ignoring the previous name. All authors followed Leach in the use of Gebia, which was commonly accepted, till in 1893 Stebbing discovered Leach’s 1814 publication and reintroduced Upogebia. Since that time Upogebia has been accepted by all carcinologists and has become firmly entrenched in the literature ; currently the name Gebia is no longer used and is practically forgotten. According to the present definition Upogebia is a nomen oblitum, since it has remained unused as a senior synonym in primary zoological literature for more than fifty years (namely eee eee ee ——<—-— lle Cll re ml Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 349 from 1815 to 1895). In order to be able to use this available, valid, and generally accepted name one actually should, under the Code, have to make an application to the Commission (which is overcrowded with work anyhow) and, still worse, in the meantime have to revert back to the now truly forgotten name Gebia. There are a great number of similar cases since at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century many nomenclatural changes were made which now are currently adopted. It seems imperative therefore that in the definition of nomen oblitwm not a period of fifty years is used as a criterion, but the last fifty years, or, which in my opinion is still more convenient, the period after 1900. 3. In some animal groups which so far have received but very little attention from zoologists it is often the rule rather than an exception that species are not mentioned in the primary zoological literature for periods of fifty years or more. For such groups the present wording of the Statute of Limitation may define severai names as nomina oblita, which in fact are not forgotten at all, being only not mentioned in the last half century. The important point with a nomen oblitum is that the senior synonym during fifty years is not, and the junior synonym is, regularly used. I believe that in working this idea into the definition of a nomen oblitum, the Statute of Limitation would be acceptable to a greater number of zoologists. 4. In the Statute it is not made clear what action the Commission should take. Presumably it is the normal procedure required for suppression of names under the plenary powers. This, however, should be more clearly stated in the Statute. 5. Par. (ii) of the Statute should be deleted. The purpose for which this paragraph was introduced is entirely taken care of by Art. 80 of the Code ; the wording of Art. 80 even is far superior. 6. Par. (iii) of the Statute should be held more general: an application to the Commission for the preservation of a name can be made for any name the validation of which will prevent confusion : not only for names important in applied zoology. Taking all these points into account I would suggest the following wording for the Statute of Limitation : “(b) Limitation.—The senior of two synonyms, both of which have been validly proposed before 1900 is to be considered a forgotten name (nomen oblitum) if it has remained unused in the primary zoological literature published since 1900, while the junior synonym during that period was in current and frequent use. (i) A zoologist who discovers such a name is to refer it to the Commission either to be placed under the plenary powers of the Commission on the appropriate Official Index of Rejected Names, or, if such action better serves the stability and universality of nomenclature, to be placed on the appropriate Official List. (ii) This provision does not preclude application to the Commission for the suppression of names, other than nomina oblita, which endanger the stability of nomenclature.” 350 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Document 3/4 A plea for the clarification of Article 23(b) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Limitation of the Law of Priority) By M. W. R. de V. Graham (Hope Department of Entomology, University Museum, Oxford) Section (b) of Article 23 of the International Code presents the taxonomist with some critical problems. Its underlying principle is fully appreciated by the writer who, as a member of the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature at the XV International Congress of Zoology in 1958, took part in the discussions which preceded the formulation of this Section (the Clause of Limitation). Clearly the intention was to prevent the supplanting, on grounds of strict priority, of well-known names by others which had remained unused since their publication. The desirability of some check of this kind is obvious to those familiar with the confusing name-changes of species widely known in the literature on general zoology, economic entomology, and the like. The question now arises : does Section (b) of Article 23 concern only such special cases ; or does it apply to every case, i.e., is it to be rigidly construed ? After discussion with taxonomists in Britain and elsewhere, the writer finds that many regard Section (b) as ambiguous. If the Clause of Limitation is intended to apply only to cases of special hardship, few would disagree with such a ruling. If, however, it must be rigidly construed (as seems to be implied by Section (b), paragraphs (i) and (ii) of the Code), then taxonomists in the field of entomology are faced with problems which will force them to devote most of their time to solving questions of nomenclature, to the detriment of the main object of their researches. Such problems are especially acute in Hymenoptera Parasitica ; in Chalci- doidea and Proctotrupoidea the taxonomic situation is still chaotic; in Ichneumonoidea it is backward in comparison with other orders of Insecta. Until recently only a minute fraction of the number of the older described species had been objectively defined by type-designation, hence the interpreta- tion of many names has been largely a matter of personal opinion. Since the war a concerted effort by several taxonomists, basing their work on the examination of types, has placed the taxonomy of some groups upon a firm basis. However, a great deal remains to be done. The chief problems concern fundamental taxonomic works (completed before the end of the nineteenth century) by four authors, i.e., Walker, Forster, Ratzeburg, and Thomson. Those of Walker concern Chalcidoidea and Proctotrupoidea, those of the other authors cover all the groups of Hymenoptera Parasitica. For a number of years the writer has studied the taxonomy of Chalcidoidea. Here the major works, by Walker (1832-1872), Forster (1841-1878), Ratzeburg (1844-1852), and Thomson (1876-8), include descriptions of many hundreds of species. Inevitably there is a great deal of synonymy, because these authors did not see each other’s types. In many cases Walker’s names have priority. On the continent of Europe more than in Britain workers have used Forster’s, : : | Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 351 Ratzeburg’s and Thomson’s names rather than Walker’s since the latter provided no keys for identification. The same drawback applies to the monographs by Forster and Ratzeburg, and even Thomson’s work (which does contain keys of a sort) is not easy to use so that many identifications made from it have been erroneous. Most of Ratzeburg’s types are destroyed, so that his species cannot be objectively defined. Moreover, especially within the last twenty years, many new names have been published which prove to be synonyms of the foregoing. Since many of the names proposed by the four authors mentioned have not apparently been used since their publication, they could be supplanted by these later names if the Clause of Limitation were strictly applied. The writer has already (1959) validated the usage of Walker names in Eulophidae and (1956-7) in some Pteromalidae ; he wishes to maintain continuity of treatment for the rest of the latter family and finds that this course meets with much support from other workers. Before the use of any name can be validated, the relevant synonymy must be ascertained as completely as possible. Then comes the practical difficulty. If (as often happens) there are several synonyms for a given species, the taxonomist would be saddled with the impossible burden of finding out whether or not these names had been used in the primary zoological literature of the past fifty years. Even supposing that this obstacle could be surmounted, there would follow many separate applications to the Commission, with unavoidable delay and the stultifying of taxonomic research pending a decision. It is hard at this stage to estimate the number of separate applications likely to be required within Chalcidoidea alone, but it might be several hundreds. If Ichneumonoidea and Proctotrupoidea were also taken into consideration, the number would be very much greater. This is a burden which should not be inflicted on the Commission any more than on the taxonomist. Clearly the phrasing of Section (b) of Article 23 needs alteration. Is it intended to apply only to cases involving special hardship, or must it be rigidly construed? If the latter, then its application to the Hymenoptera Parasitica would be quite impracticable and some moderation of the rule would be an urgent necessity. Is there any means whereby the Commission could waive the rule (at least for a period of some years) in the case of the Hymenoptera Parasitica, on the grounds that development of taxonomy has been very slow in this group and that citations of names in the primary zoo- logical literature during the past fifty years are both few and unreliable ? REFERENCES (Principal works only are listed ; there are many other short papers by Walker.) Forster, A. 1841. Beitriige zur Monographie der Pteromalinen Nees, pp. 46, 1 pl. Aachen —— 1850. Monographie der Gattung Pezomachus Grv., Arch. Naturg. 16 : 49-232 ; 1851, ibid. 17 : 26-66 —— 1861. Ein Tag in der Hoch-Alpen, Progr. Realsch. Aachen, 1860-61 : 1-44 352 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — 1868. Monographie der Gattung Campoplex Grv., Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 25 : 761-876, pl. 10 — 1876. Synoptische Ubersicht der Gattungen und Arten in der Familie der Stilpnoiden, Verh. naturh. Ver. Bonn (4) 3 : 17-196 — 1878. Kleine Monographien parasitischer Hymenopteren, Verh. naturh. Ver. preuss. Rheinl. (4) 5 : 42-82 GrauaM, M. W. R. DE V. 1956. A revision of the Walker types of Ptero- malidae (Hym., Chalcidoidea). Part 1 (including descriptions of new genera and species), Hnt. mon. Mag. 92 : 76-98, figs. 1-37 ; 1956, Part 2, ibid. 92 : 246-263, figs. 1-5 ; 1957, Part 3 (including descriptions of new species), ibid. 93 : 217-236, figs. 1-18 — 1959. Keys to the British Genera and Species of Elachertinae, Eulo- phinae, Entedontinae, and Euderinae (Hym., Chalcidoidea), Trans. Soc. Brit. Ent. 13(10) : 169-204 RarzepureG, J. T. C. 1844-1852. Die Ichneumonen der Forstinsecten, 1-3. Berlin Tomson, C. G. 1857. Skandinaviens Proctotruper [after part 3 “‘ Sveriges Proctotruper ”’], Ofvers. K. Vetensk. Akad. Forhandl. 14 : 411-422 ; 1858, ibid. 15 : 155-180, 287-305, 359-380, 417-431 ; 1859, ibid. 16: 69-87 ; 1861, zbid. 18 : 169-181, 451-453 — 1869-1897. Opuscula entomologica, fasc. 1-22: 1-2452. Lund and Trelleborg 1876-8. Hymenoptera Scandinaviae 4 : 1-259 ; 5 : 1-307, pl. Waker, F. 1832-1838. Monographia Chalciditum, Ent. Mag. 1 : 12-29, 115-142, 367-384, 455-466; 2 : 13-39, 148-179, 286-309, 340-369, 476-502 ; 3 : 94-97, 182-206, 465-496; 4 : 9-26, 349-364, 439-461 ; 5 : 35-55, 102-118, 418-431 — 1835. On the Species of Platygaster, etc., Ent. Mag. 3 : 217-274, pl. 12 — 1836. On the Species of Teleas, etc., Ent. Mag. 3 : 341-370, pl. 13 — 1838-1840. Descriptions of British Chalcidites, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 1 : 307-312, 381-387, 449-454; 2: 198-205, 350-355; 3 : 177-182, 415-419 ; 4 : 29-32, 232-236 — 1839. Monographia Chalciditum 1 : 1-333; 2:1-100. London — 1842. Descriptions of Chalcidites discovered by C. Darwin, Esq., near Valparaiso, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 10 : 113-117 — 1844. Descriptions of some Chalcidites of North America, collected by George Barnston, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 14 : 14-18 — 1844. On the species of Chalcidites inhabiting the Arctic region, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 14 : 331-342, 407-410 —— 1846. List of the Hymenopterous Insects in the collection of the British Museum. Part 1.—Chalcidites: 1-100; 1848, Part 2.—Chalcidites. Additional Species : 101-237. London —— 1871-1872. Notes on Chalcidiae, parts 1-7. London Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 353 CASE No. 4 AMENDMENTS PROPOSED TO FACILITATE THE ADDING OF NAMES OF THE FAMILY-GROUP TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY. Z.N.(S.) 1547 By J. Chester Bradley (President, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) New Article. Article 38. General conservation of family-group names.— The Commission is authorized to add all names of the family-group that are believed to be in undisputed use, and the names of their type-genera, to the appropriate Official Lists, after having advertised their intent for a period of six months. Priority may be disregarded in such cases, and if it is not known which one is the type-species of the type-genus, the latter may be entered on the Official List with the qualification “‘in the sense as though (a certain specified species) were the type-species ’. If the family-group name is disputed, the Commission is empowered to decide which name is to be employed without having recourse to its plenary powers. It shall decide upon basis of priority or such other consideration as it deems will best serve continuity and universality of usage. Zoologists are to continue to use such names in their customary sense pending decision of the Commission. They are invited to bring names that they regard as undisputed to the attention of the Commission as rapidly as possible. Zoologists are also requested to present disputed names of the family-group to the Commission with as full data as possible for decision, in order that the Official List of Family-Group Names may rapidly approximate completion. In placing a name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, it is to be understood that the Commission expresses no opinion as to the taxonomic validity of the taxon. [Art. 40a, b] Renumber Article 38, Article 39 a = 39, Article 39a 0 » 39a, Article 39b Add to Article 23(a) the following : (ii) if it is a name of the family-group accepted by the Commission in accordance with the provisions of Article 38 ; (iii) if it is the type-genus of a name of the family-group accepted by the Commission in accordance with the provisions of Article 38. Add to Article 42 a new paragraph : (e) Conservation of the names of type-genera.—The names of the type-genera of certain taxa of the family-group are to be conserved in accordance with the provisions of Article 38. Add to Article 67 a new paragraph : (f) Type-species uncertain.—The names of certain genera that are type-genera of taxa of the family-group of which the type-species is not Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 6. December 1962. 354 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature known, may be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in accordance with the provisions of Article 38 in the sense as though certain specified species were their type-species. WITHDRAWAL OF THE PROPOSAL TO SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAME PUPA RODING, 1798. Z.N.(8.) 581 (see volume 18, pages 372-373) By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) In Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 258 pp. several authors have rejected my proposal concerning Pwpa Réding because it is too late to change. May I explain that my application was presented in 1951 as a direct reaction to the proposal by Winckworth in 1945 of the family name PUPIDAE, which I found could hardly be tolerated when that same name had been used even in the Zoological Record up to 1931 for a family of pulmonates. In the meantime, rules for family names have been established which will forever sink Winckworth’s name PUPIDAE into synonymy, and the name Pupa Réding has penetrated further into the literature. My reason for not withdrawing the whole proposal when I finally got the proofs of it, is the idea that it was better to ask my colleagues all over the world for their opinion instead of deciding myself. Now, when the answer seems to be unanimous, I hereby withdraw my proposal on the name Pupa Roding. COMMENT ON PHASMIDAE vs. PHASMATIDAE. Z.N.(S.) 1167 By C. W. Wright (London) I strongly support Dr. Key’s original request and Mr. Hemming’s comment to the effect that PHASMIDAE be corrected to PHASMATIDAE. Article 29 and Article 32 of the new Rules give a clear and unambiguous guide to practice, which should only be upset for the gravest reasons. There do not appear to be any such reasons in this case. Posterity has an indefinite future compared to which a few years incorrect usage ought not to weigh. In applying the last clause of the Preamble of the Rules, one hopes, the Commission looks not only to the individual case but to the stability of nomenclature as a whole : suspension of the Rules for trivial reasons will serve stability ill, for it will undermine the authority of the Rules on whose universal and automatic implementation real, long term stability wholly depends. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 355 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Secretary’s Note. The present Secretary has found himself in a slight difficulty in respect of the steps which led to the submission of the Draft Constitution printed below, due to the fact that he was unable to attend the meetings of the Commission at which discussion of the subject took place. The available records of action taken are printed below as follows :— (1) Mimeographed minutes of second meeting of the Commission [in London] 20 July 1958 :— “5. It was resolved to seek authority from the Congress to examine the By-laws of the Commission and present proposals for their amendment to the Sixteenth International Congress of Zoology. Dr. Mayr, seconded by Dr. do Amaral, moved that the Executive Committee be abolished and replaced by a Council of Five, with the President (Chairman, ex-officio), Vice-President and three other members of the Commission, and the Secretary. Members of the Council should serve for five-year periods, and their duties should include the supervision of the work of the Secretary in relation to his functions as Secretary to the Commission. Dr. Boschma. Dr. Mayr and Dr. Key were invited to serve on this Committee.” (2) Report of the Commission to the Congress, Part 2 (Z.N.(L) 48, 20 July 1958 and Proc. XVth Int. Congress Zoology, p. 915, 1959) :— “20. The Commission then considered the question of the Organic Articles and By-laws in the light of the decision recorded in paragraph 19 above, and it was decided to ask the Congress to give authority to the Commission to examine these regulations and present proposals to the Sixteenth International Congress of Zoology. It was resolved that, should the necessary authority be granted, a By-laws Committee of three be appointed to carry out the necessary work. Professor Mayr, Professor Boschma and Dr. Key were asked to hold themselves ready to serve on this Committee, should it be formed.” (3) Final Plenary Session, Closing Address to the Congress by Sir Gavin de Beer, Proc. X Vth Int. Congress Zoology, p. 45 :— “The International Commission has also recommended that its own By-laws be re-examined with a view to amending them in the light of existing conditions, and that a Committee consisting of Professor Boschma, Professor Ernst Mayr, and Dr. K. H. L. Key be invited to undertake this task, so that the amended By-laws, when approved by the Commission, may come into force provisionally while awaiting confirmation at the next International Congress of Zoology. Do all these proposals, full details of which are set out in the Reports, meet with your approval ? ”’ It is unfortunate that these three statements do not precisely tally, for therein lie some of the differences of opinion that have subsequently arisen. Before proceeding further, however, I place on record my personal conviction that it was not Sir Gavin de Beer’s intention to invite the Congress in Plenary Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 6. December 1962. 356 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Session to do more than endorse the Commission’s recommendations ‘“ full details of which are set out in the Reports.” (4) On 26 August 1959, the Draft Constitution prepared by the Committee was received at the Commission’s office in London together with a covering letter. These are printed below (pp. 358-361). The fact that this document was headed ‘Appendix to the Code ” necessi- tated its immediate consideration by the Editorial Committee then engaged upon the text of the new edition of the Code. They concluded that its status was by no means equal to that of the Code : in the one case the material had been considered and approved by the Congress ; in the other case it still needed the approval of the Congress. They therefore decided to exclude it for fear that its inclusion might seem to endow it with authority that it did not possess. (5) In February 1960 a letter from Dr. Ernst Mayr, supported by Dr. Key and later by Professor Boschma was received asking that the following amendments be made to the Draft Constitution submitted in August 1959. These concerned two points to which his attention had been called by Dr. N. R. Stoll, Chairman of the Editorial Committee, and were as follows :— “‘(i) Add to Section 12b of the Constitution a Subsection (i) to read : ‘ The requirement of not less than six months notice does not apply to the case of a generic name published after 1758 by an author who did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature in the work in question.’ (This proviso has apparently long been in force and can not be omitted without action of a Zoological Congress.) and (ii) ‘ omit from the Constitution Section 13 (to be incorporated in the Code) and renumber Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution to become 13, 14 and 15 7.? (6) On 14 June 1960 the Draft Constitution, as amended by the Editorial Committee with the agreement of the By-laws Committee, was circulated to the Commission, together with matters relating to the Code proper, under the three months rule, for approval or otherwise. The result of this vote was as follows :— Votes for Approval—twenty (20) : Hering, Dymond, Jaczewski, Alvarado, Stoll, Mayr, Obruchev, Tortonese, do Amaral, Kihnelt, Boschma, Vokes, Key, Uchida, Miller, Mertens, Brinck, Bonnet, Poll, Evans. Conditional approval (i.e. subject to comment)—two (2) : Holthuis, Lemche. Against—Bradley. Not voting—Riley. (7) The principal comments received were from Dr. Holthuis and Professor Bradley. (8) The President’s criticisms in particular were so serious that, as Secretary, I felt compelled to consult him as to the action I should take with regard to publication, the Editorial Committee on the Code having already (see above) decided they were not justified in publishing the Draft Constitution with the Code. On 24 September 1960, President Bradley replied very fully in a letter from which the following is an extract :— “To sum up... I vote to publish the draft in the ‘ Bulletin’ . . . to Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 357 give it only the status of a provisionally approved draft, subject to further amendment and only to come into effect when in the final form it is approved by the next Congress ; and, finally, to preface the draft with such a statement.” In another paragraph of the same letter, before summing up, President Bradley had written :— “ The status is that of a proposed draft that has received preliminary approval but that cannot be put into even temporary effect until approved by the next Congress. That is more than a vote, it stands as a presidential ruling, but, of course, such a ruling can always be appealed from...” (9) On 10 October 1960, a letter was received from Dr. do Amaral, Vice- President of the Commission, from which the following is an extract :— “T also favour the alternative of publishing it in the ‘ Bulletin’ independently from the Code and preferably with a preface calling for constructive criticism.” (10) As this course was what I also favoured as Secretary, the decision of the Executive Committee was unanimous. (11) During 1961 correspondence passed between the Chairman of the By-laws Committee, the Chairman of the Editorial Committee, President Bradley, Professor J. Baer, myself as Secretary of the Commission, and others, all desiring to further this matter. (12) On 6 November an Open Letter addressed to the By-laws Committee together with an Addendum, was received from President Bradley. This letter is printed below, together with the Addendum (subsequently slightly revised). Both these have the approval of Dr. do Amaral and myself and are therefore to be regarded as submitted by the Executive Committee. (13) The Draft Constitution as circulated to the Commission (see paras. 5 and 6 above) is now published (pp. 358-361) so that all interested zoologists may have ample opportunity to consider it and to offer their comments prior to its submission to the next Congress. N. D. RILEY 26 February 1962 358 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature REPORT OF THE BY-LAWS COMMITTEE The Honorary Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Dear Sir: We have the honour to submit to you the report of the Committee which was appointed by the Commission on 20 July 1958 to prepare a revised Constitution of the Commission. An earlier draft of our report has been seen by Prof. Bradley and by Mr. Melville, both of whom have made many con- structive suggestions. The proposed Constitution represents the unanimous vote of our Committee and we move herewith that it be provisionally adopted by the Commission. We hope that it will soon be possible to submit this report to the Commission for its vote, in line with the instructions received by the Comité Permanent. Respectfully submitted, K. H. L. Key H. Boschma E. Mayr, Chairman (Signed) Ernst Mayr DRAFT OF A REVISED CONSTITUTION FOR THE COMMISSION Section 1. Status and Functions of the Commission. Status, duties and powers of the Commission are regulated by the provisions of Chapter XVII of the Rules. Section 2. Membership. (a) Number.—The Commission shall consist of 18 or more Commissioners. The number at any given time shall be determined by the Congress, or by the Commission acting on its behalf. (b) Qualifications—The Commissioners shall be eminent scientists with a distinguished record in any branch of zoology, irrespective of nationality. (c) Representation of Diverse Interests.—As far as practicable, the com- position of the Commission shall be such as to secure a balanced representation : (i) of systematists in the principal divisions of the animal kingdom ; (ii) of zoologists from different parts of the world ; (iii) of palaeozoologists ; (iv) not only of systematic zoologists, but also of those workers in general zoology and the applied biological sciences (e.g. medicine, agriculture, etc.) who, as users of zoological names, are directly interested in the problem of nomenclature, and who have shown an understanding of the general problems underlying zoological nomenclature. (d) Alternate Commissioners. (i) To replace temporarily Commissioners not in attendance at any given session of the Commission, the Commissioners may elect alternates from among zoologists attending the Congress. Such alternates shall serve for the duration of the session. (ii) An alternate Commissioner shall possess the status of any other ee eee ee aN Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 359 Commissioner, with all his rights, privileges, duties and obligations. Section 3. Term of Service of Commissioners. (a) Regular term.—The term of that one-third of the Commissioners who have had the longest service since they were last elected shall terminate at each Congress. (b) Prior Termination of Membership.—The membership of any Com- missioner shall terminate : (i) upon his death ; (ii) on the date of his 75th birthday ; (iii) if he tenders his resignation in writing to the Secretary, when this resignation is accepted by the Council ; (iv) if, not being on leave of absence, he fails on five consecutive occasions to record his vote on a question put to the Commission for decision, provided that within a period of three months following such failure he has not furnished the Secretary with a written explanation which the Council finds adequate. Section 4. Election of Commissioners. (a) At Congresses.—Vacancies occurring at any Congress shall be filled by the Congress upon nomination by the Commission. Retiring Commissioners shall be eligible for re-election. In order to ensure adequate rotation, the Commission shall endeavour to nominate at least two candidates for every vacancy. From among these, the Section on Nomenclature shall elect the required number of Commissioners by paper ballot, the election to be confirmed by the Plenary Session. (b) Between Congresses—When a vacancy arises between Congresses, the fact shall be announced in the Bulletin. Such vacancies may be filled by vote of the Commission, on nomination by the Council. (c) Announcement of Results.—Notice of the election of new Commissioners shall be immediately published in the Bulletin. Section 5. Duties of Commissioners. (a) Attendance.—It shall be the duty of a Commissioner to attend each session of the Commission if it is possible for him to do so, and to attend each meeting during a session unless excused for compelling reasons by the President or Vice-President. (b) Voting. —It shall be the duty of a Commissioner to vote, within the prescribed period, upon each question submitted to him for that purpose by the Secretary. A Commissioner casting a negative vote may, if he wishes, submit with his voting paper a short statement of his reasons for so doing ; any such statements shall be published along with the result of the vote. (c) Leave of Absence——A Commissioner who is temporarily unable to perform his duties should apply through the Secretary (if possible in advance) for leave of absence for a specified period. Section 6. Officers. The officers of the Commission shall be a President, a Vice-President, and such other officers as the Commission shall decide upon and the By-Laws permit. The duties of the officers shall be stated in the Bv-Laws. 360 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Section 7. Council. The President, Vice-President, ex-President, and two elected Councillors shall form a Council. This Council is charged to perform, on behalf of the Commission, the duties assigned to it specifically under the provisions of the preceding and following Sections and to supervise the work of the Secretariat. It shall carry on all the business of the Commission between sessions, not specifically relegated to an officer or to the Secretariat nor deemed by the President of sufficient importance to require a formal vote by the Commission. The Council may designate Commissioners to serve in a special capacity. Section 8.—Election of Officers and Councillors. After each Congress the Secretary shall issue to each Commissioner a “nomination” ballot paper containing the names of all Commissioners except that of the retiring President. Each Commissioner shall return this to the Secretary after voting for four Commissioners. Ballot papers with a vote for more than four Commissioners shall be invalid. The Secretary shall then issue “‘ definitive ” ballot papers containing the names of those Commissioners who received the four highest votes in the nominat- ing ballot, providing that the Secretary has obtained from each a statement of his willingness to serve. Each Commissioner shall vote for two of the nominees and return the ballot paper. Ballots with a vote for more than two candidates are invalid. The candidate with the highest vote in the definitive ballot shall be President, he with the second highest vote, Vice- President. Balloting shall be continued in case of a tie. The two remaining candidates in the definitive ballot shall serve as Councillors. The retiring President shall become an ex officio member of the Council ; he shall cast the deciding vote in case of a tie for fourth place. The term of office of the new officers and councillors shall begin and the terms of the predecessors simultaneously expire as soon as the election is completed. Vacancies in the Council occurring between Congresses shall be filled by the Commission, from nominations made by the Council. Section 9. Secretariat. The Council shall appoint a Secretary, who may be either a Commissioner serving in an honorary capacity, or a salaried employee. It may also employ an assistant secretary and clerical staff, whose duties shall be determined by the Secretary subject to approval by the Council. Section 10. Committees. (a) The Council, through the President, may appoint advisory and ad hoc Committees to facilitate the editorial or fact-finding tasks of the Secretariat or to assist the Commission in any other way. Zoologists who are not members of the Commission are eligible to serve on such Committees. (b) Each ad hoc committee must report to the Council at the time specified in the terms of its appointment or when called upon by the Council to do so. Ad hoc committees dissolve on submitting their final report. The term of any committee expires simultaneously with the term of the ' Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 361 President who appointed it. The incoming President may re-appoint any committee in existence at the time of his predecessor’s retirement. Section 11. Sessions. A session of the Commission shall be held in association with each Congress of Zoology. It shall consist of such meetings as may be convenient, and may commence prior to the opening of the Congress or continue after its close. Between sessions the business of the Commission shall be transacted by post. Section 12. Voting.* The following procedure shall apply when the Commission votes on matters of nomenclature : (a) In Ordinary Cases.—In cases not involving the plenary powers, an affirmative decision on any proposal shall be deemed to have been taken by the Commission when a simple majority of those voting votes in favour within the time period stipulated on the voting paper. (b) In Cases Involving the Use of the Plenary Powers.—In such cases (see Article 79 of the Code), an affirmative decision shall be deemed to have been taken only when two-thirds of the votes validly cast are in favour of the proposal, and provided that not less than six months’ notice of the impending vote had been given in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature and in two other zoological serials, one published in Europe and one in America. (c) Conditional Votes—A Commissioner, who instead of casting an unconditional vote, states that he wishes to support the majority view shall be deemed to have voted in that sense. Section 13. Editorial Duties of the Commission. The Commission shall issue various publications, to be prepared and edited in the office of the Secretary under the guidance of the Council. (a) It shall be the duty of the Commission to publish Declarations, Opinions and Directions, as specified in Article 78 of the Code, embodying the decisions of the Commission. (b) “ Bulletin ’”.—Finances permitting, it shall be the duty of the Commission to publish a periodical for the purpose of keeping zoologists informed on cases pending before the Commission, for publishing the procedure of the Commission, for announcements, and for the general discussion of nomenclatural questions. It shall be entitled the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (c) Maintenance of “ Official Lists ’’ and “‘ Indexes ”’.—The Commission shall compile and maintain the undermentioned Lists and Indezes : (i) Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology (ii) Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (iii) Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (iv) Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (v) Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology *For an amendment to this Section see para. (5) on p. 356 362 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (vi) Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology (vii) Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature (viii) Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature Section 14. Emergency Powers. If, as a result of an emergency, the Congress is prevented from holding its normal periodical meeting, the Commission, or the Council, or failing this, the President, may assume and exercise such extraordinary powers as it or he may consider necessary to secure the continued existence of the Commission, provided : (i) that the powers assumed shall not include power to vary the Code or power by the Council or the President to render Declarations or Opinions on behalf of the Commission. (ii) that, at the first meeting of the Congress after the end of such emergency, the Commission shall submit a report to the Congress regarding the extraordinary powers assumed during the emergency and the action taken thereunder. Section 15. By-Laws. The Commission is empowered to adopt a set of By-Laws governing those of its regulations and activities not covered by the Constitution. The Commission has the authority to modify these By-Laws by majority vote as the occasion demands. These By-Laws will deal with such matters as the duties of the officers, the methods by which nominations are to be obtained for vacancies on the Commission, the relations between the Commission and the Secretariat, with regulations concerning the processing of applications and the adoption of time schedules and priorities, and with other business matters of the Commission. COMMENTS ON THE Drartr ConstTITUTION (i) By Dr. L. B. Holthuis I am quite shocked to find in the Constitution that neither in the paragraph dealing with the qualifications of the Commissioners (Section 2(b)) nor in the next paragraph or its first three subparagraphs the word nomenclature is at all mentioned. This gives the impression that a Commissioner does not need to know anything about nomenclature nor to be interested in it. As it reads now the Constitution makes the Commission a representative body of zoologists regardless of their interest in nomenclature. Against this I wish to raise my strong protest. 'The Commission, as I see it, must in the first place be a group of specialists in nomenclature, which can advise other zoologists on the intricacies of nomenclatural problems. Each problem laid before the Commission should be examined by the Commissioners on its nomenclatural merits. As a rule it will be impossible for the Commissioners to evaluate the taxonomic side of the problem, but this is not necessary since for this side they can obtain the help of other zoologists, namely by directly soliciting the advice of specialists, or by receiving the reactions of zoologists to the applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 363 “ Bulletin’. The Commissioners in deciding a certain case can always rely on others for help in solving the taxonomic side of problems placed before them, but the know-how on nomenclatural matters has to be furnished entirely by the Commissioners themselves. It is essential therefore, as I said above, that the Commissioners are above all specialists in nomenclature. Therefore I suggest the following rewording of Section 2(b) of the Constitution : ‘‘The Commissioners shall be eminent scientists with a distinguished record in any branch of zoology, who are known to have a profound know- ledge of or interest in zoological nomenclature, irrespective of nationality.” I agree that it is useful to have specialists of various groups, zoologists of different parts of the world, etc. in the Commission and therefore do not want to make any change in Section 2(c) of the Code if the proposed change in Section 2(b) is made. Section 4(a). I am against the proposal to let the Section on Nomenclature elect the Commissioners during the Congresses. The Section is not the proper body for this as its membership is neither fixed nor well circumscribed and may vary at each session. The outcome of the vote in the Section can be forced by an evil-willing member who gets enough participants of the Congress (who otherwise would not attend the Section meetings, being not interested in the subject) to the meeting of the Section in which the vote is taken, and so swing the vote in the way this member wants it. Since during the Inter- Congress periods it is the Commission itself which votes on the admission of new members, I do not see why this procedure during the Congress itself should be radically changed. The proposal for the election of Commissioners by the Section was evidently made in order to make it possible for zoologists other than members of the Commission to have some influence on the formation of the Commission. I certainly can appreciate this idea and therefore suggest that any zoologist or group of zoologists be given the opportunity to suggest to the Commission the names of persons whom they think would make suitable candidates for vacancies in the Commission. This could well be done if, as suggested in the Constitution the vacancies in the Commission are published in the “ Bulletin ”. The Council’s nomination of candidates for the vacancies should not begin till six months after the publication of the vacancy so that there be ample time to have suggestions sent in. Also the vacancies occurring by the end of the regular term of the Commissioners should be announced at least six months before the Congress at which those terms end. I propose therefore to change the number of Section 4(c) to 4(d) and to replace Section 4(a) and 4(b) by the following paragraphs : *“‘ (a) When a vacancy occurs or will occur in the Commission the fact shall be announced in the ‘ Bulletin’, if possible at least six months before the start of the next Congress. Such vacancies shall be filled by vote of the Commission on nomination by the Council. “‘(b) The nomination by the Council shall take place not earlier than six months after the publication of the vacancy in the ‘ Bulletin’. Every interested organisation or person has the right during these six months to send suggestions for the filling of the vacancies to the Secretary of the 364 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Commission ; these suggestions are to be carefully considered by the Council before the nomination. ‘“(c) In order to ensure adequate rotation the Council shall endeavour to nominate at least two candidates for every vacancy. From among these the Commission shall select the required number of Commissioners by paper ballot.” (u) AN OPEN LETTER TO THE BY-LAWS COMMITTEE* Gentlemen : The Commission stands highly grateful to you for the thought and labour that you have devoted to the preparation of the draft constitution which has already been laid before the Commission and which is now being published for the information of the zoological public and to elicit their constructive suggestions. The decision not to publish this draft as an adjunct of the Code suggests that certain matters already included in Chapter XVII of that instrument might well also be entered in the constitution where they are very pertinent, and possibly even eventually eliminated from the Code after the constitution has been ratified and become operative. The Commission has no finances, hence cannot be compelled to discharge certain duties that your draft would lay upon it. In submitting your report, you as a committee have become inactive and I do not wish to compel your reactivation as a body by requiring you to answer the questions that I raise, and possibly to amend your report as a consequence. For this reason I take the liberty of suggesting certain supple- ments and amendments to what you have proposed. I hope that they will meet with your individual approval, and of course, they are all subject to improvement in wording. They will serve as a basis for broadening discussion and phrasing of the final provisions at the next meeting of the Commission. They are set out in detail in the accompanying Addendum. More than this, there are bound to be zoologists and there are some commissioners whose judgement does not accept as wise all of the innovations that you have proposed. In order that they may not be at the disadvantage of having no formulated proposals on the opposing side to lay before the next meeting, I am writing out some such that may be used in opposition to corre- sponding committee proposals, in case anyone wishes to champion them. Yours respectfully, J. CHESTER BRADLEY, President of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The above letter and the Addendum accompanying it have our approval. A. po AMaRAt, Vice-President N. D. Rizey, Hon. Secretary. *See Secretary’s note p. 357 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 365 ADDENDU M* being comments on the draft of a proposed new constitution, with some suggested additions and amendments [Section 1 of Draft Constitution]. It is not enough to define the Status and Functions of the Commission by reference to another document, even if that document be the Code. The Constitution should be complete in itself. To achieve this completeness the Section needs expanding to include verbatim the whole of Chapter XVII of the Code, excluding only such parts as are irrelevant to the Constitution, as follows :— (1) Article One. Name, Status and Object (2) Section 1. [Section 1, in part.] Name—The name of this organization shall be THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN. CLATURE. (3) Section 2. Status—The Commission is a permanent, quasi-independent, self-perpetuating body which derives all its powers from the International Congresses of Zoology. Article 76 of the Code, reworded. (4) Section 3. Object—The object of the Commission is the centralization, discussion, and elaboration of all questions relating to zoological nomen- clature. Existing by-law, originating at Paris, 1948, cf B.Z.N. 4 : 291, 10(a). (5) This shall include the maintenance of a code of procedure in nomenclature, and its interpretation as applied to special cases. Suggested addition. (6) [Section 1, in part.] Article Two. Duties and Powers (7) Section 1. Duties—The Commission is charged with the following duties : (8) (a) Legislative, judicial, and general duties. (9) (1) to consider for a period of at least one year in advance of a Congress (or for such less time as the Commission may agree) any proposal for a change in the Code ; (10) (2) to submit to the Congresses recommendations for the clarification or modification of the Code ; (11) (3) to render between successive Congresses Declarations (i.e. provisional amendments to the Code) embodying such recom- mendations ; (12) (4) to render Opinions and Directions on questions of zoological nomenclature that do not involve changes in the Code ; (13) (5) to compile the Official Lists of accepted, and the Official Indexes of rejected, names and works in zoology ; * References to the By-Laws Committee’s Draft Constitution are given in square brackets ; comment and explanation are printed in italics; the remainder constitutes the amendments and additions submitted for discussion. 366 (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (6) To submit reports to the Congresses on its work ; and (7) such other duties as the Congresses may determine. Art. 77 of the Code. (b) Editorial duties. Subject to provisions hereinafter set forth (Article VIII) to prepare, edit and arrange for the publication or continued publication of (i) Declarations, Opinions and Directions of the Commission. Code Article 78(a) (b) and (d). (ii) The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works. Code Article 78f. (ii) The “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature”, as a vehicle for the publication of cases pending and comments thereon, decisions taken, announcements, reports, obituaries and any other matter relevant to the Commission’s affairs. Section 2. Powers—The Commission has the power, when an application is referred to it by any zoologist to interpret the provisions of the Code and to apply such interpretation to any question of zoological nomenclature. (a) Declarations.—If a case before the Commission involves a situation that is not properly or completely covered by the Code, the Com- mission shall issue a Declaration (a provisional amendment to the Code) and propose to the next succeeding Congress adoption of this amendment in the manner prescribed in Article 87 of the Code. (b) Opinions.—If the case in question involves the application of the Code to a particular situation, relating to an individual name, act, or publication, the Commission is empowered to render a decision, termed an Opinion, and either (i) to state how the Code is to be applied or interpreted ; or (ii) acting in the interests of stability and universality, to exempt, under its plenary powers, the particular case from the application of the Code, and to state the course to be followed. (Section 3.) (c) Official Lists and Indexes.—Names (and works) that are accepted or rejected in Opinions shall be entered on the relevant Official Lists or Indexes, whereupon the Opinions concerned are deemed to be repealed for all except historical purposes. (d) Directions.—Decisions completing earlier rulings, and formal instru- ments required under automatic provisions of the Code, are called Directions. They have the same status as Opinions. Section 3. Plenary powers—The Commission is empowered to suspend the application of any provisions of the Code except those of Chapters XVII and XVIII of the Code, if such application to a particular case would in its judgment disturb stability or universality or cause confusion ; provided always that six months’ notice has been given, in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and in two other zoological serial publications, of intention to submit an application, requesting the use of the plenary powers, to a vote of the Commission. For the purpose of preventing such disturbance and of promoting a stable and universally accepted nomenclature, it may, (25) (26) (30) (31) (32) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 367 under these plenary powers, annul or validate any name, type-designation, or other published nomenclatural act, or any publication, and validate or establish replacements. Guiding principles—In exercising its plenary powers, the Commission shall be guided as follows : (i) a name suppressed so as to validate the use of the same name published at a later date in another sense shall be suppressed for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy. (ii) a name suppressed so as to validate a later name given to the same taxon shall be suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (iii) if the Commission refuses to use its plenary powers in a given case, the Opinion rendered shall specify the name(s) to be used in the case in question, and the action (if any) to be taken. Section 4. Exemption—The Commission is under no obligation to search out violations of the Code, or to supplement or verify information contained in applications submitted to it, or to initiate any action within its field of competence, although it may, at its discretion, do any of these things. Articles 78, 79, and 81 of the Code, with a change in 79. But it would seem better to transfer the detail to the By-Laws, namely: [Items 22, 23, and 25-28]. Section 5. [Section 14] Emergency Powers—No comment, except to suggest that it be transferred to here. [Section 2] Article Three. Membership Section 2(a) [Section 2(a).] Number—Your wording is precisely what I used— B.Z.N. 14 : 246, but I now see some minor objections. Do you not agree that the actual number at any given time will be determined by who has died or resigned and who has been newly elected ? Does it not appear that in actual practice merely the desired number will be set by the Commission, depending upon these events and upon what compelling reasons arise for electing new Commissioners? Does it not appear a bit of unnecessary red tape to say here “ by the Congress” ? Perhaps something like the following might be substituted : The Commission shall consist of 18 or more members as the Commission itself or the Council shall from time to time determine. They may be members of a national quota, commissioners at large, or alternate commissioners. Certainly in voting every commissioner should be guided by paramount international nomenclatural interests. Nevertheless there are those who feel that the present system is more democratic, permitting as it does every nation where considerable zoological work is in progress to have a representative on the Commission, if it so desires. For those who think along these lines, the following paragraphs may prove an acceptable basis for consideration :-— [Section 2(b)] Qualifications— In order that there shall be a strong emphasis on knowledge of nomenclatural problems, one commissioner has wisely proposed the following :— The Commissioners shall be eminent scientists with a distinguished record in any (some ?) branch of zoology, who are known to have a profound interest in zoological nomenclature, irrespective of nationality. 368 (33) (34) (35) (36) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature [Section 2(c)] Representation of Diverse Interests. No Comment. New Section. Commissioners-at-large—The Commission on its own motion may elect individual specialists to be Commissioners, irrespective of their nationality, and not counting in their national quota. Cf. B.Z.N. 4:39, 1(2). There is one commissioner-at-large on the Commission at present. [Section 2(d)] Alternate Commissioners (i) Would a different word order improve the first sentence ? The Commission may elect alternates from among zoologists attending the Congress temporarily to replace commissioners not in attendance at any given session of the Commission. (ii) No comment. [Section 3]. Term of Service of Commissioners. [Section 3a] Regular Term— If the total number is not a multiple of 3, it becomes wncertain what action is intended. Would it not be better to revert to the provision of the current by-law, as follows, adding the words “ at the close of ” ? The term of that one-third of the commissioners who have had the longest service since they were last elected shall terminate at the close of each Congress. If one-third of the commissioners is not a whole number this provision shall apply to the next highest whole number. [Section 3b] Prior termination of Membership. [Section 3b, 7] Obvious. Shall we not eliminate 2 [Section 3b, 1%] An age limit is of questionable value in such an organisation and has never been in force. Certainly it is customary to terminate full-time paid employment at a fixed age. But this very release often enables active persons to devote their time, experience, and acquired wisdom to eleemosynary occupations of great service to their fellow men. Will you permit me to offer the following substitute for consideration? Normally on the date of his 75th birthday ; but when a Commissioner is about to reach the age of 75, the Secretary shall poll all the commissioners, other than the one under consideration, as to whether he shall be requested to serve for the balance of his term. [Section 3b, wi and iv] No comments. [Section 4] Election of Commissioners. Great criticism has been levied on the Commission in the past on the grounds that it is an undemocratic self-perpetuating body, and that the zoologists of the world have no voice in selecting its members. A provision has been in force since 1948 to correct this, and it has been working well. Nominations are now received for all new commissioners from leading scientific societies of their nationality, and all new elections since Paris (except two commissioners who were elected for specific purposes at Copenhagen, and one commissioner-at-large) have been chosen from such nominations. The Commissioners from Canada, Australia, Czecho- slovakia, Austria, Italy, Japan, Spain, Belgium, Sweden, Russia, one from the United States, and one from England have been selected in this manner. This can only result in giving the zoologists of these countries a stronger feeling of alliance with the Commission, and of participation in its work. Would it not be disastrous ———— (37) (38) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 369 to now abandon the plan? On the contrary, should it not be strengthened by now applying it to elections on the occasion of all expiring terms? It is probably a good idea to seek 2 or more nominations for each vacancy, unless in the case of countries where there is insufficient taxonomic work in progress. But is it really useful to provide a method of electing commissioners during a congress different from that which prevails during the interims, especially if nominations continue to be received from outside the Commission? The following provisions would continue and extend the plan now in operation. [Section 4,a and b] When a vacancy occurs in a seat on the Commission which is to be refilled within the quota of any nation, or at least one year before the tenure of the occupant of such seat is due to expire, the Secretary shall publish notice of the fact in one or more suitable journals. At the same time the Council shall invite one or more appropriate societies or institutions within the nation concerned to nominate one or more suitably qualified zoologists within the field desired who are willing to serve if elected. During interims between congresses election from among these nominees shall be made by the Council [present plan, or] Commission (rule proposed by the By-Laws Committee). If the vacancy is to be filled during the session of a Congress, election shall be by the Commission, subject to confirmation of the Congress through its Section on Nomenclature, a separate vote by ballot being taken on each name ; but the latter body shall not proceed to fill any seat left vacant by reason of its rejection of an election presented to it by the Commission for confirmation. [Should the last sentence be eliminated?] The chairman of your committee has written ““ Our Committee has no intention whatsoever to ignore the recommendations made” (actually By-Laws in force) “as to how the Commission should obtain nominations from institutions, national boards, and at large. However we felt that all this detail should not be placed into the Constitution, but should be spelt out in the By-Laws.” It is normal to include the method of electing members in the Constitution, but I should interpose no objection, if it is thought better, to have them in the By-Laws, only in that case, let us simply state in Section 4 of the Commission’s draft ‘‘ Elec- tion shall be under the provisions to be laid down in the By-Laws, and until these are adopted shall be subject to the provisions previously in force ’’. The provisions of Section 4 of the draft constitution certainly indicate a very different procedure. [Section 4c] Announcement. I suggest that this be transferred to the By-Laws. No provision may be entered in the Constitution that compels publication of any- thing in the Bulletin because the Commission has no means of assuring the continuous publication of that journal. Section 4(c) of the Draft Constitution would be acceptable if the last three words, viz. ‘‘ in the Bulletin ’’ were deleted). [Section 5a] Duties of Commissioners. Suggest that lead-in to Section 5(a) now ‘‘Attendance’’ should be “At meetings ’’. May I suggest that in lines 4 and 5 the word “ chairman”? or “ presiding officer” be substituted for ‘‘ President or Vice-President ”’ since it may happen that neither of these officers is in attendance?) [Section 5b] Voting— Suggest the lead-in here should be “ Between meetings” not ‘‘ Voting”’, since this paragraph applies solely to mail ballots (which have not been specifically 370 (39) (40) (41) (42) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature provided for). Since the second sentence does not refer to a duty, may it not appropriately be transferred to “‘ Section 12. Voting” ? [Section 5c] No comment. [Sections 6-8] Article Four. Officers and Council [Section 6] Officers. Some commissioners feel that a secretary who is an officer, hence a commissioner, is essential and that he should be listed here. They consider that it will not be satisfactory to leave anything but routine matters to be handled, without supervision, by an individual who is employed by another body (the Trust), not a commissioner, and over whom the Commission has no direct control. The Commission will obey its own By-Laws, or amend them, which it has power to do. Is not therefore the phrase “‘ and the By-Laws permit” unnecessary? The following is offered for consideration as an alternative to the Committee’s proposal :— The officers of the Commission shall be a President, a Vice-President, a Secretary (or Honorary Secretary), and such other officers as the Commission shall from time to time decide upon. The mention of duties might be combined with those of the Council at a later point, or, better, be transferred to the By-Laws. Section ( ) [Section 7] Council. Contrary to your committee’s judgement, there are commissioners who regard it as very important that the secretary (or honorary secretary) should be a member of the Council. If so, in order to keep the number to five, there can be only one elected councillor. But if there is no living ex-president, then there should be two. If the duties of the officers are to be stated in the By-Laws, then it would seem logical for those of the Council likewise to appear there. In that case sentences 2 and 3 of Section 7 will be transferred. There will then remain the following :— The President, Vice-President, last living ex-President, if any, Secretary (Honorary Secretary), and sufficient elected members to bring the total to five shall form a Council. [The retiring president and all living ex-presidents may be retiring or have retired from the Commission.] Section (c) [Sections 6 and 7, in part] Duties of Officers and Council. These should be specified in the By-Laws. It seems obvious that a body of five persons, presumably each living in a different nation, could not as a body exercise effectual supervision of the work of the secretariat, other than to lay down guiding principles. Section ( ). [Section 8] Election of Officers and Council. The plan of election proposed by your Committee is novel and experimental. Would it be desirable to transfer it to the By-Laws, in order that if it proves cumber- some or unworkable it can be changed without difficulty and delay? If retained here, and if the Secretary (Honorary Secretary) is to be an officer and councillor, minor changes will be needed. After each Congress the Secretary shall issue to each Commissioner a nomina- tion paper containing the name of each commissioner except those of the retiring president and of the secretary (Honorary Secretary). The Com- missioners shall each nominate four and only four of these names. Th n (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) are Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 371 Secretary shall again submit to the Commissioners the four names which have received the highest number of votes, and have consented to serve, if elected. (The By-Laws are to establish what course is to be taken in case no four names are in the lead*) Each Commissioner shall then vote for two and only two of these nominees. The nominee with the highest number of votes on this definitive ballot shall be the incoming President, he with the second highest vote, Vice-President, the third highest a councillor, the remaining nominee a councillor only in case of a vacancy on the Council still exists, or arises later.** The retiring President, or if there be none, the last ex-President, if any, and the Secretary (Honorary Secretary) shall each be councillors ex-officio. If the preceding method of electing these two officers and councillors is regarded as too cumbersome, the following might serve as a substitute :— At each meeting of the Commission, after the election of commissioners has been completed, nominations for president, vice-president, and the requisite number of councillors, may be received from the Council, and shall be con- sidered along with any that have been received by mail from commissioners not present or are received from the floor. Written ballots shall be taken, an affirmative majority of those present and voting being required for election. [Section 9, in part] The Council shall appoint the Secretary (Honorary Secretary). [Section 8, in part] Vacancies in the offices (except secretary) or Council occurring between Congresses, shall be filled by the Commission, from nominations made by the Council. But if the Commissioner who received the fourth highest number of votes on the definitive ballot above provided for is not serving as a councillor, and the vacancy is not that of an officer, he shall be the replacing Commissioner. The last sentence only in case the first method of election is adopted. Section ( ). [Section 8, last paragraph] Terms of Office. Second paragraph under ‘‘ Section 8”? add:— The Secretary shall hold office at the pleasure of the Council. Section ( ). [Section 9] Secretariat. The Commission can have no employee because it has no funds. If these circum- stances change, suitable provisions can be entered in the By-Laws, or if necessary, by amendment to the Constitution. Would you not agree that here would be an appropriate place for a paragraph like the one which follows, representing arrangements as now in force: The Commission is empowered to arrange with the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, or a suitable equivalent body, for the employment of an assistant secretary, and such clerical staff as may be necessary to carry on its work. *There can easily fail to be four leading names. For example when there are 18 commissioners 16 eligible for nomination (the president and honorary secretary not on the list) and 18 voting there would be 72 votes cast ; these votes might fall so that 8 of the eligible names would each receive 5 votes and 8 would each receive 4 votes ; or 10 might get 6 votes and 4 get 3 votes and 2 none, or 1 might get 17 votes, 10 get 5, 1 get 3, 1 get 2 and 3 get none, etc., ete. **This vote also may fail to show first, second and third place, With 36 votes cast, 3 might get 10, one six ; 4 might each get nine ; 2 might get 17 each, one 2, the fourth name none, etc., etc. 372 (48) (49) (51) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature [Section 10] Article Five. Committees I assume that it is not intended to limit this power to the Council. Might we add at the end of the first paragraph the words “ in an advisory capacity”? ? Otherwise the body is not truly a committee of the Commission, but an advisory board over which the Commission has no control. (a) [Section 10a] The Commission or its Council, through the President, may (etc., etc.) to serve on such committees in an advisory capacity.” (b) [Section 10b] No comment, except that this paragraph and possibly the preceding perhaps should be transferred to the By-Laws. [Section 11] Article Six. Sessions The policy adopted in Paris of opening the meetings of the Commission to the public for discussions was very successful. Such policy gives zoologists of the world the feeling that the Commission values world-wide opinion, does not wish to act as a secret body, and is glad to consider suggestions and comments emanating from outside its membership. Would you agree to the wisdom of entering such a provision as follows ? “The meetings of the Commission shall be open to the zoological public, who may speak (as far as time permits), but not vote, on any subject before the Commission, or may request the Commission to open discussion on any subject (except on the resolution of particular nomenclatural cases).”’ [Section 12] Article Seven. Voting Procedure In meetings presiding officers do not vote unless in case of a tie. Would the following be a wise provision? Section (a). The President’s vote—The President shall be required to vote on all mail ballots, but it shall require more than an even 50 per cent. of the votes cast to adopt a measure. Section (b). Nomenclatural cases. Some commissioners feel that votes on nomenclatural cases should be taken only by mail, since contemplation and research are impossible at a meeting. Would not the following paragraph be advisable? (i) All opinions on nomenclatural cases shall be reached by mail ballot. This restriction does not apply to Declarations, Directions, or amendments to the Code. (ii) [Section 12a] As is, except adding the word “ postmarked” after “favour ”’ in the centre of line 4. (iii) [Section 12b] As is, except in line 2 adding proper reference to the Article Two, Section (b)(ii) of this draft of the Constitution, and adding a line 6 after ‘“‘nomenclature’’ in parentheses the words “ (if being currently published) ”’. [Section 126], i. From supplement. The date “1758” must read “1757”. Article Eight. Financial Arrangements Do you not agree that here is a proper place to add a very essential article along the lines that follow below. So far as I am aware no authorization has ever been given OE (57) (58) (59) (60) (61) (62) (63) (64) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 373 by the Congress to the Commission to enter into the relations that now exist between it and the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. In the highly unlikely event that serious disagreement and conflict should ever arise between these two bodies, the Congress, through its Permanent Committee, backed by the International Union of Biological Sciences could highly censure the Commission for having entered into an unauthorised arrangement, and possibly the individual Commissioners could legally be held liable for any financial losses to which the Congresses could lay valid claim. The Commission, when not prepared to raise or administer its own funds, may enter into a benificent contractual relationship with the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, or an equivalent non-profitmaking body, by which such body undertakes, so far as possible, to raise the funds necessary for continuing the operations of the Commission, to hold, invest, and administer all funds, to hold title to all property of the Commission, to provide office working space for the Commission, to employ and pay necessary employees (but these subject to the approval of the Council) and to publish on behalf of and in the name of the Commission, material submitted for publication under the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws of the latter. Such contract shall not permit publication of material not submitted by the Commission, other than reports, unless with the approval of the Council. Article Nine. Enactments Section ( ). Interpretation—All decisions shall be rigidly construed, and no deductions other than those expressly specified shall be drawn from them. Section ( ). Review by Congress—A motion to modify or reject any nomenclatural decision of the Commission shall not be considered by a Congress, the Congresses having renounced this power. Section ( ). Effective date—Opinions and other nomenclatural enactments of the Commission come into force immediately upon publication, unless another date is specified. Section ( ). Declarations—A declaration remains in force until it is ratified by the next succeeding Congress or rejected ; the declaration is then deemed to be repealed for all except historical purposes. If the declaration is ratified in its original or in a modified form, the Code is amended accordingly, Section ( ). Report—Nomenclatural enactments shall be reported to the next succeeding Congress. Article Ten. Inauguration of this Constitution In order to make transition from operation under the present By-Laws to operation under a new constitution smooth and its path certain, would it not be wise to include the following article? This Constitution and all subsequent amendments to it shall take effect at the close of the Congress at which it, or they, are ratified. When this Constitution is ratified, all Commissioners who lose their membership 374 (65) (66) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature under its terms shall not do so until successors have been elected to replace them, and it shall be their duty and not that of the replacing commissioners to vote on all questions that have already been submitted to them for mail ballot. For this purpose they shall be allowed the full period of the ballot, even though their membership has attained a prior termination. Equally all officers shall remain in office until one month after the election of their successors and of the Council has been completed. The Secretary (Honorary Secretary) and the entire Secretariat shall continue in office until the New Council has confirmed the appointment of the Secretary or replaced him, and has confirmed the continuation of other members of the Secretariat, or arranged with their appointing body for their replacement. Equally the Executive Committee shall continue to function until one month after the formation of the Council has been completed. Article Eleven. Amendments You will agree that the method of amending the constitution must be included and should terminate it. The following is suggested, and might well apply to both Constitution and Code. Amendments to this Constitution become effective when, after a two-thirds affirmative vote of all Commissioners voting, they have been ratified by a majority vote of the Section on Nomenclature of the next succeeding International Congress of Zoology, or by the Congress, or by the Permanent Committee of the Congresses in case the Section on Nomenclature does not vote upon the question. In case the Section on Nomenclature refuses to ratify an amendment that has been adopted by the Commission, the Perma- nent Committee shall recommend to the Plenary Session of the Congress that it ratify or not ratify it, and the action of that session shall be final. Proposed amendments must be published at least nine months in advance of a vote being taken on them by the Commission. After the expiration of at least six months, a three months’ ballot shall be called for ; these ballots shall be counted at the next meeting of the Commission, at which time Commissioners present shall have opportunity to change their votes, and the ballots of Alternate Commissioners shall be added. Over and above the preceding, the Permanent Committee of the Congresses, having published a proposed amendment at least six months prior to the convening of a Congress, retains the right to adopt it by a two-thirds vote of the Committee. Such an amendment thereupon becomes operative when ratified by a majority vote of the Plenary Session of the Congress, full opportunity having been given for debate from the floor. [Section 14] By-Laws. Do you not agree that this topic may be omitted from the Constitution? No one would question the power of the Commission to put into effect its own working rules. The new Council will simply propose them, or appoint a committee to do so when the time comes. What you have indicated as to content will be available and helpful to them, but does not seem necessary in the Constitution. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 375 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED STABILISATION OF THE GENERIC NAME GARI SCHUMACHER, 1817. Z.N.(S.) 1461 (See volume 18, pages 90-96) By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Musewm, Copenhagen, Denmark) and Robert H. Parker (Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California, San Diego) Inspired by the many comments on the Psammobia/Gari problem, we have thought that a revision of the case would be worth while, as based on the original material present in the Zoologiske Museum of the University of Copenhagen. We have undertaken some additional studies inspired by a recent letter to us from Dr. Cox, and we hope to be able to present evidence strong enough to settle the case in a manner that is acceptable to all parties involved. Our discussion is divided into separate parts; one concerning the use of the name Psammobia, another on the spelling of the name of the type-species of Psammobia, and a third treating the question of the type-species of Garv. (A) Psammobia: Children’s (1823) action definitely established Psammobia, as stated by Cox, with the type Psammobia feroensis Lamarck, 1818, a common species along the coasts of Northern Europe. The genus Gari, as established by Schumacher, is based on several East Indian species, as also assumed by Cox. On these parts of the premises, we are in complete agreement with Dr. Cox, but not with his statement that every taxonomist will regard these two nominal genera as synonymous. The Psammobia/Gari group of species has long since been divided into subgenera, the Eastern Pacific species all having been placed in the subgenus Gobraeus Leach (in Gray, 1852), whereas the typical subgenus Gari has been considered valid for the Western Pacific (East Indian) species. We have carefully compared these latter with the Northern Atlantic ones and found them to be markedly distinct (as has Rehder in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 298). There is no doubt, that according to present-day taxonomic practice, there is at least a sub- generic difference between the species in the two regions. The “‘ oblique ”’ striation of the hind part of the shell surface is typical of Gari, and completely absent in Psammobia, a character supplementing the differences pointed out by Rehder (l.c.). We therefore propose that Psammobia should be placed on the Official List side by side with Garz. This has the consequence that there is no need whatsoever of changing the family-name. (B) fervensis/faeroeensis : As to the question of the spelling of the specific name fervensis/faeroeensis, there is no doubt that Dodge is correct when stating that the latter form is the correct one, if the species is named from its occurrence at the Faeroese Islands, as strongly indicated by Gmelin’s reference to Chemnitz, who calls this species “ Die Ferréische Telline, Tellina Ferréensis ”’. It is possible, therefore, to defend either of the two spellings, faeroeensis or fervensis, according to whether the geographic origin of the name can be accepted or not. Any other spelling is definitely erroneous. Upon consideration, we are inclined to advocate the spelling faeroeensis, because (1) there can be very little doubt of the origin of the name ; (2) In the countries around the Northern Atlantic, it is only the English speaking people for which this spelling appears cumbersome ; and (3) it contains a meaning in the sense that it refers to a characteristic locality within its occurrence. Also, by proposing the opposite solution of Dr. Cox’s on this point, we intend to place before the Commission the possibility of a real choice between the two names. (C) Gari: The discussion centres around the question of what constitutes the type of the genus or, more precisely, what species did Linnaeus cover with his name Tellina gari. There cannot be any doubt that Dr. Cox is right in stating that the species Gari vulgaris Schumacher—type of the genus Gari Schumacher, Bull, zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 6. December 1962, 376 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1817—is to be interpreted as being the one called Tellina gari by Linnaeus. In his application, Dr. Cox (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 91) correctly considers the specimens figured by Chemnitz (1782, Conch. Cab. 6 : pl. 10, figs. 92, 93) as belonging to two different species. We have carefully examined the original lots for these two figures as well as two other lots from the same region, and contained in the collections of Spengler (now in the Z.M.Cph.). Spengler (1798, Naturh. Selsk. Skr. 4 : 70-71) divides his material of Tellina gari Linnaeus into four varieties, of which the ‘“‘ variety a ’’ is considered the typical one, the other three being mentioned as “ artsforandring ’ b-d. The aforementioned word is very illustrative because, though never used in modern Danish, it implies that something has changed (‘art ’=species, “ forandring ’ = change). No doubt, Spengler, acting as a first reviser, split up the composite species Tellina gari Linnaeus, restricting the name to cover the species shown by Chemnitz in his fig. 93 (Conch. Cab. 6 : pl. 10), as directly stated by Spengler (: 70). The question thus arises whether Spengler’s material was part of the original Linnaean one, which is a possibility though a rather remote one (cf. Cox Bull. zool. Nomenel. 18 : 94), as Spengler was born in 1720. In his last letter to us, Dr. Cox uses the word “ lectotype ”’ instead of “‘ neotype ” for his selected and figured specimen in the Bull. zool. Nomencl. If this is no mere lapse, it may refer to some idea that Spengler’s material as used by Chemnitz was really part of the original one of Linnaeus. If so, however, we should like to point out that Spengler himself, in his above mentioned restriction of the Linnaean name, has produced what we consider—under the circumstances—a water-tight lectotype selection of the specimen behind Chemnitz’s fig. 93. Schumacher (1817 : 131) did not specify in the text whether he considered the fig. 92 or 93 as more typical than the other, but a study of the figure given by him solves the problem. A close study has revealed that the specimens representing Chemnitz’s figure 92—there are several shells—are all too small though rather similar in outline to Schumacher’s figure. The specimen behind fig. 93, however, fits exactly in size, circumference, hinge structure, muscle scar shape, and length of the longitudinal groove anterior to the hinge. We feel little doubt that this is actually the original used by Schumacher for his drawing. In no way can the figure be made to fit Psammobia fervensis which has much sharper bends above and beneath the siphonal opening. We, therefore, have three sources of information as to the intention of Linnaeus for his Tellina gari. (1) The figure from Rumphius showing one of the real types, and which conforms completely to the specimen of fig. 93. (2) The figure given by Schumacher, in all probability was based on the same specimen as that of fig. 93. (3) The evidence produced by Spengler (1798) in which paper he restricted the Linnaean species to cover typically only the species illustrated in fig. 93. The only possible part of the type material present today is that which is still in Spengler’s collection, now in the Zoological Museum of Copenhagen. If this material is accepted as syntypes, Spengler in 1798 has selected as the lectotype the specimen behind the figure 93 (not 92) of Chemnitz. If the Spengler material is not so accepted, we protest against the designation of a neotype (fig. 92) not in conformity with the evidence presented from the three only sources now available, all of which point towards fig. 93 as the one covering the ideas of Linnaeus for his Tellina gari. The specimen behind fig. 93, we maintain, should be established as the neotype. Likewise, we find it unnecessary to establish a neotype founded on much younger material, as Dr. Cox proposes. His material is also from such a more western locality that it actually belongs to a different zoogeographical region (Ceylon). Our specimens of much older and more conclusive material belong to the correct zoogeographical region (the Indonesian one) even though it is from the most westerly point of that region (the Nicobar Islands), and not from the locality stated by Linnaeus (Amboina). Hence, we propose the following changes in the formal proposals of Dr. Cox Bull. zool. Nomencel., Vol. 19 Plate 6 TIVOLI IVI UEU LALLA ULL Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 377 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 93): (1) Unaltered. (2) to be added : (ec) Psammobia Lamarck, 1818, type-species, by subsequent designation by Children, 1823 ; Psammboia faeroeensis Gmelin, 1791 (originally spelled fervensis, but cited by Children as feroensis). (3) (a) gari Linnaeus, 1758, defined by the specimen figured in Chemnitz’s vol. 6 : pl. 10, fig. 93, and kept in Zoological Museum in Copenhagen. (b) faeroeensis Gmelin, 1791, as corrected from the spelling fervensis, and published in the binomen Tellina fervensis. (c) unaltered. (4) (a) fervensits Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Tellina fervensis, an invalid original spelling of faeroeensis (Dodge, 1952). (b), (ec), and (d) as proposed by Dr. Cox in (a), (b), and (c), with the correction of the reference to fervensis Gmelin to run : *“an invalid emendation of the name fervensis Gmelin, 1791 as corrected by Dodge in 1952 to faeroeensis ”’. (5) Unaltered. (6) Unaltered. EXPLANATION OF THE FIGURES Tellina gari Linnaeus, 1758. Original ( x 13) of fig. 93 in Chemnitz : Conch. Cab. 6 (From the type Collection of the Zoologisk Museum of the University of Copenhagen.) Nicobar Islands. Measurements indicated in millimeters. The x is placed in the middle of the siphonal curvature. 1-2 left valve. 3-4 right valve. 378 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature INDEX TO AUTHORS Page Ale Salim —?., sf. a 2 Bailey, Joseph R.... senth, MGS Barnard, Tom ie axe 33 Bennison, G. M. as eeu, Bigot, L. ae ae Si ci ke Binder, KE. ... a6 me OL Biswas, B._... Asie es 68 Bradley, J. Chester ... 337, 345, 353, 364 Braun,/R. ~%.. ask ed 70 Breimer, Albert ae Set a vB) Brown, E. S. ... 486 ee: Browne, F. G. ae ade 38 Burke-Gaffney,H.J.O’D. ... 261 Burks, B. D., as Seat meOG Casey, R., 267. pees O67 Casier, E. M. ie ae 67 Chace, Fenner A... 314, 344 China, W. E. 3, 144, 155, 160, 220, 284 Clark, A. M. ... oe ee 4 Clark, V. de V. re ea eo Cox, LAR. ate doa 5D Dell, R. K. .:. aie ae 50 Dempster, Lillian J. es ak Dlabola, J. ... ie =e 83 Donovan, D. T. aa ae 35 Elkady, Esmat A. ... au DEO Fischer, F. C. J. Ban Aor by Fischer, P. H. nae oh veoo Fleming, C. A. fed a, 209 Page Follett, W. I. ire ax Th Freeman, Paul see ee 79 Garrick, J. A. F. Por caer LOO Gery, J. RB. ... ee a.) = LOL Ghickmann, L.S._... ee iat!) Golden, Morgan me | Graham, M.W.R.deV. ... 350 Griffiths, R. J. Sor reo uN Haig, Janet ... Sa ceo (Soa Hall, BYP. oie bok 68 Hemming, Francis ... en 9 Henbest, L. G. eS caueeR LOG Hille Ris Lambers, D. nen ee oie Hoedeman, J. J. aes te OE Holthuis, L. B. 51, 58, 61, 103, 125, 177, 182, 184, 232 348, 362 Homann, H. ... os ah 70 Hubendick, R. pe a. 260 Huheey, James EK. ... re 26 Jaczewski, T. anh ... 15, 48 Johnson, D. 8. as eo Ole Keen, Myra ... as 99, 260 Kevan, D. Keith McE. Seo el hrfl) Kimmins, D, E. ere 297, 301 Klemmer, Konrad ... abe 87 Knight, Kenneth L. Jae te 208 Knowlton, George F. yt x, Oe Kraus, O. see she BS 70 Kring, James B. __... oe Kuhn-Schnyder, E. ... = 67 Le Quesne, W. J... anf 64 Lehman, J. P. ae 67 Lemche, Henning 156, 354, 375 . ae Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Leonard, Mortimer D. Leston, Dennis Levi, Herbert W. Loeblich, Alfred R. ... McAlpine, J. F. Macfadyen, W. A. MacGillivray, M. E. ... McMichael, D. F. Marshall, N. B. Mattingly, P. F. Mayr, Ernst Mead, Giles W. Melville, R. V. Mertens, Robert Moffitt, H. R. Myers, G.S. ... Obruchev, D. V. Ossiannilsson, Frej Palmer, Katherine V. W. Palmer, Miriam A. Parker, H. W. Parker, Robert H. Parkes, Kenneth C. Peters, B. G. ... Rand, A. L. Ride, W. D. L. Riley, N. D. ... Ripley, 8. Dillon Robertson, Robert Roewer, C. Fr. Rogers, M. J. Rolfe, W. D. Ian Page 196 96 43 118 173 27 198 260 66 208 23 295 fe 87, 189 173 130 139 197 115 131 ere ye 1, 47, 355 oe 2 229, 231, 258, 332 70 328 63 379 Page Rosovskaya, S. E. ee! Rowell, A. J. 308, 310, 311 Russell, Louise M. 195 Schaefers, George A.... 196 Schaeffer, B. ... ay 67 Schmidt, Wolfgang ... 66 Shaw, Alan B. 147 Slater, James A. 293 Smith, Clyde F. ce CLOG Smith, Hobart M. 22, 26, 50, 64, 87, 205, 298, 344, 346 Soot-Ryen, T. 254 Stichel, Wolfgang 42 Stone, Alan 208 Sweet, Walter C. eA oe Sylvester-Bradley, P.C. .... 302 Tappan, Helen 118 Taylor, A. L. 114 Taylor, K. L. Po Temple, J. T. 147, 338 Tissot, A. N. 197 Tiwari, Krishna Kant 14 Toombs, H. A. 67 Tortonese, E. 66 Wagner, Eduard 172 Whittington, H. B. 147 Weiler, Wilhelm 67 Weir, J. os? 331 Whalley, P. E. 8. 69 White, E. I. ... 66 Wiebes, J. T. 38 Williams, Kenneth L. 298 Wright, C. A. aoe 39 Wright, C. W. 35, 354 Yaruss, F. L. 173 380 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature LIST OF DECISIONS IN THIS VOLUME Opinion Page 620 (Papilio dardanus Brown, 1776)... spe a ‘eo 3 72 621 (PHAENOMERIDIDAE Ohaus and PHAENOMERINA Faust) ay 74 622 (Fenestella Lonsdale, 1829) aa bg ae Ane As 76 623 (Macronema Pictet, 1836) ... =? me seg ret v4 80 624 (Crocodilus palustris Lesson, 1831) a ed? we Rte 82 625 (Strophalosia King, 1844) ... a. As sas Se baz 84 626 (Echinus minutus Buckman, 1845) + “a ee ne 88 627 (Mallophagan names of De Geer, 1778)... sae he ais 91 628 (Menopon Nitzsch, 1818)... a Sa at cos =< 97 629 (Pediculus dentatus Scopoli, 1763) Fas ie sa soir Sy 630 (Phasianella Lamarck, 1804) See fs aie 4% ae SD 631 (Aedipoda pellarini Le Guillou, 1841) ne A fis ie 632 (Regina Baird & Girard, 1853) __..... sae iets ia Pemimee & 633 (Norella Bittner, 1890) Bs ati was hie oF er 634 (Myalina trigonalis Etheridge, 1876) oe “og fs cai! 635 (Notophthalmus Rafinesque, 1820) oe Ae < | Joe 636 (Encrinus Lamarck, 1801) oP ee a a: wen» Oe 637 (Anolis nannodes Cope, 1864) ae we <= ihe hat Oe 638 (Lepidogaster couchii Kent, 1883) vee ao he so 639 (Woehrmannia Boehm, 1895) a a ss ~ ’ De International Code of Zoological Nomenclature adopted by the XV International Congress of Zoology, London, 1958 Pp. xviii+-176 (London, 6 November 1961) Bound copies of the complete and official text of the new Code, in English and French, may be obtained from The Publications Officer, International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 19 Belgrave Square, London S.W.1, England. Price £1 or $3 post paid. © 1962. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper Limrrep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2 a See ee ee SOs. IA a ; H : ; , re i H it pos3 T238 ba